Real Science Friday: Mathematics: Is God Silent? by James Nickel

[The Barbarian]

Typical Barbarian. Assert interpretation (forget evidence or reasoning).

I notice Stipe ignores the offered evidence as to the mistranslation of "whole world" from "eretz" (land), not to mention the evidence in Genesis that the whole world did not perish. (the dove could hardly have returned an olive branch otherwise)

You're a waste of time to discuss anything with.

Get some of your own evidence, and you won't be wasting your time, Stipe.

 

[Stripe]

No thanks. All you do is lie, squirm and misrepresent.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian suggests that Stipe would do better if he started using evidence)

No thanks.

It was just pro forma, Stipe. I had no illusions that you'd be interested in dealing in evidence.

All you do is lie, squirm and misrepresent.

See above. You pretended that I hadn't offered any evidence for my point that Genesis does not say the whole world was flooded. That's also part of your M.O.

 

[Frayed Knot]

I may be your judge at the Great White Throne Judgment. Judgment of the wicked will be delegated to believers in the Body of Christ. "My eye will not show mercy."

What does it say when someone would take such delight in sending another human to be tortured? All moral people would be shocked at this sick thought process. I know I am.

And it doesn't really matter that hell is something I consider to be an old legend only - the fact that you believe it and relish the thought just turns my stomach. You need to take a close look at yourself there Tom.

 

[The Barbarian]

What does it say when someone would take such delight in sending another human to be tortured? All moral people would be shocked at this sick thought process. I know I am.

The sad thing is, that's the only thing about Tom's beliefs, that might actually send him to Hell. If he truly believes all those revisions to scripture, God will not judge him for it. But if he harbors that kind of hate in his heart, then he puts his salvation at risk.

 

[Tyrathca]

Not physical.

And yet computation and arithmetic in computers involves the understandable movements of electrons in a circuit and is root completely to its physical form and attributes. Unless you want to inform computer scientists about something they are building into their hardware that they are unaware of...

Is god evidenced by non-physical computations within a physical computer?

How do I know a computer doesn't "know" it exists? Are you serious? Please post back that you were just joshing.

I'm not saying I disagree with what I expect your answer to be, but HOW you answer it is the interesting part.

Chimps will eat your kids and take a nap afterwards.

Some humans will eat chimp kids and take a nap afterwards. Hey, there are even humans who would kill your kids (and a very rare few eat them) and take a nap afterwards. The chimps also have the potential excuse of not understanding fully what they are killing, unlike humans.

Chimps have also been known to mourn the death of other chimps. They have been known to assist other chimps and care for other animals. They sometimes adopt orphaned chimps. They share with others and punish those who take but don't give. There is even evidence of the concept of asking for (and giving) forgiveness.

 

[fool]

Chimps have also been known to mourn the death of other chimps. They have been known to assist other chimps and care for other animals. They sometimes adopt orphaned chimps. They share with others and punish those who take but don't give. There is even evidence of the concept of asking for (and giving) forgiveness.

Chimps fight wars over teritory, they patrol their turf, fight border wars, and kill any other chimp they find outnumbered on their land. They raid other tribes if they get low on females.

 

[TeeJay]

=Squishes;2726602]A category error occurs when the language is used in mistaken way that gives impossible properties to some thing. In your case, you apparently expect an atheist to suppose that justification-- an epistemic relation between a person and some property-- cannot be attributed to the elements of chemistry. And, of course, you're correct. But that is not applying the function of the word "justification" properly, since it is an epistemological concept and not an ontological one. It's as if you said "Is it moral to bananas?"

Okay. I see what you’re saying. Both of us agree that chemicals CAUSE things; they don’t justify things. And to be clear, the argument I present is not about origins/first cause; it’s the question of justification: Which worldview can justify (make sense of) laws of logic, say)?

Now the irrationality of chemicals justifying is what I get from atheists on ToL. (At this point, I’m not saying I get this from you.) If I post that reasoning is immaterial, they argue that this is not true. Thinking is chemicals in motion in the brain. So then I am forced to ask, how do you KNOW that 2 + 2 = 4, if reasoning is simply chemicals in motion? Isn’t the truth of this math being “justified” by chemicals? If reasoning is simply physical (motion of chemicals) you could not KNOW that your reasoning was true or false. That’s my argument.

Atheists can be justified in their beliefs the same way anyone is; by having a belief that was formed the proper way (by tracking the environment, say) that is also true.

