Beloved57 are you sure you’re chosen?

[Clete]

So, you're chastening Musty here, and then you banned him?

Why? Because he dared to disagree with you and Clete?
Am I next on this chopping block since I agree with Musty instead of Clete?

Is that how things work here?

Bring Musty back on board so the I can have someone who knows what I'm talking about.
Enough is enough!

This sort of talk is what lands people on the "chopping block".

It's interesting to me how you think I'm the one being arrogant and condescending (or whatever) while all I'm doing is trying to get you to make an argument more substantive that quoting two verses of scripture and repeating your claims while you show up practically daring someone to ban you for disagreeing with me, of all things and then start shooting your mouth off about me leaving the site "all because of you".

The straw that breaks the camel's back thinks she's the whole load and tells me that I need to taken down a few notches. That's rich.

 

[Clete]

Based on the logic of that site, isn't Romans chapter 14 also not applicable to the BOC? Verse 17 " For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink". Eating and drinking is the whole chapter, so this means this chapter also is not written to the Church the Body of Christ then? According to the logic of that site? Is this how you're reading and understanding it too?

It would seem, based on the premise used at that site, that any time Israel is mention IN THE THIRD PERSON, the passage is talking TOO Israel and teaching Jews how to live under their dispensation of law.

It's like this guy can't figure out that Christianity and Judaism are related religions and that one came from the other and that it would, therefore, be appropriate to discuss what happened with Israel as a basis for what, why, how and/or when God turned to the Gentiles and started the Body of Christ.

The flaw in the argument is subtle but happens early...

To determine the context, ask these questions:​

​

Who is speaking? (authorship)
To whom are they speaking? (audience)
What are they speaking about? (content)​

​

If ‘Israel’ is the answer to any of these questions then the passage is not doctrinally applicable to the church today.​

​

That isn't quite right, is it?! Any time Israel is being spoken ABOUT renders a passage doctrinally inapplicable? Really?
The author acts as if Romans 9 doesn't follow Romans 8 and that Romans 12 doesn't follow Romans 11, as if the 9th chapter starts a whole new book written to a different audience about a completely new topic than the chapters that preceded it and then that audience and subject are dropped at chapter 12 and the original audience is picked back up again.

The logic of that by itself is sufficient to prove it false but the text makes it clear as crystal as well...

Romans 10: 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”​

That passage CANNOT be talking about how JEWS are saved! It is ONLY in the Body of Christ where there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (i.e. Gentile)!

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, you're chastening Musty here, and then you banned him?

Why? Because he dared to disagree with you and Clete?

No, I gave him a warning for disrespecting TOL staff, because he was calling me "A dishonest mod who is a heretic." (I removed the post as well.)

 

[glorydaz]

This sort of talk is what lands people on the "chopping block".

It's interesting to me how you think I'm the one being arrogant and condescending (or whatever) while all I'm doing is trying to get you to make an argument more substantive that quoting two verses of scripture and repeating your claims while you show up practically daring someone to ban you for disagreeing with me, of all things and then start shooting your mouth off about me leaving the site "all because of you".

The straw that breaks the camel's back thinks she's the whole load and tells me that I need to taken down a few notches. That's rich.

I'm not afraid of you, Clete. Chop away.
Better people than I have been martyred on this site.

You have yet to respond to my challenge about showing Paul's gospel in those three chapters of Romans (9-11).
You claimed they were a part of Paul's glorious gospel, and you've done everything in your power to avoid addressing those chapters.

Instead, you put the blame on me for pointing out the error in your claim. You grilled me hard trying to get me to approve of your list, and acted shocked when I stressed salvation being a free gift. Do you see me demanding your head on the chopping block? Of course not. I'm not the great one here, and I'm actually interested in discussing the matter.

Not an inch have you moved. You're simply bluster and blow with nothing to back it up that I can see.

Chop chop.

 

[glorydaz]

No, I gave him a warning for disrespecting TOL staff, because he was calling me "A dishonest mod who is a heretic." (I removed the post as well.)

I read the post and that is not what he said. He said if you were claiming such and such..... and removing the proof is quite telling.
The point being. Clete can scoff and me and carry on about what why I won't answer his personal questions about my love life, and he goes unscathed. Still breathing out fire and threatenings against me in your very sight.

I'll be the first to say I don't want Clete banned, but equal treatment around here is necessary if you want to have any kind of a thriving board.

Musterion isn't banned? Is that your claim?

