INTO Help Line
- Thread starter intojoy
- Start date
Where in the world is johnny dub ?
Nope, I think you've covered everything
Hi INTO,
If God loves us so much why doesn't he stop the world and take us to heaven to live with Him ? God can do it right now.
Because the iniquity of man is not yet full. He is enduring with men because He is a merciful God and not willing that any should perish
But the iniquity can never be removed until Christ comes again. What's the hold up ? God can include all future people not yet born in His heavenly plan. Why not YET ?
Yes I have a question, why is my thread on Paul and the Nazarite Vow in Acts 21 not being approved?!
Ok, until my question thread on Paul and the Nazarite Vow in Acts 21 is approved,
why did Paul do the vow? Why did the disciples and the earliest believers do the vow, also?
why did Paul do the vow? Why did the disciples and the earliest believers do the vow, also?
The action was that Paul himself took the purification vow of Numbers 6:13-20 with them. This entailed having his head shaved and offering offerings which he himself paid for. The offerings for each one of them included: a he-lamb, a ewe-lamb, a ram, a meal-offering, and a drink-offering. Next, he went into the Temple Compound and declared to the priest on what day he will be reporting the fulfillment of the vow so the priest would have the sacrifices ready. He went in once for each of the four brethren and once for himself. A lot of people continue to raise the question of whether Paul was right in taking such a vow. They are assuming that it was wrong for him to keep the Law in any case. However, Paul was not wrong as can be seen for six reasons. First, this was a voluntary act on his part, just as it was in Acts 18:18; since it was voluntary, it was not wrong. Secondly, Paul was never ashamed of this later, as shown in Acts 24:17-18. Thirdly, it was in keeping with Paul's policy of I Corinthians 9:20-21: that “to the Jews, he became as a Jew” and “for those under the Law, as he himself under the Law.” Fourthly, not all blood Sacrifices were for atonement purposes, and this was one of them. Fifth, the purpose of his involvement succeeded, for Paul's later troubles came from unbelieving Jews, not from Jewish believers. And sixth, Paul was not accommodating himself to others, but was proving that the rumors and charges against him were false.
Adam's sin is transferred to all humanity by default.
The sacrificial atonement of Messiah rendered all men savable. However, the cross is not the only saving instrumentality since faith is required.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you understand the problem with the situation, right?
Adam's sin transferred to all, without choice
Christ's redemption transferred to all, conditional on choice
i'm not a universalist, but i can understand the appeal - among other things, it makes Christ's action as powerful as Adam's
It's only a problem from the created being's viewpoint based in human emotions. It may not be problematic from the angelic vantage point and it certainly isn't problematic from the Creator's view.
My attitude is that the fact that God intervened to save some of humanity is the proof of His grace and is the outworking of God's love.
Thanks for your answer!!!
'assuming that it is wrong for him to keep the Law in any case' - that phrasing can be easily misunderstood. Paul appears in some parts of his writings to teach the law i.e the commandments, but there are other aspects to it such as the Jewish customs. James equates a Jew who does not do the customs as apostatising from Moses in Acts 21. In the same passage he solidifies the sentiment that the kosher laws to gentiles are actually a part of the Law, hence they were coined as 'requirements' in Acts 15. (Paul agreed to this initially in Acts 15, but went away to teach otherwise).
It doesn't matter about the 'voluntary' nature, the fact is that the underlying meaning/value/purpose of the vow no longer holds. That's why Christians have had to say this is but a tribute act to Jesus's sacrifice.
With regards to your second point, that's a disturbing position to hold as it implies deception, which in this context involves the many thousands of the newbie believing Jews who obviously didn't ALL have the right understanding of Law. The problem is exacerbated when James actually speaks of them being zealous in a way in which clearly shows James is proud of it. What we take from this as, because James selected a nazarite vow (out of all of the other customs, he had to go for the expensive one which also should no longer have the same value to the new believers), it's clear James wants Paul to prove he is obedient to the Law to these zealous guys, thus affirming the sentiments of the vow. James then, was deceived by Paul, too.
Why the nazarite vow, that's littered with all of these customs which are full of conditions that you must stick to in order to become purified otherwise you cannot do certain acts of worship because you are unclean - these things have no salvific value in Paul's doctrine. Also, it has a sin-offering in it, too. If it's voluntary, why are James and the new believers under the vow choosing to do something like this vow in the first place? It's clear they uphold it's Torah meaning, they continued to do them.
With regards to your fourth point, there was a 'sin-offering' to conclude nazarite vows. This is the sort of mode created for those under the law. But they go on to affirm the nazarite vow and with it there is a sin offering involved. This is completely against what Paul's doctrine is about, but if he were to stand up against doing it, he would have the disciples brand him an apostate.
Fifth point, again that raises the problem of deception.
Sixth, were they really false? At the end of the day, Paul did speak of the Law in a universal way.
Remember that Paul didn't really meet with Peter, James and John much at all.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Why are MAD wackos so wacko?