ECT How is Paul's message different?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Cross Reference
New member
I'm waiting, Clete.
musterion
Well-known member
So you're a liar, too.
Cross Reference
New member
re you or anyone unconditionally sealed: Comment on what Jesus said to the churches if you want to continue this discussion.
OMT, to be clear: I live by what Paul teaches. Always have.
OMT2: The wall of separation has been removed by the blood of Jesus Christ. There is no difference now concerning who wrote what and to whom. Got it? Start your understanding from that correct perspective.
Cross Reference
New member
How's that mustard? You asked me for correction while already having doubts; being unsure of yourself and i gave it to you. And you call me a liar! Suck eggs.
Last edited:
Wrong again, LA junior.
Why not ignore yourself instead?
musterion
Well-known member
Watch your language.
Cross Reference
New member
You watch yours!
Shasta
Well-known member
This scripture is evidently supposed to be a self-explanatory verification of MAD yet when the text is examined closely there is no evidence of MAD’s claims. For one, though Paul mentions having a revelation he does not say when, where it happened in his narrative nor does he say what the revelation was. How would the Galatians have known what the content of his revelation was without Paul explicitly saying so? He does not say, for instance, “ I went up because of a revelation about a new Gospel of Grace. For the Galatians to make such an inference they would need special background knowledge of Pauline terminology. To make this comport with MAD the unstated idea that revelation=Paul’s Grace Gospel has to be imported into the text.
A more straightforward interpretation is that Paul's “revelation” was not about a new gospel or about any doctrine but about his needing to go to Jerusalem right at that particular time.
Some versions make this very clear:
New International Version
I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders,
New Living Translation
I went there because God revealed to me that I should go
Berean Study Bible
I went in response to a revelation
New American Standard Bible
It was because of a revelation that I went up;
International Standard Version
I went in response to a revelation
Interpreted this way, the verse gives Paul’s motive for going to Jerusalem. He went IN RESPONSE to (or “because” of, or “by”) a vision that he should go. It does not make much sense to say he went there because of a revelation he had years ago; especially when he had said nothing about this revelation in the account he has just given of his life. It also would not answer of why he decided to go to Jerusalem just then.
The Judaeizers at that very moment were planning to meet with the Apostles in order to sabotage Paul’s relationship with them, saying that Paul taught unorthodox doctrine. However, the Spirit beat them to the punch by showing Paul via revelation what they were up to and that he should go and meet with the Apostles. The meeting was of strategic importance to the Gentile mission and Paul’s arrival right at that time was timely in that it prevented disunity and brought the Apostles into fellowship. This interpretation makes sense with the flow of thought and requires no special background knowledge about what “revelation” signifies.
That there were not two gospels is affirmed a little later when Paul explains to the Galatians that there are not two ways of salvation: one Jewish and the other Gentiles. Instead the only way to be saved was through faith in Jesus.
15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:15-16)
Paul says WE, meaning he and other Jewish believers. No one in that category was justified by works of the law but solely through faith in Jesus. They, like the Galatians were justified by faith. The Judaizers who had infiltrated the Church were trying to convince them otherwise.
LA has nothing to teach but, plenty to be taught.
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
I would first I agree if there is not heart love/Spiritual connection with Christ it is a lie. And sadly the lie is often what the person living the lie is unaware of.
But a mind could be aware of God and Christ's reality and reject Him with the heart and soul, such as Satan and His hosts, or Satanists.
Then explain Galatians 2 in relation to Acts 15 and your claim right here. There are only 500+ posts and no one has done it.
Cross Reference
New member
So what is your point that a Christian needs such counsel?
True but that wasn't what you were saying, was it?
I mean, you can't believe that Satan is connected to God Spiritually (capital S). So I'm not sure how it's relevant.
Last edited:
Cross Reference
New member
Where is your reply to my last and the one before that? Its been so long and so many I am loosing track. Perhaps that this is just your way to change the subject?
Shasta
Well-known member
The phrase "as you have received Christ Jesus so walk in Him" shows that our first step of faith that brought us into right relationship with God must be followed by an ongoing WALK of FAITH (Colossians 2:6).
A person walking by faith (i.e., trust in, belief in, dependence upon, confidence in, Jesus) will not be walking in immorality. The two ways of life are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Under the Law, the idea was that IF people abstained from immorality and practiced the ceremonial law ("touch not," "handle not") then they would be in right relationship with God (Colossians 2:20-23).
In the NC the ceremonial part of the law has been done away with but righteous requirement (or intent) of the moral law has not been dispensed with rather, it is fulfilled as we walk in the Spirit (Romans 8:4).
Paul said,
"Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
(Galatians 5:16)
He did not say "if you try very hard not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh then you will be walking in the Spirit." Yielding to the Spirit comes first (Romans 6:12-14). It is the Father's will that not only our actions but our inner thoughts and deepest motives be in conformity to His nature of love. In the OC a person had to try very hard to do this and, in the end, they could not succeed. In the NC, the sacrifice of Christ made a way for God's Spirit to live inside us even before we are perfectly in His image. From this position, the Holy Spirit is able to "write His laws on our hearts" (Jeremiah 31:33, 2 Corinthians 3:6)He did not do all this so we can live like children of the devil and yet still call ourselves sons of God.
It is not hard to interpret Colossians 1:21-23so long we keep in mind the simple tenses of the verbs and refrain from importing "paradigms" until the work of exegesis is done.
21And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds
The word "alienated" speaks of Colossian's past. Using the perfect participle shows it as an active state IN THE PAST.
22a he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death,
This was about an event (their reconciliation to God) that happened and was completed IN THE PAST.
22b in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him
This part of the verse refers to the ultimate "presentation" of the believer to Christ. It is a FUTURE event. The Father's INTENTION and PURPOSE is that when that time arrives we will be standing before him holy, blameless and above reproach.
Had Paul left off the rest of the passage here we might get the idea that this end is already settled and secure. Then it would be stating that SINCE we are "blameless and above reproach" now then we necessarily will be THEN. However, Paul adds a condition:
23 IF indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
The condition for our being among those who will be "presented blameless and above reproach before Him" is that we
(1) CONTINUE IN THE FAITH (i.e., continuing in our faith-relationship to Christ) and that we
(2) ARE NOT MOVED AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL (i.e., that we do not reject or abandon the truth that saved us).
You asked before where the warning was. Here it is. In fact, there is both hope AND warning in this verse, depending on whether our eyes are "fixed on Him" or whether we, like Lot's wife, are looking longingly back to the pleasures of sin.
The exegesis of this passage is so simple and its meaning so clear that it requires a considerable subversion of hermeneutics to make it mean anything else. Ultimately, what it shows is that Paul did not teach a gospel of antinomianism.