An atheist can be justified in his worldview (belief) if his worldview is logically consistent. Whatever a person chooses as his ultimate standard will lead to other beliefs, which lead to others and so on.

However, some beliefs do not comport with each other—they don’t go well together. If a worldview has internal contradictions, then it can’t be correct since contradictions can’t be true. Moreover, some worldviews lead to the strange consequence that it is impossible to know anything. Such a worldview is rationally defective since it would be impossible to know that it is true.

You gave as an example, “tracking the environment.” Before you could study the environment, you would have to assume that your thinking is rational, that your memory and senses are reliable, that there are laws of logic, and that there is uniformity in nature (physical laws are law-like and invariable). But an atheist has no foundation to assume any of these based on his worldview. These things do not comport with his worldview.

Now I realize that there are strict materialist atheists and non-materialist atheists. The materialist atheist is not “logically consistent.” He argues that there is nothing but matter but uses logic (which is not physical) to do so). The non-materialist, who arbitrarily accepts some immaterial things while rejecting others, can’t come to the rescue. How do we bring these two worlds together? Reasonless chemicals will not give you immaterial laws of logic or rational reason.

Because natural selection weeded out the members of the population that didn't care about their offspring. But that is a separate question from your complaint that an atheist shouldn't be able to believe in abstract objects. Again, what is the contradiction between these two beliefs:

"God does not exist"
"Prime numbers exist"

Those seem to be perfectly compatible.

If God (Who has always existed) did not exist, then nothing could exist (prime numbers included). In an evolutionary survival of the fittest worldview why should survival of offspring be a concern? Hungry? Eat your babies.

You are using the word "presuppose" incorrectly. Just because the Bible tells a story about why we should be friendly to our neighbor does not mean that if we think we should be friendly to our neighbor Christianity must be true. Can you spot the logical fallacy here?

If Christianity is true, then humans are deserving of respect and dignity.
But humans are deserving of respect and dignity.
Thus, Christianity is true.

This is an invalid argument.

As I posted above. At this point we are not arguing for origins or first Cause. I’m arguing which worldview (theist or atheist) is a better justification for the reality. It’s not an ultimate “proof” of whether Christianity is true. But it is a piece of evidence. And several pieces of evidence can show something to be true. (Even Jesus said, “If I bear witness of myself, don’t believe Me.”) And the Bible says that by the mouth of two or three witnesses, a matter is established.

My argument: If we see that there is rational thought and immaterial laws of logic, which worldview gives a more rational justification—atheism or theism? I argue that if a rational God exists, and He created me, then I should not be surprised that I can reason rationally. Or looking at it the other way around, if I can reason rationally and use immaterial laws of logic, then it would be reasonable for me to assume the existence of a rational Creator who created me.

I contend that reasonless, lifeless chemicals do not “justify” a similar belief. And to simply assume with no rational reason is to be arbitrary. Debate would not be possible if we simply assume something. You could assume one things and I could assume just the opposite.

Why? You still haven't told me how abstract entities are incompatible with atheism.

I thought I did? In your worldview, human beings are the accidental result of chemistry over time. If people are just chemistry, then we have no choice in what we do—just as vinegar has no choice but to react to baking soda. How could we punish people who have no choice? If evolution were true, there could be no such thing as human freedom or dignity. An atheist takes these things for granted, but they do not comport with his worldview. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview.

And how does God know he created blue water and not bleen water?

And why the silly question?

Actually, I don't have to explain those things. It's possible that those are going to be forever outside of our reach. But that does not mean Christianity wins by default.

You’re right. You don’t have to explain these things. God gave you the freedom of self-deception. And Jesus said, “The [human] heart is deceitful above all things." But we can know a few things with certainty:

The universe could not have created itself from nothing.
The universe could not have always been here.

So, the theist reasons reasonably that there must be an eternal, supernatural Creator anterior to the universe Who created it. The atheist is also free to posit a third option.

Logic doesn't have a foundation; it is the foundation. And I didn't call them absolute because I don't know what you mean by that. The laws of logic are necessary-- true in every possible world.

I’m very surprised that you posted this. Why? Because you seem to be well versed in logic. Perhaps I should have defined what I meant by absolute. I once read a debate between Dr. Bahnsen (Christian) and atheist Dr. Stein at the University of California at Irvine. In a rebuttal to Dr. Bahnsen’s transcendental argument for God and realizing that he would then have to justify logic by logic, Dr. Stein posited that the laws of logic were “conventional.” By conventional, he meant that the laws of logic were not absolute (“true in every possible world,” as you correctly posted) but are simply what society has agreed upon by convention. Dr. Bahnsen destroyed him.

