ECT How is Paul's message different?

[turbosixx]

I don't think I understand the question. Are you suggesting that you don't believe that Paul's message (i.e. salvation by grace) is not based on Calvary?

No. I agree grace has everything to do with the DBR. What I’m trying to say is Christ’s “finished work” or anything similar is not found in the teachings of grace.

Words and phrases are how we convey thoughts and concepts. If we’re using phrases that can’t be found in scripture then we’re changing the thoughts and concepts.

I love what you said the other day and totally agree.

“The less interpretation that is needed, the better. The more you can just read the bible and let it say what it seems to say without parsing words or it causing theological conflicts, either real or imagined, the better.”

So it’s best to read the bible and let it tell us what we need to know. When someone says, “I’m saved by grace through faith” that’s awesome because that’s what he Holy Spirit wants us to know. I don’t trust phrases that aren’t found in scripture. I hear all the time “Christ’s finished work” and the like.

If Paul wanted us to know that Jesus did all the work on the cross, then wouldn’t Paul have said “Jesus’ finished work on the cross”?

 

[lifeisgood]

If Paul wanted us to know that Jesus did all the work on the cross, then wouldn’t Paul have said “Jesus’ finished work on the cross”?

No.

They were supposed to be teaching Christ's totally finished/completed work on the Cross of Calvary. Christ Himself said "It is finished" --- that is what completed mean. If Jesus did not finish ALL on the Cross of Calvary, then, there is no Salvation since then.

That is what Paul is teaching them, then, and now, us.

Did not Paul say that they were to teach the elementary principles of the oracles of God (DBR) and now they needed someone to teach them the totally completed/finished work of Christ on the Cross of Calvary? Something he (Paul) had taught them as if they had been there at the time the work was totally finished/completed on the Cross of Calvary?

Remember that when Paul say "Cross," "Calvary," "BOC," etc. he is talking about Jesus Christ and His totally finished/completed work on the Cross of Calvary.

 

[Right Divider]

No. I agree grace has everything to do with the DBR. What I’m trying to say is Christ’s “finished work” or anything similar is not found in the teachings of grace.

Where do you find "the teachings of grace"? I don't see that phrase mentioned in the Bible either?

Words and phrases are how we convey thoughts and concepts. If we’re using phrases that can’t be found in scripture then we’re changing the thoughts and concepts.

You should understand that the EXACT phrases are not always what you will find. Some things in the Bible can be described with phrases that are not in the Bible and still be completely valid.

So it’s best to read the bible and let it tell us what we need to know. When someone says, “I’m saved by grace through faith” that’s awesome because that’s what he Holy Spirit wants us to know. I don’t trust phrases that aren’t found in scripture. I hear all the time “Christ’s finished work” and the like.

The Bible says that Jesus Christ died once to sin. That is the "finished work".

If Paul wanted us to know that Jesus did all the work on the cross, then wouldn’t Paul have said “Jesus’ finished work on the cross”?

He says just that in many different ways.

Rom 6:10 KJV For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
​

Do you think that there is more that the Lord Jesus Christ needs to do to deal with sin?

 

[tetelestai]

No. They were supposed to be teaching Christ's totally finished/completed work on the Cross of Calvary. Christ Himself said "It is finished" --- that is what completed mean. If Jesus did not finish ALL on the Cross of Calvary, then, there is no Salvation since then.

Jesus said the following BEFORE He went to the cross:

(John 17:4) I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.

What did Jesus finish before the cross?

Then on the cross, Jesus said "it is finished":

(John 19:30) When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

But wait, there's more:

(Rev 15:1) And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having seven plagues, which are the last, for in them is finished the wrath of God.

As we see above, after the cross, there is still the finishing wrath of God.

That wrath was finished in 70AD.

 

[Danoh]

Jesus said the following BEFORE He went to the cross:

(John 17:4) I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.

What did Jesus finish before the cross?

