ECT The Gospel Proper

[glorydaz]

I'm seeing an bristling resistance against "love one another" and "love thy enemy." You seem to be unwilling to apply this standard towards yourself. How many times have you been asked for a straight answer? Half a dozen already? on this board? Yet evasion from you each and every time.

And why the evasion? Because you know what the right answer is supposed to be, but your pride (and a mistaken loyalty to a MAD paradigm) won't allow you to say it aloud.

THAT STANDARD is LAW.

The "right" answer is man cannot muster up enough love to suit you law followers. You want to claim YOU can muster up the love it takes, but your words prove it is not happening. I haven't seen so little love being evidenced since .....well, never mind. That poster is no longer with us.

The commandment you keep demanding we hold up as a standard, is not one those who are saved by grace will claim as their own doing. We give ALL GLORY to God who has filled us with HIS LOVE, and the Holy Spirit for producing His fruit in and through us.

So stomp your little feet and drone on an on. You only show you are under the law, and seek to take away the liberty we have in Christ Jesus. You brag on your "fruits", which are works of the flesh, and refuse to be corrected. Put off that foolish pride, [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION], and stop trying to straddle that fence between Law and Grace. It's giving you a wedgie...thus your grumpy attitude.

You were on ignore mode until not too long ago. Maybe you belong back again.

Good Lord the threats from this poster grow scarier every day. :shocked:

 

[Right Divider]

I'm seeing an bristling resistance against "love one another" and "love thy enemy." You seem to be unwilling to apply this standard towards yourself. How many times have you been asked for a straight answer? Half a dozen already? on this board? Yet evasion from you each and every time.

:baby:

And why the evasion? Because you know what the right answer is supposed to be, but your pride (and a mistaken loyalty to a MAD paradigm) won't allow you to say it aloud.

I answered a long time ago. You are the one with issues.

You were on ignore mode until not too long ago. Maybe you belong back again.

You ignore me either way.

 

[Rosenritter]

:baby:

I answered a long time ago. You are the one with issues.

One who loves God shouldn't have any trouble reaffirming that "love thy enemies" and "love thy brethren" applies to them also.

You ignore me either way.

Welcome back to ignore status.

 

[glorydaz]

One who loves God shouldn't have any trouble reaffirming that "love thy enemies" and "love thy brethren" applies to them also.



Welcome back to ignore status.

This one loves to provoke, and hates to listen. :rotfl:

 

[glorydaz]

Some may ask, "Why do you not use the law as your standard?"

Matt. 22:36-40 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.​

When a person slaps down the law as proof they are better than you, just remember, righteous does not come from the law. And when they fail in one point, they fail in all.

Romans 10:4-5 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.​

 

[Right Divider]

One who loves God shouldn't have any trouble reaffirming that "love thy enemies" and "love thy brethren" applies to them also.

I fully understood the twist that you were trying to put on it. Therefore, I wouldn't play your game. Too bad.

Welcome back to ignore status.

Thank you.

 

[Danoh]

I'm seeing an bristling resistance against "love one another" and "love thy enemy." You seem to be unwilling to apply this standard towards yourself. How many times have you been asked for a straight answer? Half a dozen already? on this board? Yet evasion from you each and every time.

And why the evasion? Because you know what the right answer is supposed to be, but your pride (and a mistaken loyalty to a MAD paradigm) won't allow you to say it aloud.



You were on ignore mode until not too long ago. Maybe you belong back again.

Actually, you're not off on this "love your enemy...love one another" you have been going on about.

Paul himself often brings said two-fold issue up. As in...

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

And in...

Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And so on.

At the same time, the intent of Israel's "instruction in righteousness" on that, differed under the Law from that of the Body's under Grace.

Under the Law, its intent had been that of...

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

But that is not where we are. For...

3:21 BUT NOW the righteousness of God WITHOUT the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

And this side of that, the intent is that of CHOOSING TO manifest what we are now also called unto, yes, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, are NOW ABLE TO, IF we'll but CHOOSE TO look to THE CROSS, during such moments.

As in the following...

Romans 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

That is the issue of our CHOOSING TO focus on how that "even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me."

We are THEN able to do what the Israelite could only hope to fail at, under the Law, given both the Law's intent (the awareness of indwelling sin), and given that the Law had been designed to be weak through the flesh, towards said intent - the awareness of said indwelling sin.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Solution?

The Cross.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Resulting enablement?

Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

To walk in the Spirit, then, refers to CHOOSING TO walk in a clear understanding of OUR "instruction in righteousness" THIS SIDE of the FINISHED work of The Cross.

A clear understanding found in Paul's writings. As in his...

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are NOT under the law, BUT under grace.

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast THEREFORE in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

He is saying standfast therefore, in a clear understanding of your stand before God, justified in His Son.