Atheists claim that only evidence based on logic and reason is valid. But can atheists validate this claim? When an atheist tries to justify logic and reason by logic and reason, he bases his worldview on circular reasoning. If you have no foundation for believing in logic and reason, then you are like Wylie Coyote who finds himself standing on nothing. To avoid circular reasoning and justify logic and reason, you must seek a Foundation for logic outside of logic itself. Just as there can't be "absolute" morality unless there is an absolute Authority above man, so too, to justify logic, one must seek a Foundation of logic outside of logic.

If thinking logically is simply the working of chemicals in the brain, then why should the motion of my chemicals be the same as your chemical motion? Varying chemical motion would not give us laws of logic that are immaterial, invariant, universal (“true in every possible world”).

Some atheists do, but far from all do. The most famous ethicist/philosopher and possibly atheist of the last 50 years is an ardent realist about morality.[/QUOE]

But apart from a transcendent Authoriy, how can absolute morality be justified? I posted that just as truth can’t be contradictory, something can’t be both moral and immoral at the same time in the same way. Do you disagree with this?

Why can't there be necessary truths without God? Why would 1+1=2 be false if God does not exist?

Because nothing would exist unless God existed on His own. What “exists on its own” must have existed from all eternity; for if anything else could make it begin to exist, then it would not exist on its own but because of something else. It must also exist incessantly. That is, it can’t cease to exist and then begin again. For having once ceased to be, it obviously could not recall itself to existence, and if anything else recalled it, it would then be a dependent being.

But for sake of your argument, I will let you skip this first step (no God). But now you are left with chemicals in motion in your brain. How do chemicals in motion (even if they can "compute" the math) let you KNOW in depth of your being that the computation is TRUE?

I will be away for a week or so. I have some health issues. If you respond, I will answer you when I can.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=Granite;2726847]I have yet to encounter anyone on TOL as full of themselves as you are. Nice going, you holier-than-thou pot of helium.

Do you really have to spin these fantasies to make yourself feel better?

Granite,

Come on! Don't mince words. Tell how you really feel about me.

But it's even worse that you imagined. To add insult to injury, I have "beautiful feet" (Rom. 10:15).

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2726895]You still don't get it. You can throw your salvation away.

But would you agree that before you can throw salvation away, you must first have salvation? And it's not my salvation; it's yours (the parachute I'm offering to you.

It's not yours to give or take. You need to realize you aren't God.

But Jesus gave me authority to preach the gospel of salvation to as many as will listen (for those "with ears to hear and eyes to see."). Before I can get a passenger to put on a parachute, I must first convince him that the plane is about to go down.

But you think you are not going to hell "because you have not commited a mortal sin." If that's true, then you don't need Jesus' sacrifice for you. You've done on your own. You don't need a parachute, you are going to flap your arms and fly.

I did not make any of this up. Paul wrote, "By the law, no flesh will be justified." And, "For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' Now to him who works the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3-5)

If you give your wife a diamond ring (gift of love) and she repays you with money (instead of her love), then it is no longer a gift. She is simply purchasing the ring (getting it on her own). Run this by your wife. She'll understand it.

You can believe in Jesus but for salvation you must accept His sacrifice for you. A person can believe in parachutes, but the parachute will do no good unless he puts it on and trusts in it.

How does one get saved? I will tell you. You will not hear this in the Catholic Church but you will read it in His word:

"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead [very important!] you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. 10:9-10).

When you make this confession of faith, the Holy Spirit baptizes you into the Body of Christ where you are sealed. You are taken out from under the ordinances (law) that were against you. And Pual writes, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression."

And this is my last word--unless you have questions.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2726907]Right. In fact, the word you translate as "entire world" is used in scripture for the land occupied by the Israelites. So unless you want to tell us that the Israelites occupied the entire world...

The Israelites did not exist at the time of th Flood.

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Right. In fact, the word you translate as "entire world" is used in scripture for the land occupied by the Israelites. So unless you want to tell us that the Israelites occupied the entire world...

The Israelites did not exist at the time of th Flood.

Doesn't matter. "Eretz Israel" means "the land of Israel," not "the whole world."

