Beloved57 are you sure you’re chosen?

glorydaz

Well-known member
When?

When he was writing to the Galatians? That was his gospel that the law was being added to, not the Kingdom gospel.

I'm not clear on what you mean.
I think that "other gospel" was adding the works of the gospel of the Kingdom onto his gospel of grace.
I should have been clearer.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
OK.

So what I'm clocking now is that there was one 'gospel' that Jesus personally preached before He sent out His disciples (A),
then there's whatever 'gospel' His disciples preached before the 'DBR' (B),
there's the 'DBR' 'gospel' that Christ taught His disciples before the 'DBR' (C; aka Paul's Gospel),
there's whatever 'gospel' the Apostles now preached immediately after the 'DBR' and before Paul (D; which might be this "gospel that the law was being added to" you mention),
and there might be another one that the Eleven preached after Paul but that is still not exactly Paul's Gospel (E; after the Acts 15 council).

Could be that 'A' and 'B' and are the same thing and that 'D' and 'E' are some (illicit) mixture of 'A' and 'B' with 'C'?

Is there another "Kingdom gospel" that's different from 'A' and 'B', that includes the 'DBR'?
When Jesus spoke to the apostles about His death, burial, and resurrection, they had no idea what He was saying. I believe He said what He said so WE would see that He knew what was coming. In the Kingdom Gospel, the Jews were to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah. They were still law keepers when He came. It's really not that complicated.
 
Well, I’m assuming he believes in the death of Christ that allows for his sins to be covered through Christs sacrifice and believes in his resurrection which is the reason we can have hope of eternal salvation. That’s all that’s needed.
Then are you answering your question to him?
They may believe this but on judgement day they’ll realize it had nothing to do with this but that they believed all of what I mentioned. I think all Calvinists believe this and that’s what really matters.
If one believes that man is created damned with 'limited atonement', can he truly believe the Creator for his own individual atonement? On what basis can he believe that Christ died for him, yet not for all mankind?

Is it enough to 'hope' that Christ died for me?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You don't have to believe me, but do you believe Jesus?
He said..."And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Oh brother! Ye are probably a King James only nutter to boot!

33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." (Jhn 8:32-34)
The truth can really free us from committing sin.
If it couldn't, Paul never would have written..."Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." (1 Cor 15:34)
Or..."Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." (2 Tim 2:19)
Or..."For he that is dead is freed from sin." (Rom 6:7)
Just incredible! If this sort of stupidity was the way doctrine is supposed to be done, then the bible can be made to argue anything. This is the sort of thing David Koresh did to convince people he was a "sinning Messiah" of all things! This is the same sort of biblical slight of hand that Calvinists use to convince themselves that they have no free will and that the God of love is impassible and that the God who became flesh is immutable. It's a buffoonish way of using the scripture that allows one to "defend" ANY doctrine whatsoever, no matter how weird or idiotic.

You live your life everyday - every single day! You wake up alive and breathing, you're conscious of your own thoughts, words and deeds and yet somehow, someone was able to convince your feeble mind that you no longer commit sin. The only form of delusion that is more pronounced is the Pharaoh Syndrome where you ACTUALLY believe that you are an actual god.

Do you really think Jesus would have suffered, died and risen from the dead just so we could quit sacrificing animals for our sins?
That would have meant Jesus died for the animals, and not for us.
Christianity WITH sin is Judaism re-hashed.
The Jew's entire existence was...sin, atone, sin, atone, sin, atone.
God desired, no, demanded, more. (Matt 5:48)
Jesus lived without sin while in the flesh and undergoing all the same temptations we endure today.
Since we have been given the gift of repentance from sin, we too can live without sin.
Repentance means "turn from" or "change".
Our repentance is to be from sin, so repentant people are non-sinners...or the repentance was false.
We can't build a relationship with God that is based on a lie, a false repentance from sin.
Paul wrote the finest summation of Christianity in Gal 5:24..."And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."
That crucifixion happens at our "immersion" into Christ and into His death and burial at our water baptism, as Rom 6:3-6 lays out.
Kill the flesh, and you too will be enabled to walk in the Spirit henceforth.
May God bless and keep your mind free.
You haven't any idea what you're talking about. The only reason you could ever utter the sentence "Christianity WITH sin is Judaism re-hashed." is because you do not understand the difference between Israel and the Body of Christ. You fail to distinguish Paul's gospel from that taught by Peter, James and John. Which, I would have to say, is rather interesting actually. I would not have expected the heresy of "sinless perfection" to have been one of the many issues connected with that all important distinction. It seems our encounter was not a COMPLETE waste of my time after all.