In short, Grace has its own "instruction in righteousness."

Your intent is commendable.

No need to mix Law and Grace, towards said intent, though.

Not this side of, and because...Romans 5:6-8.

 

[Rosenritter]

Actually, you're not off on this "love your enemy...love one another" you have been going on about.

Paul himself often brings said two-fold issue up. As in...

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

And in...

Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And so on.

At the same time, the intent of Israel's "instruction in righteousness" on that, differed under the Law from that of the Body's under Grace.

Under the Law, its intent had been that of...

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Spoiler

But that is not where we are. For...

3:21 BUT NOW the righteousness of God WITHOUT the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

And this side of that, the intent is that of CHOOSING TO manifest what we are now also called unto, yes, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, are NOW ABLE TO, IF we'll but CHOOSE TO look to THE CROSS, during such moments.

As in the following...

Romans 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

That is the issue of our CHOOSING TO focus on how that "even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me."

We are THEN able to do what the Israelite could only hope to fail at, under the Law, given both the Law's intent (the awareness of indwelling sin), and given that the Law had been designed to be weak through the flesh, towards said intent - the awareness of said indwelling sin.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Solution?

The Cross.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Resulting enablement?

Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

To walk in the Spirit, then, refers to CHOOSING TO walk in a clear understanding of OUR "instruction in righteousness" THIS SIDE of the FINISHED work of The Cross.

A clear understanding found in Paul's writings. As in his...

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are NOT under the law, BUT under grace.

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast THEREFORE in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

He is saying standfast therefore, in a clear understanding of your stand before God, justified in His Son.

In short, Grace has its own "instruction in righteousness."

Your intent is commendable.

No need to mix Law and Grace, towards said intent, though.

Not this side of, and because...Romans 5:6-8.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

OK, good talk, good intentions, let's go from here. Romans 13:8, "love is the fulfilling of the law" should be understood that the intent of the law was to bring one to that point. If Israel had already been at that point "Love" ("all the law is fulfilled in one word") then there would have been no need to have given them any law... would there?

Galatians 3:23-25 KJV
(23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
(24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
(25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Christ was not a schoolmaster to bring Israel to the law, rather Jesus came to fulfill the law. He fulfilled the law (the scripture) in terms of prophecy, but there is another fulfillment as well. Sometimes it is called love, sometimes it is called faith. In this context of Christ they are one and the same, for to deny one is to deny the other. One cannot love God without faith, and one does not have faith in God without love.

God does not have two separate standards and two separate paths of salvation. Salvation has never of works of the law, and does not Paul say no man is justified by deeds of the law? (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16.) God is the same yesterday and today and forever, and salvation has always been of faith, and that faith in Him is defined and exercised by the law of love.

Romans 13:8-10 KJV
(8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
(9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Paul doesn't say that we are under the law of Moses, or any of its rites or other traditions within that covenant, but he has no qualms telling us that we are supposed to to fulfill the law, that we are to accomplish the intent of those laws. Some people here (posting) seem to have a resistance to anything that Christ commands. I say that this should not be. If we love Him, if we truly have faith in him, will we not willingly obey always? And if he commands us to love each other and to even love our enemy, this is the gospel in one word. If you (or I) were to learn nothing else in this life, that would be the word to learn.

 

[Rosenritter]

To be sure, the following is not a pill simple for many to swallow.

Not when they have a placebo of their own imagination.

What are the "odds" of imagining someone else that you don't know to give you money that is specifically labelled "from God" and that this placebo effect actually has effect at a banking institution that redeems said instrument? Should Matthew 17:27 be discounted as a placebo for the weak minded as well?

Matthew 17:27 KJV
(27) Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

A miracle is when God intervenes in our world, and as such there are no small miracles. The parting of the Red Sea and the raising of the dead may be dramatic miracles, but it is no less a miracle than when He protects us from evil spirits, or when an angel speaks aloud to the driver at a dangerous path on the highway. God can use miracle when it suits him for his own reasons.

 

[Truster]

"A miracle is when God intervenes in our world," hahahahahahaaaa.

 

[turbosixx]

Your "study" of that is too narrow, fails to consider various key issues.

Paul is defending himself before unbelieving Israel, which has accused him of having polluted the Temple (and by that, himself) by his having brought a Gentile (considered unclean) into the Temple with him.

So he attempts to show them that that is not true, that he is not unclean, by mentioning that Ananias, a man they all knew was devout according to the Law, was a witness that he was not unclean.

And in his mention of this devout man according to the Law, he mentions what both they and said devout man would have understood about baptism according to the Law.

He mentions THEIR mutual understanding of THEIR water ritual for cleansing a Jew outwardly of his unclean flesh.