 

[Stripe]

The Israelites did not exist at the time of th Flood. Tom

Not to mention that Barbie has got the wrong language as well. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

But would you agree that before you can throw salvation away, you must first have salvation? And it's not my salvation; it's yours (the parachute I'm offering to you.

You can't offer salvation. Only God can do that. And you aren't God, as much as you'd like to be.

But Jesus gave me authority to preach the gospel of salvation to as many as will listen (for those "with ears to hear and eyes to see.").

All of us, actually. But you've given up on God's gospel, and have changed to some people's modified form.

But you think you are not going to hell "because you have not commited a mortal sin." If that's true, then you don't need Jesus' sacrifice for you.

That's what God says. Salvation is only through Jesus. But you still have to decide where you want to be. And what you do is determined by that.

I did not make any of this up. Paul wrote, "By the law, no flesh will be justified."

God says that we are justified by works and faith. Do you accept that, or have you modified it to suit your own preferences?

James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

And this is my last word--unless you have questions.

You can go with your new religion. But I think God has it right. One is justified by works as well as by faith.

 

[TeeJay]

=Frayed Knot;2727024]What does it say when someone would take such delight in sending another human to be tortured? All moral people would be shocked at this sick thought process. I know I am.

Actually, I do not accept your argument that God takes delight in sending the wicked to hell. In fact the Bible says that "God takes no delight in punishing the wicked." God has given men free will. God does not send men to hell. He simply allows them to live where they want to be--apart from Him. But for the sake of argument:

You're forgetting your worldview. You are an atheist. You do not believe in God; therefore, there can be nothing moral or immoral, in your worldview. All morality in your worldview is subjective. There can only by preferences--I like this; you like that.

When you become righteously indignant, you have stepped out of your worldview and into the theist worldview. In doing so, you affirm your worldview to be false and the theist worldview true.

And it doesn't really matter that hell is something I consider to be an old legend only - the fact that you believe it and relish the thought just turns my stomach. You need to take a close look at yourself there Tom.

Then I'm a bit puzzled, Frayed. If hell is just a "legend," why did you post the above? And actually, I am not relishing the thought of Granite going to hell. I am showing him love by trying to warn him of his coming doom. If I did not care about him, I would not have answered him. I would must rather have Granite sitting on my side of the table with me instead of my having to judge him. By the way, this goes for you as well.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2727078]The sad thing is, that's the only thing about Tom's beliefs, that might actually send him to Hell. If he truly believes all those revisions to scripture, God will not judge him for it. But if he harbors that kind of hate in his heart, then he puts his salvation at risk.

Barbarian,

Your're being irrational. I read Genesis in a literal, historical manner. You don't. How then can you accuse me of "revisions to scripture"? Are you aware of your irrationality?

You don't know if you are going to heaven or hell. But yet you are not judging if I will go to hell. Yikes!

Read my post to Frayed.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=Tyrathca;2727293]And yet computation and arithmetic in computers involves the understandable movements of electrons in a circuit and is root completely to its physical form and attributes. Unless you want to inform computer scientists about something they are building into their hardware that they are unaware of...

Tyrathca,

Two plus two is four. You know this is true. How do you know this is true? Do you get it into your mind by poking it in your ear, shoving it in your mouth, tasting it, smelling it. If I write you a letter, the information is not in the ink and the paper.

Is god evidenced by non-physical computations within a physical computer?I'm not saying I disagree with what I expect your answer to be, but HOW you answer it is the interesting part.Some humans will eat chimp kids and take a nap afterwards. Hey, there are even humans who would kill your kids (and a very rare few eat them) and take a nap afterwards. The chimps also have the potential excuse of not understanding fully what they are killing, unlike humans.

The computations in a computer are physical. Knowing the computations are true is not physical.

But in an atheist worldview, why would it be wrong if the chimps ate your kids or you ate your kids?

Chimps have also been known to mourn the death of other chimps. They have been known to assist other chimps and care for other animals. They sometimes adopt orphaned chimps. They share with others and punish those who take but don't give. There is even evidence of the concept of asking for (and giving) forgiveness.

Higher animals possess higher attributes than lower animals. I was in the cattle business. I've watched mother cows stand over a dead calf for two days in the hot Texas sun fighting off coyotes and preditors. God put these attributes in animals, i.e. mothers protecting their young. This comports with a theist worldview. I am not surprised when I see these things.

