Interplanner
Well-known member
No, because that is not what Eph 3:5 says is the mystery. Know the grammar, then you'll know.
ECT MAD interp flaw
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
No, because that is not what Eph 3:5 says is the mystery. Know the grammar, then you'll know.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Abraham believed and was credited righteousness (I believe this is the most used example by Paul)
He saw Christ's day, Jn 8
David believed and his sin was not imputed to him
Job believed he needed a redeemer who would qualify him to stand on the last day...
Heb 11's examples are summarized as purified WITH US in the atonement
The believers who resurrected in Mt 27's earthquake
etc etc
Interplanner
Well-known member
Right Divider
Body part
You still cannot understand the simple things. Gospel literally means "good message". So there are lots of "good messages" in the Bible.
You still trying to force YOUR meaning on them.
Right Divider
Body part
I'm not following you. I'm probably not the only one.
musterion
Well-known member
What exactly did Abraham believe? That Christ would die for the sins of the world and rise again for the justification of all who believe, aka Paul's Gospel? No. Keep looking.
What exactly did David believe? That Christ would die for the sins of the world and rise again for the justification of all who believe, aka Paul's Gospel? No. Try again.
What exactly did Job believe? That Christ would die for the sins of the world and rise again for the justification of all who believe, aka Paul's Gospel? No. Strike three.
A coming of Messiah the Redeemer was never a secret.
You need to stop reading later revelation into periods before it was revealed, then pretending the people "back then" knew what was as yet unknown. That is not just lazy and sloppy, it's doing violence to God's Word.
So one more time:
Find anyone in the O.T. who believed the exact content of Paul's Gospel -- that Christ died for the sins of the world, was buried, and rose for the justification of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike, saving them by grace through faith alone, without works and entirely apart from national Israel and apart from the Law.
You can't even find anyone at Pentecost preaching that...but if there's always only been ONE good news, then it's GOT to be there, right? So keep looking. Find it preached before Paul and you'll have proven there has always been only one saving Good News, and you win.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, Abraham believed God. He believed what God had just told him.
What did God tell him?
heir
TOL Subscriber
Believe what it says, then you'll know.
Perchance, would this be your answer for any Scripture verse? Are you the ONLY one that knows the CORRECT grammar?
You didn't answer his question. How clever of you.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Those are several answers and yes they are clever. As usual with justification, terms like credit and imputation are there. I hope you will be immersed in "in Christ" so that you can see things the same way.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Nope, but I know that the position you and heir provided on this passage violate the grammar. The weight falls on 'in the Gospel' because it is well-known that the nations would be reached, included and share in the inheritance. That makes the issue come down to the channel or route. It would not be through the law but through the Gospel.
It is not difficult to sharpen up grammar; it does not have to be heady. The best way is diagramming. Learn the old school of diagramming because it is sort of like balancing a budget or checkbook: everything has to be accounted for and correct in its attachments.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You can't believe what it says until you know what it says. There are other passages of the NT that I refuse to believe because I don't know, for ex., Eph 1:10 'when the times will have reached their fulfillment.' I find it unresolveable to know whether he was 'role playing' as though an OT believer or meant that it was about our future. The verb tense is called pluperfect and is tricky. It can be used 'as though' you were speaking from another time frame.
In this case, there is really no question. It is completely clear that the nations were to share, to inherit and be joined with the Israel of faith (and they were by all accounts in the context). The phrase "in the Gospel" is where it lands. Not in the law.
This is why I started the thread that says that neither outcome on eph 3:5 helps D'ism. Even if you don't believe it is all fulfilled in the Gospel it still has the two groups CO-SHARING, CO-INHERITING EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS NOW. D'ism is all about keeping them distinct, so it implodes at Eph 3:5.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Not about the arm of the Lord bringing his salvation and righteousness. It all reduces down to the Christ crucified by the end of Isaiah, or THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS of Jer 23-33. This is why Rom 3:21-31 is the crescendo of the NT. "Now the righteousness of God is revealed..." This is such a major theme in Isaiah that it is fair to say it eclipses everything else. We then are forced to ask, so how does the NT interp the Isaian 'righteousness of God'? The answer is the Gospel. It is never another episode of things for Israel, and when Christ comes he says that all the written wrath that needed to be delivered would fall in the DofJ, Lk 19 and 21.
I write this so you know it's not just "me." The question is how did Paul refer to the arrival of the righteousness of God, because there is no question that he did. He used OT passages to underwrite it.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Yes, I can and do (Romans 10:17 KJV) and so can you. It is written! It is you refusing to believe it that is the problem.
I now see that "Inters" strength lies not in his grasp of Grammer, but, in his ignorance. I must congratulate him on his abundance of ineptness. He is "filled to the brim" with an amazing amount of things he doesn't know. No doubt all other posters on TOL "Pale in comparison."
We must show honor to those who are either "Overly" Intelligent, as opposed to those who show a knack for being on the opposite end of the spectrum. That would be "Inter."
You sound like a fellow who is desperately trying his best to sound intelligent, however, is falling short and fast to the ground below.
It's back to the "Drawing board" for you, Inter. There will be no lunch break until you get it right. So, prepare to lose a lot of weight.