Perhaps if you weren't so invested in this particular topic you'd be able to allow all posters to voice their opinion instead of just one or two. "Chopping block" is a threat and one I would hope was just a temper flare up without weight. However, knowing how things stand, I certainly won't be holding my breath.

 

[JudgeRightly]

removing the proof is quite telling.

There is a record of the post within the message system.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Musterion isn't banned?

He is temp banned. He can return when his warning expires.

 

[glorydaz]

There is a record of the post within the message system.

Why remove it? Was there cussing and swearing or merely evidence. Did it make you angry? Is that why you removed it?

He is temp banned. He can return when his warning expires.

Oh, so warnings now include a ban?


Not much of a warning, is it?

 

[glorydaz]

It would seem, based on the premise used at that site, that any time Israel is mention IN THE THIRD PERSON, the passage is talking TOO Israel and teaching Jews how to live under their dispensation of law.

It's like this guy can't figure out that Christianity and Judaism are related religions and that one came from the other and that it would, therefore, be appropriate to discuss what happened with Israel as a basis for what, why, how and/or when God turned to the Gentiles and started the Body of Christ.

The flaw in the argument is subtle but happens early...

To determine the context, ask these questions:​

​

Who is speaking? (authorship)​

To whom are they speaking? (audience)​

What are they speaking about? (content)​

​

If ‘Israel’ is the answer to any of these questions then the passage is not doctrinally applicable to the church today.​

​

That isn't quite right, is it?! Any time Israel is being spoken ABOUT renders a passage doctrinally inapplicable? Really?
The author acts as if Romans 9 doesn't follow Romans 8 and that Romans 12 doesn't follow Romans 11, as if the 9th chapter starts a whole new book written to a different audience about a completely new topic than the chapters that preceded it and then that audience and subject are dropped at chapter 12 and the original audience is picked back up again.

The logic of that by itself is sufficient to prove it false but the text makes it clear as crystal as well...

Romans 10: 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”​

That passage CANNOT be talking about how JEWS are saved! It is ONLY in the Body of Christ where there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (i.e. Gentile)!

Clete

Taking things out of context always causes problems. This whole section is prophecy, and Paul is quoting from the old testament. The Lord saved gentiles under every dispensation. In respect to salvation there was never a distinction of people. God is not a respecter of persons.


There was no distinction between Jew and Gentile many times throughout the Bible. The quotes themselves would lead you to this fact.
I suggested you pay attention to the quotes from prophecy concerning the Kingdom.

Psalm 145:18 The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.
19 He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.

Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.

The clue should be....whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
It is the Jewish remnant that is to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

The body is to believe in the death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins.
Our faith is in the Blood.

One would think it would be worth discussing, since Paul never tells us we are to confess the Lord in order to be saved.

 

[glorydaz]

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

• Galatians 3:28
  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
  
  
• Colossians 3:11
  Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

These are NOT the same.

No difference in that the same LORD is over all.

Neither Jew nor Greek is NOT the same. Nothing about it is the same.

Neither Jew nor Greek in that we are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[glorydaz]

It's like this guy can't figure out that Christianity and Judaism are related religions and that one came from the other and that it would, therefore, be appropriate to discuss what happened with Israel as a basis for what, why, how and/or when God turned to the Gentiles and started the Body of Christ.

The body of Christ came out of Judaism?

I've heard it said, and I, too, believe that true (Pauline) Christianity came from the previously unrevealed mind of God, NOT from Judaism.

Same God...different message and means.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh, so warnings now include a ban?

"Warnings" have always included a temporary ban (unless they were worth a perma ban) if you have active warnings still on your account, using a point-based system. Prior to our switch to Xenforo, they were called "infractions."

 

[glorydaz]

"Warnings" have always included a temporary ban (unless they were worth a perma ban) if you have active warnings still on your account, using a point-based system. Prior to our switch to Xenforo, they were called "infractions."

Fine. I've only been threatened with the chopping block, so far.

 

[glorydaz]

He is temp banned. He can return when his warning expires.

When will his warning expire?

Perhaps you forgot to mention how long that would be.

 

[Tycho]

@beloved57, I was just curious, are you 100% positive that you are in the chosen group? What if God predestined you to think you are saved but actually plans on sending you to hell?

HI, did the person ever answer your question ?

 

[Clete]

I'm not afraid of you, Clete. Chop away.
Better people than I have been martyred on this site.

I have no authority to "chop away". I wasn't threatening you, I was telling you that getting banned has nothing to do with me.