But an atheist whose worldview is that we are the result of accidental chemical reactions should be in awe that these chemicals can give him these things.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2727457]You can't offer salvation. Only God can do that. And you aren't God, as much as you'd like to be.

When you preach the gospel are you offering salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ?

All of us, actually. But you've given up on God's gospel, and have changed to some people's modified form.

Is Paul a liar in Romans 10:9-10?

That's what God says. Salvation is only through Jesus. But you still have to decide where you want to be. And what you do is determined by that.

Did you read this before you posted it? You posted that you were not going to hell because you have not committed a mortal sin. If that's true, then why do you need Jesus to die for you? You've done it on your own. Wow!

God says that we are justified by works and faith. Do you accept that, or have you modified it to suit your own preferences?

But Paul says that we are justified by faith apart from works. Who's right? Paul or James? I can explain it to you. But I will give you an even worse connundrum: Paul said that we can eat meat sacrificed to idols (Rom. 9). But Jesus Christ says just the opposite in Revelations: "But I have a few things against you... to eat meat sacrificed to idols..." (Rev. 2:14). Who's right, Paul or Jesus? Now please don't post back that Paul is a false teacher. I hope you're smarter than that. Peter, James, John, and Jesus said keep the Sabbath. But Paul says, "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths" (Col. 2:16). Whom are we to obey?

James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?


But Paul says just the opposite (Rom 4). We have lots of problems here. Are they resolvable?

You can go with your new religion. But I think God has it right. One is justified by works as well as by faith.

If Paul teaches the opposite, is Paul a false prophet?

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
God says that we are justified by works and faith. Do you accept that, or have you modified it to suit your own preferences?

But Paul says that we are justified by faith apart from works.

No. Paul says something different:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

God's grace allows us to be saved through faith. His grace is not our own doing but a gift from God.

You've confused this with our justification. His grace allows us to be justified by works and faith both, as the Bible says.

If you're now going to tell us that only parts of the Bible are right, and others wrong, that's the usual pattern for cafeteria Christians. If the Bible is the word of God, then the Book of James is right that we are justified by faith and works. If it's not the word of God, why should anyone pay attention to it?

You can't just take the parts you like.

Who's right? Paul or James?

They both are.

James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

But Paul says just the opposite (Rom 4).

No, he does not. It's just that some people, in the last few hundred years, didn't like what God had to say about it, and tried to improve His word.

We have lots of problems here.

Christians don't. Your religion seems to be another matter.

Barbarian observes:
But I think God has it right. One is justified by works as well as by faith.

If Paul teaches the opposite, is Paul a false prophet?

But he doesn't. I think the common wisdom is true; some of you have abandoned Christianity for Paulism.

Paul would be appalled.

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2727525]Barbarian observes:
God says that we are justified by works and faith. Do you accept that, or have you modified it to suit your own preferences?

If I were a Jew back during the first half of the Book of Acts, I would have to believe it. I would have been under the Gospel of Circumcision (law). James' letter is not written to you; it's written to the "twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." The Jews had to keep the law and God would add some grace to their works. God can add grace to works, but He can't add works to grace. Otherwise it is no longer a free gift (Rom. 4:4). If you doubt that there were two gospels:

"But on the contrary, when they [circumcision apostles at Jerusalem Council] saw that the gospel for [OF] the uncircumcised had been committed to me [Paul], as the gospel for [OF] the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the GRACE [GOSPEL] 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 [Jews under the law]". Gal. 2:7-9

Note: The KJV renders the passage in the most common manner, true to the usual function of the genitive case of these Greek nouns, “the gospel OF the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel OF the circumcision was to Peter.” The KJV translates these nouns as expected as genitives of description (describing two different gospels committed to each grous). Unexpectedly, the NKJV translates them as though they were indirect object genitives. Even if this unlikely translation were correct, WHICH IT IS NOT, the point remains: there is the Gospel for the Body and the Gospel for Israel, the former based on grace, the latter on circumcision [law].

No. Paul says something different:

The law had two purposes and two only. The first purpose of the law is that if justice is applied swifty, it deters crime (Deut. 17:12-13; Eccl. 8:11). The second purpose of the law is evangelical. The law condemns one's heart and shows the need for a Savior:

"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW" (Gal. 3:24-25).

The law prepares the unbeliever's heart for the good news of the gospel:

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world is guilty before God" Rom. 3:19).

