Theology Club: The Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of Grace

[surrender]

God’s Law began in the Garden when He commanded man not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and if he should do so, he would die. Paul confirms that this was a command (Rom. 5:14). Laws say “Do this, don’t do that, and if you do, this will be the consequence.” Therefore, there was, indeed, law prior to the written, codified law (i.e. Mosaic Law). Paul tells us in Romans 5:13 that before the Mosaic Law was given, sin was in the world. When Paul next says that sin is not taken into account when there is no law, he is not saying that prior to the Mosaic Law, there was no imputation of sin. He is affirming that law was, indeed, in the world prior to the Mosaic Law, because we see the results of the imputation of sin: death. And to clarify, imputation of sin is a result of sinning (Romans 5:12). I believe that Romans 1:19-20 and Romans 2:15 suggest that this law prior to the Mosaic Law was a law written on hearts.

I believe there continues to be a law written on hearts, but those in Christ are not held captive by its condemnation because we have died with Christ in his death. This law has jurisdiction over a person only as long as he lives (Romans 7:1), and since we have died with Christ, this law (which says, “You sin, you die”) cannot condemn us. Yes, we still see the effects of sin (i.e. death), but that doesn’t mean there continues to be imputation of sin for us, for our faith informs us that death will not hold us.

It is now the Law of Christ which has authority over us. This law does not include condemnation and death. It sets us free to fulfill it through the power of the Holy Spirit without fear of failure, because we have a sympathetic High Priest and ready Advocate, and without fear of death, because we look to the resurrection and final defeat of death.

 

[godrulz]

Romans 7

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Sin is transgression of the law.

This is one aspects that I already stated (lawlessness). It is not the only relevant verse/principle on what sin is and is not.

 

[Lighthouse]

A systematic theology text will give you verses about the multi-faceted nature of sin (hamartiology). If you look at all the verses related to sin and the principles, you will see that it is not a substance, not genetic, etc. (unless you make metaphors wooden literalisms).

Sin is a wrong moral choice, rebellion, disobedience, missing the mark, lawlessness, volitional, etc. This can be established from many verses, so don't limit it to your myopic view only.

Doing Greek word studies involves more than listing a source. There is a reason not all versions use 'impute', etc. These things are nuanced, complex at times, interpretative, etc.

I still don't see any Scripture to support your definition of sin.

Do you even know any of the verses that state what sin is, or what is sin?

 

[Nick M]

I still don't see any Scripture to support your definition of _______.

Name any item, the statement stands.

 

[godrulz]

I still don't see any Scripture to support your definition of sin.

Do you even know any of the verses that state what sin is, or what is sin?

I do not see verses that say 'God is a trinity', but I can give verses to support this point. I know the verses that describe sin, but they are not one concept/one sentence. There are also other verses/principles to wrestle with to come up with a doctrine. There also is not a verse that says man has free will, but this is self-evident and defensible from the principles in Scripture.

 

[Lighthouse]

I do not see verses that say 'God is a trinity', but I can give verses to support this point. I know the verses that describe sin, but they are not one concept/one sentence. There are also other verses/principles to wrestle with to come up with a doctrine. There also is not a verse that says man has free will, but this is self-evident and defensible from the principles in Scripture.

And yet you still don't post any Scripture...:think:

 

[Bright Raven]

Makes you wonder.

 

[godrulz]

And yet you still don't post any Scripture...:think:

Acts 2


I read the extended passage and see Acts 2 disp, not MAD. You read it and see MAD, not Acts 2 disp.

It is as much a paradigm issue as a proof text one (like Calvinism, we can quote the same verses, but interpret them differently, due to a paradigm vs proof text issue).

I see Gal. 2:7 as a demarcation of ministry, while you see it as two gospels.

I read I Cor. 1 and see that baptismal regeneration is false and Paul did not personally baptize his converts. You read it and think there was a gospel that needed baptism vs Paul's gospel that would reject it.

I have given verses and links with verses, but you will just dismiss them, rely on KJV vs original Greek, etc.

Will not is not cannot.

We are :deadhorse:

You want a verse that disproves MAD or proves my view. I told you we do not prove or disprove the trinity based on one verse, but must look at the cumulative evidence.

The fact that there are disp/covenantal views and a variety of views, even in your ultradisp camp, shows that throwing verses around will not likely resolve the issue (making me think we are all partially right/wrong and it is not as clear cut as you think).

 

[Choleric]

Are they different or are they the same Gospel to different people groups?

There is one gospel for the church, and there is another for the Kingdom of heaven, also known as the millennial kingdom.

Salvation by grace through faith is for the church, the Body of Christ. John the baptist was not in the Body, and neither will all those saved after the rapture be in the Body.

 

[surrender]

There is one gospel for the church, and there is another for the Kingdom of heaven, also known as the millennial kingdom.

Salvation by grace through faith is for the church, the Body of Christ. John the baptist was not in the Body, and neither will all those saved after the rapture be in the Body.

How could the "summing up of ALL things in Christ" (Eph. 1:10) take place if some are not in Christ? Is John the Baptist part of that "summing up of all things"?

How did God reconcile "ALL" things "through" Christ (Col. 1:20) if some are not "in" Christ? Did God reconcile John the Baptist through Christ? Is John part of the "all" things?

 

[Choleric]

How could the "summing up of ALL things in Christ" (Eph. 1:10) take place if some are not in Christ? Is John the Baptist part of that "summing up of all things"?

How did God reconcile "ALL" things "through" Christ (Col. 1:20) if some are not "in" Christ? Did God reconcile John the Baptist through Christ? Is John part of the "all" things?

