Your obtuse incessant-ness is quite fascinating/fracturating, Captain.
ECT There is one God who justifies
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Your obtuse incessant-ness is quite fascinating/fracturating, Captain.
Nope.
With the exception of the Believing Remant of Israel; all of which had believed and been sealed just prior to Acts 7's conclusion that the rest of Israel had continued in the Uncircumcision of heart of their forefathers; all (both lost Jew and Gentile) were now/ had been concluded by the Law - Uncircumcision, Gal. 2; 1 Thess. 2; Rom. 2; Rom. 3; Rom. 11, etc.
Ripe for this seemingly odd new Apostle's ministry among both, as "under sin" or "heathen."
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Am well aware of his arguments.
I was addressing that to you.
ROTFL - you're often basic problem is your being so busy thinking you are being Andy looking over at one of Barney's mis-fires, that you fail to consider that you might actually be playing Barney in one or another of said mis-fires of his
Interplanner
Well-known member
Tam wrote:
Kingdom saints born under the law.
BOC saints born not under the law.
There is no proof of such distinction. Some believers were born under the law and graduated out of it through Christ.
It's just the irrationality of D'ism again. Splitting up the Bible so they can take credit for making it 'make sense.'
Kingdom saints born under the law.
BOC saints born not under the law.
There is no proof of such distinction. Some believers were born under the law and graduated out of it through Christ.
It's just the irrationality of D'ism again. Splitting up the Bible so they can take credit for making it 'make sense.'
Hi ITER why does Rom 3:30 say , " declare righteous CIRCUMCISION FROM FAITH ??
Then says , " and UNCIRCUMCISION THROUGH FAITH ??
Why does the Holy Spirit say " SHALL JUSTIFY / DIKAIOO " and use it in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , ACTIVE VOICE and in the INDICATIVE MOOD ??
Acts 15:11 comes to mind and the GREAT TRIBULATION !!
Looks like 2 gospels here as written in Gal 2:7 THE UN-circumcision AND THE CIRCUMCISION !!
dan p
Within Paul's God given Doctrine, the actual sense of Romans 3:30's "shall" is that of a Principle not bound by time (past, present, future, and it's various aspects) - the sense is that of an ONGOING Principle.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Even in verse 30, by itself, it's "shall" refers to an Ongoing Principle - that applies to both groups - NOT will apply one day, but does.
The Principle - the just shall live by faith - is an Ongoing principle.
Thus, why Paul ends all that with verse 31.
Which is to say that the following - a Dispensational issue - is also still the case...
Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Acts 17:11,12
__________________
Another thought - that there at the beginning of Romans 3, is Israel's aspect of the following...
Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
The problem non-Dispys have, and that even many Dispys end up at, as to seeing these things for what they are, is in their failure to see these Two-Fold Distinctions within Paul's God given Dual-Focus.
Paul's had been a very unique context.
The temporary diminishing away of the one, even as the other, continued to move forward towards it's even now continuing move forward towards it's own fulness.
Rom. 9-11.
Right Divider
Body part
As opposed to all of the unofficial references in other parts of scripture?
You are a loon. You should quit embarrassing yourself in front of the TOL audience.
Right Divider
Body part
How about this One.... did He also "graduate out of it"?
Gal 4:4-5 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:4) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (4:5) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
And THIS from a guy that wants to re-translate "mnuwchah" to TOXIC.
You are a Bible perverter.
Interplanner
Well-known member
So your redemption doesn't put people in the Christian fellowship then? Redeemed from under the law?
You need to grow up about your misunderstanding about toxic water. The word picture makes perfect sense to me either way, but all over the middle east tribal culture, they avoid still water because it is toxic. a good shepherd does not let them drink it. You are just evading the huge mistakes D'ism consists of.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I checked back 3 pages and could not find this. I don' know the context. Some of them are what I call the self-organizing passages of the NT, but not I Cor 1. They have to be ones that take up much broader themes. I think you have been dishonest by not providing the context.
Right Divider
Body part
When were the gentiles under the law?
Was the LORD Jesus Christ "redeemed from under the law"?
So a Hebrew WORD should be MISTRANSLATED to fit your IDEA of what it SHOULD mean?
You are the one that needs to grow up.
Right Divider
Body part
You can't see the POST of YOURS that I QUOTED?
You and your "official" nonsense show just how confused you really are.
Interesting point - that is actually a distinction about water that is noted in the Scripture.
Problem is, you obviously came to it, not so much through your obviously endless books "about" but through your obvious OVER reliance on them, over the Scripture.
In this, your kind are not only ever obvious, but ever obviously convinced you know the Scripture, you so often prove you largely have merely read and read...and read..."about."
That right there is why your posts fail to impress, let alone get through, to those who have actually invested a great deal of time in the Scripture itself - even when your kind point out a thing that is actually held up by Scripture, that even the Bible based student may not be yet aware of and or may have momentarily forgotten.
Good point, but you obviously cheated your way to your awareness of it's truth.
Try actual time in the Scripture ALONE.
For at least several years.
You have all those books in you, you know.
It's not like one more will ever again be needed by you.
The trick will be how to allow the Scripture to reign over your so obviously OVER relied on books based "understanding."
Perhaps...it is simply to late for you...perhaps you are simply to deeply entrenched in your..."next click - Amazon..."
Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8
[video]https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fractured+fairy+tales&qpvt=fractured+fairy+tales&view=detail&mid=2E7846803E87A0BEF8A32E7846803E87A0BEF8A3&FORM=VRDGAR[/video]
Interplanner
Well-known member
I generally have two lists like that:
1, the self-organizing core doctrinal passages on the arc or progression of the Bible
2, the group that is about the 2nd coming in plain English and say nothing about the restoration of the land
Your list is neither of them and I don't have I cor 1 in either of them. so I don't accept it, and you pounded on me this spring for not finding something you said. Now it is your turn to produce.
Right Divider
Body part
God promised Israel the land. God does NOT have to repeat Himself to suit your false needs.
:dog:
Interplanner
Well-known member
The apostles' teaching are not "false needs." And they are not that the land of Israel "needs" to be restored to Israel. In Acts 13, Paul showed that that kind of thing (land, kingdom) had already served its purpose. Now it was time for a message that automatically accelerated the mission that would fulfill 'all nations will be blessed in your Seed.'
Right Divider
Body part
If God does not keep His promises, He would be a liar like you.
But God is NOT a liar; therefore He will do what He said regardless of your false understanding of what the apostle taught.