Then on the cross, Jesus said "it is finished":

(John 19:30) When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

But wait, there's more:

(Rev 15:1) And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having seven plagues, which are the last, for in them is finished the wrath of God.

As we see above, after the cross, there is still the finishing wrath of God.

That wrath was finished in 70AD.

Hit it boys!

O when the Romans.
The Roman army.
O when the Romans,
Come marchin in.
O Lord is that you,
In their number.
That Tet's delusion,
Has you in.

 

[tetelestai]

Hit it boys!

O when the Romans.
The Roman army.
O when the Romans,
Come marchin in.
O Lord is that you,
In their number.
That Tet's delusion,
Has you in.

Every time you are presented with scripture, you have no answer.

 

[Danoh]

Every time you are presented with scripture, you have no answer.

You mean every time you try dee-BAIT one into an endless, never gets through to your blind nonsense.

 

[tetelestai]

You mean every time you try dee-BAIT one into an endless, never gets through to your blind nonsense.

Once again, you prove my point.

 

[Danoh]

Once again, you prove my point.

Hopefully, you have no children.

You are one would be double-binding individual.

 

[tetelestai]

Hopefully, you have no children.

You are one would be double-binding individual.

Once again my point is proven.

The only thing double-binding is your Dispensationalism.

Here's another verse for you:

(Rom 2:5) But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

Since you claim the Romans were already saved and members of the BOC before Paul wrote to them, why are these believers in the BOC going to have wrath come upon them on the day of God's wrath?

When is "the day of God's wrath"?

 

[Danoh]

Once again my point is proven.

The only thing double-binding is your Dispensationalism.

Here's another verse for you:

(Rom 2:5) But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

Since you claim the Romans were already saved and members of the BOC before Paul wrote to them, why are these believers in the BOC going to have wrath come upon them on the day of God's wrath?

When is "the day of God's wrath"?

Lol, or, in your case :rotfl:

On two counts...

One, your attempt just now is classsic, textbook double-bind theory in action.

Two, instead of this baiting nonsense of yours, why don't you tell me what it is I supposedly believe about those things and how they fit - see how poor your model buiding skills are.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

The Holy Spirit was certainly working but the Body of Christ did not exist prior to Paul who was it's charter member.


David received the Holy Spirit a thousand years before Calvary.

Further, the blood of Christ is the foundation for all salvation, regardless of which dispensation you happen to live in. This does not mean that there are no dispensations or that they are all identical.


I know that! The question wasn't WHAT was Paul's ministry, the question was WHY Paul's ministry?

Are you telling me that Paul did something that the twelve could not accomplish?

No! I'm telling you that! The reason God turned to Paul is because He cut Israel off, ending the Kingdom Dispensation and began the Dispensation of Grace. The Twelve being saved under law remained under the law and ministered to those saved under the law. (Romans 11:29; I Corinthians 7:18)

Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.​

No, you don't understand. I know the answer to the question. It is you who cannot answer the question. You cannot answer it because it is in conflict with your dogma. There can be no answer if God did not change anything. If Paul's message was/is the same as Peter's then there is no need for Paul in the first place! God already had twelve apostles He did not need a thirteenth - UNLESS something changed!


All such reports are lies.
We know from the biblical record that when people are witnesses to undeniable miracles the vast majority of the time the result is that the witnesses hate God more than they did before they saw the miracle.


Nice thought but has no basis in either evidence or scripture.


No, no no! It wasn't just a pet name he was giving it. He was making an intentional (a Holy Spirit inspired) effort to distinguish his message from any other....

Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

16b I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)​

That verse 20 is real killer for your position. Paul was not just calling it "my gospel" in passing. He was virtually jumping up and down insisting that he was not lying about this! He was insisting that he wasn't taught his gospel and he did not get it from the twelve or from any other human being other than the resurrected Jesus Christ Himself via direct revelation.

Now why would such a thing be necessary if Paul's message is the same as Peter's??????