The law is good if one uses in the right way:

"But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawless and... sinners... for murderers... for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers..." (1 Tim. 1:8-10).

The law is a light in a dark world (Isa. 51:4). The law is the greatest tool of evangelism: "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul" (Ps. 19:7). When Christians abandon God's law as the basis for civil law, they are putting out God's light to the nations (Deut. 4:6-8).

There is no third purpose for God's law. The teaching that we should use God's law as a guide for righteous living is false. The passages above show that at conversion, God distances the believer from the law.

Why did God give the law to Israel? Because Israel was to be His evangelical nation to the world. They were to take three witnesses as their evangelical tools--the law, miracles, and Jesus. Ironically, in the Ark of the Covenant (also called the Ark of Testamony) there were three witnesses: the law (stone tablets), miracles (Asron's rod that budded), and the Manna (Jesus the True Bread from heaven).

Now, recall that the law is not made for believers: "Therefore th law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR" (Gal. 3:24-25).

The Pharisees rose up and said that Paul's converts must get circumcised: "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them [Paul and his followers] to keep the law of Moses" (Acts. 15:5). Peter replied: "Why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples [Gentiles] which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15:10). Why did Peter defend Paul's gospel of grace? Because earlier, God prepared Peter for this very day when He sent Peter to the Gentile centurion Cornelius. When Peter entered the centurion's house, the Holy Spirit fell on all. Peter was ASTONISHED because these Gentiles were not circumcised and circumcision was the gateway to God through Israel. There was no better way for God to communicate to Peter and the circumcision apostles that God was cutting off Israel and passing the mantle to Paul. This is the first and only Biblical record of any circumcision apostle witnessing to any Gentiles. In fact when Peter returned to Jerusalem and told his fellow Jews that he had gone to Gentiles, they "contended with him" (Acts 11:2). In fact, Peter and his followers "preached to NONE BUT THE JEWS ONLY" (Acts 11:19).

All members of the Body of Christ are out from under the condemning ministry of the law: "... for you are not under the law but under the grace" (Rom 6:14). "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law" (Gal. 5:18).

The law is not of faith: "Yet the law is not of faith, but the man who does them shall live by them" (Gal. 3:12).

But: "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11:6). So if the law is not of faith (Gal. 3:12), and whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23), then a member of the Body of Christ sins by putting himself under the law.

Righteousness can't come from the law (Rom. 4:5). The law kills (Rom. 7:9-11; 5:12, 20). "For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law" (Gal. 3:21). "But now." When you read where Paul writes, "But now" you can reason that something must have been different in the past. "But now the righteousness of God APART FROM THE LAW is revealed" (Rom. 3:21). "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness" (Rom. 10:3-4).

God's law is a ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:7). "There is therefore now no concemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh (law) but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:1-1). Paul said that he was "alive once without the law, but the law came and he died" (Rom. 7:8-11). The Ten Commandments are a ministry of death engraved on stone (2 Cor. 3:7).

When does the law pass away? The law has not passed away but is in the process of passing away just as the glow of Moses face (representing the law) passed away. The law passes away for each individal when they accept Jesus Christ as their sacrifice for them.

What replaces the law. The ministry of the law is replaced by the more glorious ministry of the Spirit of God "in you, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27). Also see 2 Cor. 3:7-8; 3:17; 3:9; 3:10-11.

Think about this. By the Tree is the knowledge of sin (Gen. 3:22). By the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20; 7:7). Notice the paralles:

God said: "Do not eat from the Tree lest you die" (Gen. 2:17).
Serpent: "You will not surely die" (Gen. 3:4).
God: "The law is a ministry of death" (2 Cor. 3:7).
Legalist: "You will not surely die."

Serpent: "The tree will open your eyes and you will know good from evil" (Gen. 3:5).
Legalist: The law will open your eyes and you will know good from evil.

Serpent: "Eat from the Tree and you will be like God" (Gen. 3:5).
Legalist: Keep the law and you will be holy like God.

The struggle today for believers is the same struggle that confronted Adam and Eve: Partake of the Tree of Life (Jesus) or partake of the Tree of Knowledge (the Law).

When we put ourselves under the law, we return to bondage which "we have been delivered from."

God gives no man atta-boys for doing a work or not sinning just because the law says he should or should not. Ask any wife about this scenario. We get to heaven and the wife learns that her husband has not once been with another woman. But hen she learns that for 20 years, he lusted after his neighbor's wife--when she got out of the car, when she cut the grass, when she weeded her garden. Jesus said, that "if you lust in your heart, you have committed adultery."