You are conflating two issues. Jesus said that John was the greatest man that ever lived, and yet the least in the kingdom of God was greater than John. Obviously John is the greatest in one group of saved people, and yet he is less than the least in another. Two groups.

Also, I am a part of the Bride of Christ. John said he was a "friend of the bridegroom". John is not a part of the Bride of Christ. John was saved like all Old Testament saints and it was and is different than the Body of Christ/Bride of Christ.

 

[Pneuma]

The final nail in the MAD coffin.

Who did John write the book of Revelation to?



Revelation 1:4
4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

 

[Bright Raven]

The final nail in the MAD coffin.

Who did John write the book of Revelation to?



Revelation 1:4
4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

So what is your point? Revelation was written to assemblies of Jews. The Twelve wrote to the Jews, Paul wrote to the Gentiles.

 

[Pneuma]

So what is your point? Revelation was written to assemblies of Jews. The Twelve wrote to the Jews, Paul wrote to the Gentiles.

Huh? where did you get that understanding from? it was Paul who founded the church at Ephesus.

So what was John doing writting to them if he was only suppose to be writting to the Jews?

 

[Pneuma]

So what is your point? Revelation was written to assemblies of Jews. The Twelve wrote to the Jews, Paul wrote to the Gentiles.

Huh? where did you get that understanding from? it was Paul who founded the church at Ephesus.

So what was John doing writting to them if he was only suppose to be writting to the Jews?

Also there is hardly any mention of a church outside of Paul's writtings.

 

[Bright Raven]

Huh? where did you get that understanding from? it was Paul who founded the church at Ephesus.

So what was John doing writting to them if he was only suppose to be writting to the Jews?

John pastored the Church at Ephesus from 70 AD until his exile.
This is a rather interesting article if you have time for it. http://www.matthewmcgee.org/7church.html

 

[Pneuma]

John pastored the Church at Ephesus from 70 AD until his exile.
This is a rather interesting article if you have time for it. http://www.matthewmcgee.org/7church.html

I don't have a problem with John pastoring the church at Ephesus which Paul founded, but the question is why was he doing this if he was only to teach the Jews?

As John actually did this puts the final nail in the coffin of MAD.

 

[Bright Raven]

I don't have a problem with John pastoring the church at Ephesus which Paul founded, but the question is why was he doing this if he was only to teach the Jews?

As John actually did this puts the final nail in the coffin of MAD.

Since you probably have not read the article I posted, here is a synopsis of section 3.

Section III: Scriptural Evidence that Revelation was written to Assemblies of Jews - Finally, in this largest section we will examine the scriptural evidence which identifies the people to whom Revelation was written and to which dispensation they belong. We will be looking at some of the scriptural evidence for dating the book of Revelation prior to Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD. But, primarily we will be looking at how the doctrine given to the seven churches of Revelation is the same doctrine that was given to Israel in the Old Testament, and the same as that given in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews and the epistles of Peter, James, Jude, and John. We will see that these ties to Revelation are not merely similarities in language or terminology, but of ideas, basic doctrine, and prophecy. In addition, we will examine several contrasts between the doctrine of the seven churches and the doctrine of Paul's epistles to the Gentiles (Romans-Philemon). Through Revelation's numerous similarities with the books written to the Jews combined with several key differences with Paul's epistles to the Gentiles, we will see that Revelation was written to assemblies of Jews, rather than to the mainly Gentile churches who had been taught by Paul. The seven churches were composed of Jews who believed in Jesus Christ, and they received doctrine for the nation of Israel from an apostle to Israel about the kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament.
_______________________________

 

[Pneuma]

Since you probably have not read the article I posted, here is a synopsis of section 3.

Section III: Scriptural Evidence that Revelation was written to Assemblies of Jews - Finally, in this largest section we will examine the scriptural evidence which identifies the people to whom Revelation was written and to which dispensation they belong. We will be looking at some of the scriptural evidence for dating the book of Revelation prior to Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD. But, primarily we will be looking at how the doctrine given to the seven churches of Revelation is the same doctrine that was given to Israel in the Old Testament, and the same as that given in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews and the epistles of Peter, James, Jude, and John. We will see that these ties to Revelation are not merely similarities in language or terminology, but of ideas, basic doctrine, and prophecy. In addition, we will examine several contrasts between the doctrine of the seven churches and the doctrine of Paul's epistles to the Gentiles (Romans-Philemon). Through Revelation's numerous similarities with the books written to the Jews combined with several key differences with Paul's epistles to the Gentiles, we will see that Revelation was written to assemblies of Jews, rather than to the mainly Gentile churches who had been taught by Paul. The seven churches were composed of Jews who believed in Jesus Christ, and they received doctrine for the nation of Israel from an apostle to Israel about the kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament.
_______________________________

I scanned it briefly. The guy defeated his own article because he even admits that Paul preached to the Jews and Gentiles.

Same question then applies. What in the world was Paul doing teaching the Jews?


And it is a big leap to suggest that there where TWO churches at Ephesus. One established by Paul which consisted of Jews and Gentiles and one established by John consisting of just Jews.

If John came preaching another Gospel then the one Paul did, Paul says John is accursed for doing so because he brought them back into bondage of the law.


And if this only concerns the Jews so to does the lake of fire. So I guess we could say only the Jews are going to be tormented in this fire for all eternity.

 

[Bright Raven]

If John came preaching another Gospel then the one Paul did, Paul says John is accursed for doing so because he brought them back into bondage of the law.

Galatians 2:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: )

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Explain what is the Gospel to the circumcision and what is the Gospel to the uncircumcision. If they are not different why did he differentiate between the two?