Beloved57 are you sure you’re chosen?

[Clete]

The body of Christ came out of Judaism?

Paul was a Jew and he was the charter member!

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.

Of course! No one suggested otherwise. The whole point of saying such a thing is that it's the same God, the same Jesus, the same death, burial and resurrection of the same Lamb of God (i.e. the same sacrifice for sin). The vast majority of Christian scripture is the exact same as the Judaism's scripture. The two have a very great deal in common and the latter would not exist if the former hadn't preceded it. The whole thing is one continuous story. It is CHRISTIAN doctrine that teaches that Christ died on the JEWISH holiday of Passover, that He spent the Feast of Unleaven Bread in the grave without decay, that He rose on the Feast of First Fruits and that the Holy Spirit was given on the Feast of Pentecost and that Jesus IS the Jewish Messiah! How much more from Judaism do you need it to be?

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

When is that going to be?

When his ban expires.

It seems very arbitrary since he doesn't know when you'll allow him back.

@Sherman maybe you can explain to GD how the warning system works for TOL, preferably in a private conversation, as this is not the place for this discussion.

Censored for freedom of speech is the thing now-a-days,

He wasn't "censored for freedom of speech." He was punished for disrespecting TOL Staff, a violation of rule 9, because he called me, quote, "A dishonest mod who is a heretic," end quote. If you have a problem with me giving him a warning for violating the rules of the forum, then take it up with Sherman:

9. Thou SHALL NOT disrespect TOL moderators and admins (if you are asked by a TOL moderator to alter a post, your signature, avatar, or other input on TOL, please respect that request). If you have been banned, please wait-out your ban. Please do not re-register using a new username unless you have made a special arrangement with the TOL staff.

 

[glorydaz]

No one is ever saved apart from calling upon the Lord for that salvation

Clete

I was not saved by calling upon the Lord for salvation.

I was begotten by the Gospel....hearing, trusting, believing and sealed.
I've never heard of any grace believer that had to confess the Lord in order to be saved.
I've never heard of any grace believer of which anything was required except for FAITH. FAITH ALONE.

Confessing Jesus WAS required of the Jews.
Faith in HIS NAME was required of the Kingdom believers.
Paul is explaining where the Jews failed. It wasn't in their law keeping.
They stumbled at the stumbling stone.....the Lord Jesus Christ.
They lacked FAITH. So faith in His name was required of the Jews.

 

[Clete]

I was not saved by calling upon the Lord for salvation.

Yes, you were.

I was begotten by the Gospel....hearing, trusting, believing and sealed.
I've never heard of any grace believer that had to confess the Lord in order to be saved.
I've never heard of any grace believer of which anything was required except for FAITH. FAITH ALONE.

Confessing Jesus WAS required of the Jews.
Faith in HIS NAME was required of the Kingdom believers.
Paul is explaining where the Jews failed. It wasn't in their law keeping.
They stumbled at the stumbling stone.....the Lord Jesus Christ.
They lacked FAITH. So faith in His name was required of the Jews.

Repeating your position does nothing to establish it, glorydaz.

I at least understand now the line of thinking that produces this idea that Paul was teaching the Jews but it doesn't fit with the rest of Romans. Like I pointed out in a previous post, Romans 9 comes right after and it follows logical from Romans 1-8 and Romans 12-16 flows right along with Romans 11. Paul didn't write a separate epistle to the Jews and stick it in the middle of his epistle to the Romans. Romans chapters 1 through 16 were ALL written to the church in Rome, a Gentile congregation of the Body of Christ.

Paul's purpose in bringing up the Jews was not to teach Jews how to get saved, they already knew how to get saved and, if they didn't, they had their own set of twelve apostles to teach them. What Paul is doing, starting with Romans 9 is establishing the reasons why the Body of Christ was established to begin with because, up until Paul's ministry, you didn't get to God unless you went through Israel (i.e. generally speaking - with perhaps a rare exception here and there) and so if the People of the Law is no longer the way to God then an explanation as to why that happened is pertinent to the gospel to the Gentiles. Romans would be quite incomplete without that explanation. So, yes, Romans 9-11 has Israel as a central topic of discussion but the author, the audience and the message has not changed. It's still the Apostle Paul explaining "his gospel" to the church in Rome. This is why Israel is spoken of in the third person throughout those chapters - because they aren't being spoken too but spoken about. (Note that Romans 10:9-10 are NOT in the third person.)

Clete

 

[glorydaz]

Yes, you were.


Repeating your position does nothing to establish it, glorydaz.

I at least understand now the line of thinking that produces this idea that Paul was teaching the Jews but it doesn't fit with the rest of Romans. Like I pointed out in a previous post, Romans 9 comes right after and it follows logical from Romans 1-8 and Romans 12-16 flows right along with Romans 11. Paul didn't write a separate epistle to the Jews and stick it in the middle of his epistle to the Romans. Romans chapters 1 through 16 were ALL written to the church in Rome, a Gentile congregation of the Body of Christ.