I'll tell you this...

The two posts that I wrote previously (posts 132 & 143) contain within them THE single most important Christian teaching that you have ever read since you became a Christian and it will continue to be, so long as your natural life persists. Failure to grasp it, believe it and apply it, is to not understand the bible. That's how big a deal it is.

Clete

P.S. To be perfectly clear, while I wrote those two posts in my own words, I am not the originator of that teaching, nor is the one whom I learned it from. The point being that the emphasis is being made on the teaching not on me nor any other teacher of it.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I think I did, because I was expecting something else.

But I think I found it, so we should be all good.
Well my intent was to be clear so let me just state it outright...

The sentence is Galatians 2:9. (It's actually only part of one of Paul's many run on sentences :))...

From post 143...

Galatians 2:9 and when James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace 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.​
Thus, Paul's gospel is not only different but so is his audience. The Twelve were apostles to Israel (which is why there were twelve, by the way. Twelve being the number biblically associated with Israel.) and Paul was THE apostle to the Gentiles and if all you do is keep this single biblical fact in mind while reading the New Testament, then pretty nearly all the major doctrinal conflicts that have plagued the church for centuries all become really really easy to resolve. Passages that seem to conflict now don't! Romans 4:5 and James 2:24 both mean precisely what they seem to mean and there is no conflict between them because what they are saying fits with the gospel that was being preached to their respective audiences. Paul was preaching a gospel of faith only with no works required while James was under the law and his followers were all "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20) and so, naturally, faith mixed with works would be required.​

Do you understand why (how) that sentence accomplishes the biblical/doctrinal clarification that I'm claiming it does?

Clete
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Well my intent was to be clear so let me just state it outright...

The sentence is Galatians 2:9. (It's actually only part of one of Paul's many run on sentences :))...

From post 143...

Galatians 2:9 and when James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace 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.​
Thus, Paul's gospel is not only different but so is his audience. The Twelve were apostles to Israel (which is why there were twelve, by the way. Twelve being the number biblically associated with Israel.) and Paul was THE apostle to the Gentiles and if all you do is keep this single biblical fact in mind while reading the New Testament, then pretty nearly all the major doctrinal conflicts that have plagued the church for centuries all become really really easy to resolve. Passages that seem to conflict now don't! Romans 4:5 and James 2:24 both mean precisely what they seem to mean and there is no conflict between them because what they are saying fits with the gospel that was being preached to their respective audiences. Paul was preaching a gospel of faith only with no works required while James was under the law and his followers were all "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20) and so, naturally, faith mixed with works would be required.​

Do you understand why (how) that sentence accomplishes the biblical/doctrinal clarification that I'm claiming it does?

Clete

That looks more like what I was expecting! I was just looking at the wrong part of your post.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
Oh brother! Ye are probably a King James only nutter to boot!


Just incredible! If this sort of stupidity was the way doctrine is supposed to be done, then the bible can be made to argue anything. This is the sort of thing David Koresh did to convince people he was a "sinning Messiah" of all things! This is the same sort of biblical slight of hand that Calvinists use to convince themselves that they have no free will and that the God of love is impassible and that the God who became flesh is immutable. It's a buffoonish way of using the scripture that allows one to "defend" ANY doctrine whatsoever, no matter how weird or idiotic.

You live your life everyday - every single day! You wake up alive and breathing, you're conscious of your own thoughts, words and deeds and yet somehow, someone was able to convince your feeble mind that you no longer commit sin. The only form a delusion that is more pronounced is the Pharaoh Syndrome where you ACTUALLY believe that you are an actual god.


You haven't any idea what you're talking about. The only reason you could ever utter the sentence "Christianity WITH sin is Judaism re-hashed." is because you do not understand the difference between Israel and the Body of Christ. You fail to distinguish Paul's gospel from that taught by Peter, James and John. Which, I would have to say, is rather interesting actually. I would not have expected the heresy of "sinless perfection" to have been one of the many issues connected with that all important distinction. It seems our encounter was not a COMPLETE waste of my time after all.

I'll tell you this...

The two posts that I wrote previously (posts 132 & 143) contain within them THE single most important Christian teaching that you have ever read since you became a Christian and it will continue to be, so long as your natural life persists. Failure to grasp it, believe it and apply it, is to not understand the bible. That's how big a deal it is.