The practice was an Israelite ritual.

A ritual that was not new to Israel...

John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. 3:24 For John was not yet cast into prison. 3:25 Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews ABOUT PURIFYING. 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

Seriously, you need to get a better grasp of "context."

Nehemiah 8:8

Well put. I agree with you in that Paul is appealing to the Jew in his listeners in the hopes that they will understand the truth. He really gets their attention by starting off speaking in Hebrew and continues to appeal to their Jewish heritage but I suggest to you baptism isn't an Israelite ritual.

I suggest your context is to narrow as well. Water baptism started with John the Baptist to prepare the way for Jesus and it's a gospel of Christ ritual. If we start with John's and then go to Christ's we see the method doesn't change but it's purpose changes.
John prepares the way for the gospel of Jesus by baptizing.
Mk. 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’”
4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

John's baptism was for repentance and looking forward to Christ. Before Jesus ascended, He changes baptism from being for repentance to being for the forgiveness of sins by putting His authority behind it. Those who are baptized "in the name of" Jesus have their sins forgiven by the authority of His blood.

Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That is why Ananias says "wash away your sins". Water baptism is not getting wet but an appeal to God for a clear conscience by authority of Jesus's resurrection.
1 Pt. 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The gospel was to the Jew first, that's why you assume it's an Israelite ritual. After Jesus's DBR, it was for all but it just took a little time to get to all. It was for the Jew first.

That is my current understanding.

 

[Right Divider]

Well put. I agree with you in that Paul is appealing to the Jew in his listeners in the hopes that they will understand the truth. He really gets their attention by starting off speaking in Hebrew and continues to appeal to their Jewish heritage but I suggest to you baptism isn't an Israelite ritual.

John the B was a Israelite.
Peter was an Israelite.
Jesus was an Israelite.
Paul was an Israelite.

I suggest your context is to narrow as well. Water baptism started with John the Baptist to prepare the way for Jesus and it's a gospel of Christ ritual.

You are seriously ignorant of what came before and what was a continuation of what came before.

If we start with John's and then go to Christ's we see the method doesn't change but it's purpose changes.

Mar 1:4 KJV John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.​

​

Act 2:38 KJV 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.​

The same baptism.

 

[Idolater]

...Some people here (posting) seem to have a resistance to anything that Christ commands. I say that this should not be. If we love Him, if we truly have faith in him, will we not willingly obey always? And if he commands us to love each other and to even love our enemy, this is the gospel in one word. If you (or I) were to learn nothing else in this life, that would be the word to learn.

I like this. I think it belong as its own suggestion to the OP. Love. It is a homonym. It is a noun, and this noun is fully expanded upon beginning with Christ's Resurrection, and stretching outward from it. And Love is a command, and from here we can break out the entire moral teaching of Christ.

:thumb:

 

[turbosixx]

"WE" shouldn't consider what is different as the same. :nono:

Are you saying the gospels are not the same?

I know there was a reason, and you've admitted as much. So why don't you consider that when you read what He said while He walked among us?

Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:​

I believe as far as this point is concerned, we're on the same page.

You can read about it in Romans 11, but basically it's the way to being accepted by God. Before this, the way to God's acceptance had to be through the Jews, but now the way is opened to the Gentiles as well.

I understand that but what were the Gentiles grafted into? What was it?

The remnant were Peter and the other believing Jews. Did the Kingdom on earth come in because of that remnant? No, it was put off, because the leaders of Israel rejected our Lord when He came.

What happens to those who are not of the remnant?

It was agreed that Peter, James, and John would only go to the Circumcision. How can proof be given for what they did not do?

Galatians 2:9 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.​

The proof I see that they converted Christians exactly the same is by reading what Peter preached and did to add people and then reading what Paul preached and did to add people. It's identical.

 

[turbosixx]

The problem is there were two messages being preached at the same time. Here, James is realizing that and instead of requiring Gentiles to keep the whole law, as the Jews did, he suggests they only abstain from these few "laws". This clearly shows that the twelve were still living under the law, and preaching it. That they made this "exception" for the Gentiles was a big step for a Jew who was zealous for the law.

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.​

I'm sorry. This does not prove they were teaching the law. Continuing to observe the law is not forbidden for the infant believer. Even though they are weak in the faith, they are pleasing God by observing the law.
Rom. 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Being converted to a Christian doesn't mean one is automatically fully mature, it takes time.

Paul was in full agreement to the conclusion of the meeting and travels with the letter. Was Paul teaching the law?

 

[turbosixx]

You are seriously ignorant of what came before and what was a continuation of what came before.

What came before was not the same thing.

Mar 1:4 KJV John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.​

​

Act 2:38 KJV 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.​

The same baptism.

