ECT According to Paul he was not the only one that preached the MYSTERY.
- Thread starter dodge
- Start date
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
The historical event details were not the official interp that God commissioned Paul to teach about those historical events.
Interplanner
Well-known member
lol; it is a meaningless expression. I doubt if either of you can provide a decent explanation of what is meant.
In the prophetic writings, the work of Christ was embedded, but the mentality of Judaism in the law prevented them from seeing Christ in their Scriptures--from seeing that "these testify of me." That is the clear NT position; what Danoh wrote is anyone's guess.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
My only point for asking, is the evidence is that Jesus was never condemned in His own Person. Even the civil authorities could only claim truth about Him.
The condemnation mankind suffers from the hand of God is death as the wages of sins. And it is death that Jesus conquered on the cross. Thus He taught, John 11:25-26 even before His crucifixion.
Not only are His elect children spared God's wrath, condemnation unto death, judgement, but also the second death. Revelation 20:6
Wonderful truths and promises to Christians!
BTW, you appear well read. Have you read John Owen's "Death of Death In The Death of Christ?" Such is my frame of reference in this discussion.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I only remember hearing about it. I'll have to go look it up and see if it is utterly new to me.
"What Danoh wrote" - this here 'Same principle - both in Prophecy and Mystery - different in application, or in use of - in each' - is YOUR "anyone's guess."
Is YOUR having been rendered an incompetent at piecing a thing together unless it is spoonfed to you due to your over reliance on an ever endless books based wisdom of men doing your thinking FOR you.
"Same principle, different in application" is a principle found at work in Scripture.
Throughout the Scripture; is God found to hate sin?
Yes.
Same principle throughout.
Does God deal with sin in the same manner before the Cross, as He does after the Cross - especially in Paul's writings?
No.
Same principle; different in application post Paul.
Because all Scripture is given by inspiration, it is therefore all profitable for instruction in righteousness.
Same principle throughout.
Is that instruction in righteousness the same in application under the Law, prior to Paul, as it is after his having been called?
No.
Same principle, different in application, after the Cross and unbelieving Israel's having continued in their forefather's fall.
When Paul quotes the OT, he is applying this same (principle, but) different (in his application of it).
Case in point - a passage many - including some Dispys are thrown by - Paul's quoting of ...
Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Look at the flow of his thought starting way back in his assertion in chapter one that what he is preaching was not handed down to him but by the Lord Himself.
Meaning, his is NOT OT.
He quotes that passage in light of that.
He is NOT asserting what many erroneously conclude he is asserting.
Paul is NOT asserting that that passage he is quoting prophesied what he would one day preach.
Rather; he is asserting an operating principle that was at work back when the event that passage describes took place, that also applies in his day - but differently.
As in the sense of when two people are talking about a thing and one of them says "you know how it is, _________" and quotes some figure of speech that illustrates some literal, operative principle they are both familiar with...
As in "you know how it is...he chased her and chased her, until she caught him, lol"
As in "you know how it goes, it takes two to tango..."
That is Paul's use of his same principle, different in application within his "my gospel."
The problem o book worm?
1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
Book worm...
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, that was EXACTLY my point. Instead, let's stick to the FACTS.
Right Divider
Body part
You're so blinded by false doctrine that there is no discussing what the scripture actually says. You don't care what it says.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You are starting to communicate, but maybe I can help. Let's take the atonement. Do you remember that verse during the crucifixion where Jesus said: "It is finished for the Jews." Then a little later he said "Now it is finished for the Greeks who came here to Judea to see me." Then a little later he said "Now it is finished for the Samaritans."?
That's what I'm talking about.
Right Divider
Body part
This changes NOTHING about the plans that God has for the heavens and the earth. You're a big fan of mixing apples and walruses.
Interplanner
Well-known member
OK, You won't answer the most basic of questions. I hear this kind of thing all the time from D'ists: separate gospels, separate appeals, separate gods, separate times when sins were atoned for, separate ways sins were atoned for, etc etc as nauseum. It is a fraud and a cult.
Right Divider
Body part
This coming from a VanderLaanian... I know that I'm in great shape.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't know what you mean and the question/text we were talking about is how D'ism sometimes says that separate events were the atonement for separate groups sins. What do you say?
That doesn't make any sense. Jesus never taught the 12 it was OK to eat those animals prior to Paul's conversion.
Just because it isn't being discussed doesn't mean it's lost. In fact, dispensationalism is about what, exactly, He did on the cross.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't know what you mean about formatting.
2P2P is the doctrine that the Bible is about 2 peoples and 2 programs. Ryrie used the expression as a title of a chapter in his book on D'ism which he said was the indispensable core of the system. The 2P2P are never about the same thing, never the same gospel, never the same solution, never the same age, etc. Which is a total fraud once you really know the NT. All you end up with is awkward, contorted, spastic switching points back and forth between the two, instead of one coherent Bible.
There's even "people in Jerusalem will go to the temple in the millenium and sacrifice animals but only if they believe that Christ died for their sins..." nonsense.
It will be most constructive if you go back and read some of the posts on this; I've been here 1.5 years and many posts on the problem.
Look at your post, You need to fix your quote formatting.
OK
I've been here 13. I've been over this subject plenty.