You have yet to respond to my challenge about showing Paul's gospel in those three chapters of Romans (9-11).

Yes, I have. Twice.

You claimed they were a part of Paul's glorious gospel, and you've done everything in your power to avoid addressing those chapters.

Liar.

Instead, you put the blame on me for pointing out the error in your claim. You grilled me hard trying to get me to approve of your list, and acted shocked when I stressed salvation being a free gift.

I did no such thing.

Do you see me demanding your head on the chopping block? Of course not.

No one has suggested your head on a chopping block, glorydaz! What in the world are you even talking about? You're the one who brought up getting banned, not me! The closest thing you've gotten to any sort of threat from me was about ME leaving the site, not you! It's like you've gone a little nuts. You should probably just step away and calm down.

I'm not the great one here, and I'm actually interested in discussing the matter.

All I've been trying to do is to get you to make something more than a claim. You keep trying to get me to prove your position wrong but that isn't how sound reason works. When you posted that link, I responded directly to the argument the author made, if you can call it an argument.

He started the article off with a completely false statement about how "people have broken their necks trying to figure out if the passage applies to the church the body of Christ." I've been studying theology since I was teenager and YOU are the first and only person that I have ever encountered who believes this nonsense. Bob Enyart made a very brief allusion to the fact that there are people who think confessing with your mouth is legalism but he spent next to no time at all on it and so until you showed up with it, I hadn't ever seen anyone try to affirmatively present the position, never mind defend it. It's obscure as it can be because you cannot get there by a simple reading of the text. There isn't anything intuitive about the notion that letting the words that are in your mind escape your lips is any sort of legalistic work of the flesh.

Not that it would matter whether it was or not, by the way. Practically every Christian is the world has been baptized in water, many of them more than once. That's definitely a ritual that cannot save you but there are whole denominations that exist principally because of teachings surrounding whether that ritual is required for salvation. So, confession with the mouth being a similar ritualistic type of requirement wouldn't prevent whole swaths of Christians from believe it and yet, next to none of them do. I'm not exaggerating when I say that you are the first and ONLY person I have ever encountered that believes that verbal confession that Jesus is Lord would count as legalism and so the author's contention that there are piles of bones scattered about Romans 9-11 is more than a bit spurious to my mind. It seems to me that he's trying to find a pretext for his desired doctrine. He thinks verbal confession is legalism and so wants to pretend like he's found the answer to this big giant question that, in reality, no one is asking.

Not an inch have you moved. You're simply bluster and blow with nothing to back it up that I can see.

You've given me no reason to move, glorydaz. Your strongly held opinions do not count even as evidence never mind as arguments and the one argument you have linked to I have directly responded to with a specific explanation as to why it is unconvincing.

Clete

 

[glorydaz]

The "article" Clete is talking about wasn't an article but an outline of Romans 9-11.
Many Bible scholars have pointed out that Israel is being discussed in those chapters. Those chapters are about Israel.
Because Clete said those chapters were part of Paul's gospel, I asked him for the parts that were the gospel.

Long before I'd seen that outline from Grace Ambassadors, I had already pointed out the IF in the "confess with your mouth".

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

In fact I said it stuck out like a sore thumb....leading back to the IFs that come with the Law.
Shame on me for pointing out that was NOT a requirement for our salvation under Paul's gospel.
Well, it may be a moot point according to some, but it's no different than claiming we must forgive in order to be forgiven. Exactly the same point should be made. If you forgive....If you confess with your mouth. Law.
"If you believe" is NOT law. Things that are different are not the same.

If any person is brave enough to read the prophets Paul is quoting, they'd see that the entire section concerns the Jews.

Paul even says,
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

One thing we shouldn't be doing is claiming that section is part of Paul's Gospel. Which, of course, has been my point all along.

And, it WAS on Clete's list. He started this whole thing, and suddenly I'm saying stuff totally unheard of.

 

[glorydaz]

He is temp banned. He can return when his warning expires.

When is that going to be.?
It seems very arbitrary since he doesn't know when you'll allow him back.

We're conversing via email, and you all are missing out on some great studies.
But, I guess no "good new" is better than open discussions about the word of God.

Censored for freedom of speech is the thing now-a-days, but it doesn't stop God's word from getting out.

 

[Clete]

Taking things out of context always causes problems.

Redefining (or mis-defining) what "context" means that you can't keep from taking things out of their actual context.