If it's the same baptism, why did Paul baptize people in the name of Jesus who had already been baptized with John's baptism?

Acts 19:3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Right Divider]

What came before was not the same thing.

Ignorance, like I said.

If it's the same baptism, why did Paul baptize people in the name of Jesus who had already been baptized with John's baptism?

He didn't. This has been CLEARLY explained to you before.

And you claim that "you want to learn". Sure you do.... NOT!

Acts 19:3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The THEY in verse 5 are those that heard JOHN. That is STILL part of Paul's story and NOT what he did then and there.

 

[Danoh]

OK, good talk, good intentions, let's go from here. Romans 13:8, "love is the fulfilling of the law" should be understood that the intent of the law was to bring one to that point. If Israel had already been at that point "Love" ("all the law is fulfilled in one word") then there would have been no need to have given them any law... would there?

Galatians 3:23-25 KJV
(23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
(24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
(25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Christ was not a schoolmaster to bring Israel to the law, rather Jesus came to fulfill the law. He fulfilled the law (the scripture) in terms of prophecy, but there is another fulfillment as well. Sometimes it is called love, sometimes it is called faith. In this context of Christ they are one and the same, for to deny one is to deny the other. One cannot love God without faith, and one does not have faith in God without love.

God does not have two separate standards and two separate paths of salvation. Salvation has never of works of the law, and does not Paul say no man is justified by deeds of the law? (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16.) God is the same yesterday and today and forever, and salvation has always been of faith, and that faith in Him is defined and exercised by the law of love.

Romans 13:8-10 KJV
(8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
(9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Paul doesn't say that we are under the law of Moses, or any of its rites or other traditions within that covenant, but he has no qualms telling us that we are supposed to to fulfill the law, that we are to accomplish the intent of those laws. Some people here (posting) seem to have a resistance to anything that Christ commands. I say that this should not be. If we love Him, if we truly have faith in him, will we not willingly obey always? And if he commands us to love each other and to even love our enemy, this is the gospel in one word. If you (or I) were to learn nothing else in this life, that would be the word to learn.

Funny post, that was.

I said what I said, based on the many passages I posted on it.

In contrast, your reply evidences the same old, ever obvious "this guy got all that from reading books supposedly about it, which he now reads into it."

Your kind all evidence that sort of thing, all the time - your notions and that of the endless books "about" you have all clearly weaned yourselves on, in your ignorance that that is how one studies the Bible - via endless books "about" it.

Thus, your ever clueless "one size fits all."

And there is no reasoning with that. None. For your kind only prove you have ended up not only too long entrenched in your fool's gold approach, but determined to remain married to it, no matter what is pointed out to you, which you refuse to even study out - if -you even can rightly, to begun with.

Like Turbo - forever arguing about the origin of water baptism based on what he has obviously erroneously learned to read into passages in the NT, when he knows well and good that he has yet to sit down to attempt track its obvious origin out back in the OT, despite how often that has been asserted and or pointed out to him.

You're only fooling yourselves, with your obviously parroted, man made up supposed "Bible" study "approaches."

Until your kind are honest with yourselves, you will continue to expose your good intentions for what they are - the good intention of the clueless.

Until then, there is no reasoning with your kind. None.

As much fun as it is. So thanks for that much.



Romans 14:5, in memory of Romans 5:6-8, in each our stead.

 

[Danoh]

What came before was not the same thing.



If it's the same baptism, why did Paul baptize people in the name of Jesus who had already been baptized with John's baptism?

Acts 19:3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The seeming specifics you focus on are those of an amateur.

Which is one big reason why there is no getting through to you - you actually believe you know what you are doing when you focus on the wrong details.

Until you actually bother to attempt to trace out the origin of water baptism in the OT, you will not properly understand what a lot of passages in the NT like "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" Luke 1:17, are actually talking about, and thus, their connection to the OT's water ritual.

Oh, you'll respond to this post with your own ideas. That's a given.

But all that is, is your need to show that you know a thing or two.

The very impulse in you that circumvents what you should have long done by now - gotten - in - the - OT - and - studied - out - THERE - ISRAEL'S - DIVERS (many and diverse) - WASHINGS.

For "To the law and to the testimony:" Turbo - "if" you "speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in" you on it - Isaiah 8:20.

You clearly haven't THEIR (the Law and the Prophets') light on this issue.

Acts 17:11, 12.

 

[turbosixx]

Ignorance, like I said.


He didn't. This has been CLEARLY explained to you before.

And you claim that "you want to learn". Sure you do.... NOT!


The THEY in verse 5 are those that heard JOHN. That is STILL part of Paul's story and NOT what he did then and there.

You're right we've been over this before. Neither of us has moved so no need to rehash. Maybe soon we can enjoy discussing another topic.

Thanks