The answer is, it wouldn't be! Not only would it not be necessary it wouldn't even make any sense.

Resting in Him,
Clete

There is no scriptural basis for Paul being the first in Christ.

David was not washed by Calvary and reconciled to God and filled in the manner possible after Calvary.

He chose Paul because:
"Because Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display His perfect patience..." 1 Timothy 1:15-16
This brought glory to God. The power to transform through His mercy, love, and presence.

Denying God's use of visions denies scripture. How ridiculous to flipantly dismiss countless reports. Paul met Jesus in a supernatural way, what would ever prevent Jesus from doing this again.

Theology is understanding God. It wasn't a new dispensation. Paul did not dismiss the royal law of love, from the law, and not wronging neighbors, only ceremonial practices that did not mean much, that Peter got confused about, for a time. Ironiclly Paul practiced ceremonial things at the Temple when he got arrested.

 

[Right Divider]

Jesus said the following BEFORE He went to the cross:

(John 17:4) I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.

What did Jesus finish before the cross?

Then on the cross, Jesus said "it is finished":

(John 19:30) When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

But wait, there's more:

(Rev 15:1) And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having seven plagues, which are the last, for in them is finished the wrath of God.

As we see above, after the cross, there is still the finishing wrath of God.

That wrath was finished in 70AD.

atrol: ASSERTION WITHOUT SUPPORT WARNING! atrol:

 

[Totton Linnet]

How is it not different?

I invite you to answer the questions I just posed to LA.

They illustrate just two of the differences between Paul and the twelve but to give you a direct answer, the difference is the Gospel of Grace.

No one other than Paul preached the gospel of grace - no one. Not Jesus, not Peter nor James nor John nor anyone else.

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

That idea is exclusive to Paul!

Further, there are lots and lots of doctrinal debates in the church that have persisted for centuries and a great many of them, if not all of them, fall along the lines of Paul vs Peter, James & John.

Is water baptism required for salvation?

If you say, "Yes", you'll cite the New Testament books NOT written by Paul, including the Gospels.

If you say, "No", you'll cite nothing at all but the books written by Paul.

The same is true about whether works are required for salvation, or whether you can lost your salvation, or speaking in tongues, or whether the rapture will occur before or after the Tribulation, or whether you should only eat certain kinds of foods, or whether you should observe the Sabbath or tithe or obey the Ten Commandments, etc, etc.

All of these seemingly unrelated issues, and many more, all fall along the lines of Paul vs the rest of the Biblical authors and so I'm not being flippant at all when I say that the list of what isn't different is much shorter than the list of things which are different. Very nearly the whole thing is different because the difference is literally the difference between observance of the law being required vs. observance of the law being prohibited.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Here's an excellent example of just the sort of doctrinal debate I'm talking about. Skim through the first several posts and take note of the proof texts on each side...

Swine Sausage - Sin?

Grace did not start with Paul. John says "the law came by Moses but grace by Jesus Christ and we have all received from Him grace, grace upon grace.

The need for Paul was and is obvious.

God had always dealt with His people by separating them off from everyone, a people apart, in their own land.

That all changed

Now God deals with us as individuals within the nations.

The Jews understood how to be God's people in their own land under Godly ordinances. They did not have a clue as to how it would work among the nations, the heathens.

All the ordinances like kings and priests had entirely different meanings and connotations among the nations...even Israel's worse king was more benevolent than the mildest heathen king. Gentile priests were a perfect abomination.

The gospel to the Gentiles therefore had to be by a completely new revelation...it is the SAME gospel but to a different people.

Paul is OUR Apostle.

 

[Danoh]

Grace did not start with Paul. John says "the law came by Moses but grace by Jesus Christ and we have all received from Him grace, grace upon grace...

John also relates what he meant by that and who he was addressing.

 

[Interplanner]

atrol: ASSERTION WITHOUT SUPPORT WARNING! atrol:

Right, the passages are not about all wrath ever; but they are about that which was meted against Israel for rejecting Messiah. Lk 19 and 21.