Which will be more successful at keeping a man faithful to his wife, the law that says thou shall not commit adultery or love for his wife. Which will be more successful at keeping a man from stealing, love for his neighbor or thou shall not steal." Love for God and love for your neighbor replaces the law. "Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

True story: I had a sister who was in nursing school. I was a teen when I came in the house and my mother and sister were looking at a large book with pictures. They closed the book quickly and I asked what the book was about. My mother threatened me with death if I ever looked or even touched that book. Later than afternoon, my mother and sister went shopping. Five minutes after they left the house, I had that book off the shelf. It turned out to be a few harmless pictures of some naked women who had some skin deseases. Had that been a book of Shakespere, I would now be a Shakesperian scholar. I would have gone in depth to see what was the forbidden fruit that they did not want me to see.

God's grace allows us to be saved through faith. His grace is not our own doing but a gift from God.

Then why don't you accept it? Right now, you don't believe you are saved but are going to an imaginary Purgatory. Can you give me some Biblical support for Purgatory?

You've confused this with our justification. His grace allows us to be justified by works and faith both, as the Bible says.

Wrong. By the law no one will be justified. The law is not of faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God. The sting of death is sin. The strength of sin is the law. These are all quotes from Paul.

If you're now going to tell us that only parts of the Bible are right, and others wrong, that's the usual pattern for cafeteria Christians. If the Bible is the word of God, then the Book of James is right that we are justified by faith and works. If it's not the word of God, why should anyone pay attention to it?

The Book of James is right. But it is not right for you. It is written to the Jews who were under the Gospel of Circumcision. You are a Gentile under the Gospel of Uncircumcision. Paul, "the apostle to the Gentiles," is your apostle. You are not under James. If you were, you would have to get circumcised, keep the Sabbath, keep the feasts, and all the other commands that Jesus gave to His Twelve--which are numerous. If you doubt this, I can show you that circumcision, Sabbath law, and feast keeping are PERPETUAL commands to Israel and Israel will be keeping them in the new heaven and the new earth and in the millineium kingdom.

You can't just take the parts you like.

Actually, we should only obey the parts that God directed to us. When you recover from a cold, do you sacrifice a turtle dove? God would not expect you to do so. That command was to Moses under the Gospel of Circumcision.

Barbarian, take your time on this. Digest it at your leisure. I will be away for a while. If you can refute what I just posted, then please do so.

[/QUOTE]They both are.

James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?[/QUOTE]

You are correct that they both are correct. But James is correct if you apply it to Jews under the Gospel of Circumcision. Paul is correct if you apply his writing to member of the Body of Christ. But if you apply James to yourself, then you are incorrect.

No, he does not. It's just that some people, in the last few hundred years, didn't like what God had to say about it, and tried to improve His word.

Barbarian, when you "rightly divide the word of truth" as Paul recommends, all your connundrums and doctrinal disputes will vanish. I think I've give you enough quotes above to show that Paul's gospel and Peter's gospel are diametrically opposed. Bot have received different marchng orders from their Commander (Jesus). God is free to do that. Is He not, to tell Peter to do this and to tell Paul to do that?

Christians don't. Your religion seems to be another matter.

Barbarian, if you rightly divide Israel from the Body, Circumcision from Uncircumcision, law from grace, Peter from Paul, there are no problems. But problems do occur when you put all these in a blender and blenderize them. They don't go together.

Barbarian observes:
But I think God has it right. One is justified by works as well as by faith.

God does have it right. He justifies the circumcision by works plus faith. And He justifies those under the Gospel of Uncircumcision by faith alone. Paul received most of his persecution from believing Pharisees. Paul would establish a church and Pharisees would come behind him teaching his converts that they must "get circumcised and keep the law of Moses." Paul would come back to town and go postal: "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Having begun in the Spirit [grace without out law] are you now made perfect by the law? I FEAR FOR YOU!" (Galatians). "If any man preaches any other gospel than the one I preach, LET HIM BE ACCURSED! [paraphrased]."

But he doesn't. I think the common wisdom is true; some of you have abandoned Christianity for Paulism.
Paul would be appalled.

When I read this, I groaned in my spirit. Surely you are not saying that what Paul teaches is false? What do you mean by "Paulism"?

Tom