Clete

P.S. To be perfectly clear, while I wrote those two posts in my own words, I am not the originator of that teaching, nor is the one whom I learned it from. The point being that the emphasis is being made on the teaching not on me nor any other teacher of it.
Like Jesus said, you can know the tree, or the prophet, by its fruit.
What kind of "tree" do sinners come from?
Jesus said..."Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." (Matt 7:15-17)

Your espouse a doctrine that forbids Jewish Christians from committing sin, and informs them of how, but allows Gentile Christians to ignore all of it.
That idea is not from God, who wants us all to love Him above all else and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
Your doctrine is the antithesis of God's will.
 
Last edited:

musterion

Well-known member
  • God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
  • We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
  • Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
  • Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
  • Jesus rose from the dead.
  • If you confess with you mouth the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

I believe that if a person believes those six things, they are saved, regardless of whatever "other strange beliefs they might have fallen for", as you put it.

Clete
By your standard, Catholics are saved. Pretty much the only ones in Christendom who aren't saved would be those who deny the Bible doctrine of the tri-unity of the God head, and flat out liberal apostates. Everyone else would readily sign off on your statement of faith, meaning you'd accept them as members of the Body?

We've disagreed very strongly on this point for years but I just want to clarify: you do realize that's where you stand?
 
Last edited:
Of course I am glad. Even more grateful to know that even though I will never reach perfection this side of heaven or the restoration of all things, that it is the righteousness of Christ, who died and rose again for me, through which God views me. I still live in this fallen world. Am still a fallen person. I will slip up sometimes, recognize my sin and repent of the way that I have brought shame on the name of God. It is for this that the Holy Spirit has sealed (we bear the seal of the King, we are His) the believer in His righteousness. He paid the penalty for those sins. They do not condemn me anymore.
You seem to 'know' you are 'elect'; how so?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
I agree with you. I had a thread a while back about this. It was intended to hash out what doctrines must be minimally believed in order for a person to be saved. It ended up landing on the following six points...

  • God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
  • We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
  • Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
  • Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
  • Jesus rose from the dead.
  • If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

I believe that if a person believes those six things, they are saved, regardless of whatever "other strange beliefs they might have fallen for", as you put it.

Here's a link the thread if you'd like to read through the discussion...

The Gospel Proper


Clete
Do you know that the devil believes all of that?
It is what we do with the knowledge that determines our fate.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
By your standard, Catholics are saved. Pretty much the only ones in Christendom who aren't saved would be those who deny the Bible doctrine of the tri-unity of the God head, and flat out liberal apostates. Everyone else would readily sign off on your statement of faith, meaning you'd accept them as members of the Body?

We've disagreed very strongly on this point for years but I just want to clarify: you do realize that's where you stand?
Catholicism is a 'goldmine' of freedom.

But it's not 'Old Jed Clampett shooting a hole in the ground (because he missed what he was shooting at) and accidentally striking oil' freedom----you have to actually mine for it in Catholicism. You have to get to work!

But what work?

Study the Apostles. They are our teachers. They were given to us by Jesus.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Like Jesus said, you can know the tree, or the prophet, by its fruit.
So delusional liars are producing what sort of fruit?

Hmm :unsure:
What kind of "tree" do sinners come from?
Jesus said..."Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." (Matt 7:15-17)
Once again, you can defend - let me be clear - YOU, HOPING, can defend ANY DOCTRINE WHATSOEVER with the way you handle scripture.

Pick any wacko nut job idiotic doctrine you care to name. Want to defend indulgences? You can! Want to defend the deity of Christ? You can! Want to defend the NON-deity of Christ? You can do that too! Want to defend the notion that David Koresh was a Messiah? You so totally CAN do it! How about a Christian Taoism Cult, want to start one of those? There are bible verses you can quote for that!

There isn't ANYTHING that cannot be argued from the bible when you completely ignore who is talking, who is being spoken to and what is being talked about and why.

Your espouse a doctrine that forbids Jewish Christians from committing sin, and informs them of how, but allows Gentile Christians to ignore all of it.
That might be the single most idiotic thing anyone has ever accused me of.

That idea is not from God, who wants us all to love Him above all else and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
Your doctrine is the antithesis of God's will.
You are stupid. You talk about things that you literally know exactly nothing about and you do so KNOWING that you speak in abject ignorance. That makes you a liar on top of being stupid and delusional.

Go believe whatever you want, you're going to anyway.

Clete
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Read it, no, but I have listened to Bob's entire Plot seminar (on the 5 CDs).
The seminar is amazing but the book is better!

If you'd like a copy of the book, tell Connie to give you one and to charge to me. She's got my number if she wants to confirm or I can just call her.
 
Top