I hope Tet will explain how those events are wrath for all sin everywhere on the earth, because that is what he is assuming. Once again, it is the mistake of treating Mt24A as having to do with something other than 1st century Judea.

 

[tetelestai]

Right, the passages are not about all wrath ever; but they are about that which was meted against Israel for rejecting Messiah. Lk 19 and 21.

Correct.

I hope Tet will explain how those events are wrath for all sin everywhere on the earth, because that is what he is assuming.

No, the wrath of 70AD was specifically for the Jews for rejecting their Messiah, and persecuting the prophets.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

How is it not different?

I invite you to answer the questions I just posed to LA.

They illustrate just two of the differences between Paul and the twelve but to give you a direct answer, the difference is the Gospel of Grace.

No one other than Paul preached the gospel of grace - no one. Not Jesus, not Peter nor James nor John nor anyone else.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If this is not the grace of God then what is?

God could have judged them and killed them on the spot.

Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

That idea is exclusive to Paul!

Abraham first knew about it, and many illustrations f the OT teach it.

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.


Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Further, there are lots and lots of doctrinal debates in the church that have persisted for centuries and a great many of them, if not all of them, fall along the lines of Paul vs Peter, James & John.

Is water baptism required for salvation?

If you say, "Yes", you'll cite the New Testament books NOT written by Paul, including the Gospels.

If you say, "No", you'll cite nothing at all but the books written by Paul.

You are deceived, Paul was baptized in water and did the same-Acts 19, Christ commanded it.

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

The same is true about whether works are required for salvation, or whether you can lost your salvation, or speaking in tongues, or whether the rapture will occur before or after the Tribulation, or whether you should only eat certain kinds of foods, or whether you should observe the Sabbath or tithe or obey the Ten Commandments, etc, etc.

All of these seemingly unrelated issues, and many more, all fall along the lines of Paul vs the rest of the Biblical authors and so I'm not being flippant at all when I say that the list of what isn't different is much shorter than the list of things which are different. Very nearly the whole thing is different because the difference is literally the difference between observance of the law being required vs. observance of the law being prohibited.

Paul wrote 1 Cor.ch 12 to 14 .but MAD rejects them.

 

[Danoh]

Regrettably, Lazy, you appear to have taken up where GT left off...may she be well.

 

[Clete]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If this is not the grace of God then what is?

God could have judged them and killed them on the spot.

Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.




Abraham first knew about it, and many illustrations f the OT teach it.

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.


Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:



You are deceived, Paul was baptized in water and did the same-Acts 19, Christ commanded it.

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;



Paul wrote 1 Cor.ch 12 to 14 .but MAD rejects them.

ALL salvation is founded upon God's grace, no matter what dispensation you are discussing. As a result not only did you not answer the question posed in the post your quoted, but what you did say was in argument against a point I had not made.

Even when the Law was in effect and you were flatly REQUIRED to follow it, the Law was undergirded by God's grace because no one was able to obey the Law perfectly and so without God's grace no one could have been saved from Moses through to the first century.

But the Law and Grace (i.e. the Gospel of Grace) are not synonyms! No matter how much you jump up and down and pound your fist to the contrary. You can try, try, try to say that they are effectively the same and all you will do is turn grace into law, not the other way around, which you have done, by the way. The Gospel of Grace REQUIRES belief and nothing else! (Rom. 4:5) In the Gospel of Grace, we enter by faith and we walk by that same faith. We do not begin by faith and continue by works of the flesh, whether baptisms or Sabbath days or abstaining from this or partaking of that.

Before Paul if you were not a Jew, a practicing Jew, you were NOT saved - period. Now, if you're a practicing Jew, Christ will profit you nothing! No one preached anything similar to that other than Paul - no one!

HOW IS THAT NOT A CHANGE?

Resting in Him,
Clete