This whole section is prophecy,

You keep making this claim but never provide any evidence that it's true.

and Paul is quoting from the old testament. The Lord saved gentiles under every dispensation. In respect to salvation there was never a distinction of people. God is not a respecter of persons.

This is a gross over statement!

If you were a Gentile and you knew of the existence of the God of the Jews and refused to become a proselyte Jew then you were lost - period.

And, it was ONLY Israelites, biological decedents of Isaac, who God dealt with directly. It was not possible for any Gentile, believer or otherwise, to ever be a member of priesthood.

For centuries, while it was POSSIBLE for a Gentile to be saved, it was a far far more likely event in the life of a Jew. God all but ignored Gentiles for nearly a millennia.

There was no distinction between Jew and Gentile many times throughout the Bible.

This was simply not true during the time when the Law was in effect. So says Paul.

Ephesians 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

The quotes themselves would lead you to this fact.
I suggested you pay attention to the quotes from prophecy concerning the Kingdom.

Psalm 145:18 The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.
19 He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.

Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.

You can post all the proof texts you like, any doctrine that teaches that there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile, whether either called upon the Lord or not, is so transparently false that it means that there is an agenda involved. No one could objectively come to anything close by reading the text, isolated sentences removed from their context not withstanding.

The clue should be....whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
It is the Jewish remnant that is to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

Nonsense.

No one is ever saved apart from calling upon the Lord for that salvation and the Jew could do all the calling he wanted, if he failed to follow the law, his faith was worthless and he went to Hell.

The body is to believe in the death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins.
Our faith is in the Blood.

One would think it would be worth discussing, since Paul never tells us we are to confess the Lord in order to be saved.

I'm happy to discuss it so long as something substantive is being said.

Clete

 

[Clete]

The "article" Clete is talking about wasn't an article but an outline of Romans 9-11.

This sort of stupidity lands most people on my ignore list.

It's an article that happens to contain the author's version of an outline of those chapters of Romans. You act as if calling it an article was some sort of insult. It wasn't. That's what it is.

Many Bible scholars have pointed out that Israel is being discussed in those chapters. Those chapters are about Israel.

The fact the Israel is being discussed is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the leap in logic that declares those three chapters inapplicable to the Body of Christ BECAUSE Paul is talking about the fact that Israel was cut off.

Because Clete said those chapters were part of Paul's gospel, I asked him for the parts that were the gospel.

The entire book of Romans is the gospel, glorydaz. That's the purpose of the book. It is THE single most important treatise on the grace gospel that will ever be written. The fact that Israel was cut off is a critically important aspect of why the Body of Christ exists at all and so it's perfectly natural that it would be included in Paul's presentation. In fact, the mere fact that Israel was cut off and that God turned instead to the Gentiles is itself a pretty significant way in which the gospel can be communicated. It is without any question good news for the Gentiles!

Long before I'd seen that outline from Grace Ambassadors, I had already pointed out the IF in the "confess with your mouth".


Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

In fact I said it stuck out like a sore thumb....leading back to the IFs that come with the Law.

It only sticks out if you are trying to find a reason to read legalism into the passage.

It's called confirmation bias.

Shame on me for pointing out that was NOT a requirement for our salvation under Paul's gospel.

No one has shamed you for anything other than being unwilling to present something other than mere assertion accompanied by two or three proof texts.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your strongly held opinions don't count as evidence and the argument you linked to is unconvincing for the reasons I explained earlier.

Well, it may be a moot point according to some, but it's no different than claiming we must forgive in order to be forgiven. Exactly the same point should be made. If you forgive....If you confess with your mouth. Law.
"If you believe" is NOT law. Things that are different are not the same.

It isn't the same AT ALL!

We have already been forgiven! Our forgiveness is in the past but not so far in the past that it preceded our calling upon the Lord for that forgiveness!

If any person is brave enough to read the prophets Paul is quoting, they'd see that the entire section concerns the Jews.

Paul even says,
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Again, the fact that Israel is being discussed is not in dispute. It is the conclusions you are drawing that do not follow from that premise.

One thing we shouldn't be doing is claiming that section is part of Paul's Gospel. Which, of course, has been my point all along.

It absolutely is part of Paul's gospel! If Israel had not been cut off there would never have been an Apostle Paul! His ministry existed precisely and ONLY because God cut Israel off!

And, it WAS on Clete's list. He started this whole thing, and suddenly I'm saying stuff totally unheard of.

What was on my list?

My list hasn't changed. I don't know what this is referencing.

Clete