Paul's purpose in bringing up the Jews was not to teach Jews how to get saved, they already knew how to get saved and, if they didn't, they had their own set of twelve apostles to teach them. What Paul is doing, starting with Romans 9 is establishing the reasons why the Body of Christ was established to begin with because, up until Paul's ministry, you didn't get to God unless you went through Israel (i.e. generally speaking - with perhaps a rare exception here and there) and so if the People of the Law is no longer the way to God then an explanation as to why that happened is pertinent to the gospel to the Gentiles. Romans would be quite incomplete without that explanation. So, yes, Romans 9-11 has Israel as a central topic of discussion but the author, the audience and the message has not changed. It's still the Apostle Paul explaining "his gospel" to the church in Rome. This is why Israel is spoken of in the third person throughout those chapters - because they aren't being spoken too but spoken about. (Note that Romans 10:9-10 are NOT in the third person.)

Clete

Romans 10:9-10 is reminding Israel what was expected of them. From scripture, as I've been saying. A dear brother found this quote.

2 Chronicles 6:24-27

And IF Thy people Israel be put to the worse before the enemy because they have sinned against Thee; and shall return and CONFESS THY NAME and pray and make supplication before Thee in this house [REPENT AND BELIEVE], THEN hear Thou from the heavens and forgive the sin of Thy people Israel, and bring them again unto the land which Thou gavest to them and to their fathers.

When the heaven is shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against Thee, IF they pray toward this place and CONFESS THY NAME and turn from their sin [REPENT AND BELIEVE] when thou dost afflict them, THEN hear Thou from heaven and forgive the sin of Thy servants, and of Thy people Israel, when Thou hast taught them the good way wherein they should walk. And send rain upon thy land which Thou hast given unto Thy people for an inheritance.

Matthew 10:32
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

John 30:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Acts 3:16

And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

 

[glorydaz]

I was not saved by confessing His name, nor did I call upon Him.

I heard the Gospel and believed unto salvation.

 

[Idolater]

I was not saved by confessing His name, nor did I call upon Him.

I heard the Gospel and believed unto salvation.

Glory, when you read Romans 10 it is clear that Paul begins by talking about Israel. But then you get to verse 11, when he seems to be saying exactly what you're talking about " For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." No mention of confessing or calling upon Him, just belief. But the "For" that begins verse 11 refers back to what immediately preceded it, which is verses 9-10. To clarify that he's tying together verses 9-11, he says in verse 12 " For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek". Again another "For" begins this sentence, referring back now to verses 9-11, and then he once again invokes calling or confessing in verse 13: " For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Yet another "For". He is tying together verses 9-12 now into one thing. Confessing, believing, calling on, these are all talking about the same thing.

This is my 'spin'. My 'narrative'. This is how I read this scripture.

No disrespect.

 

[glorydaz]

Glory, when you read Romans 10 it is clear that Paul begins by talking about Israel. But then you get to verse 11, when he seems to be saying exactly what you're talking about " For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." No mention of confessing or calling upon Him, just belief. But the "For" that begins verse 11 refers back to what immediately preceded it, which is verses 9-10. To clarify that he's tying together verses 9-11, he says in verse 12 " For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek". Again another "For" begins this sentence, referring back now to verses 9-11, and then he once again invokes calling or confessing in verse 13: " For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Yet another "For". He is tying together verses 9-12 now into one thing. Confessing, believing, calling on, these are all talking about the same thing.

This is my 'spin'. My 'narrative'. This is how I read this scripture.

No disrespect.

Yes, Paul is speaking of the faith that has always been required of all men....Jew or Gentile from the beginning of time. Israel fell because of their lack of faith in not confessing Jesus as Lord. God always required works along with that faith....Abel, Noah, Abraham, etc. Before Paul's gospel that is.

Paul is making it clear that those Jews who stumbled at confessing Jesus as the Messiah were set apart from the remnant believers.
Those who confessed Jesus as Lord were Kingdom saints....Peter, John, James, etc.

 

[Clete]

Romans 10:9-10 is reminding Israel what was expected of them. From scripture, as I've been saying.

The problem is that saying it doesn't make it so, glorydaz!

Paul was speaking of Israel in the third person. That single point alone is sufficient to prove that Israel was NOT Paul's audience. Being spoken about is just not the same as being spoken to.

The rest of what you said is a collection of things that are not in dispute and therefore not relevant.

Clete

 

[glorydaz]

The problem is that saying it doesn't make it so, glorydaz!

Paul was speaking of Israel in the third person. That single point alone is sufficient to prove that Israel was NOT Paul's audience. Being spoken about is just not the same as being spoken to.

The rest of what you said is a collection of things that are not in dispute and therefore not relevant.

Clete

I'm afraid you're not reading the scriptures that confirm Paul is talking about the Jews.

Deut. 30:11-14
For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Paul isn't speaking in the third person because he is quoting from scripture. Verse 9 is describing Peter and the remnant of ISRAEL.

Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
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.

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.

 

[Idolater]

HI, did the person ever answer your question ?

I don't believe the person's been in the thread.

The "old" software used to have a neat feature where you could just click a link to a list of all the users who posted in any thread (along with how many posts they made). If this software has that feature, I haven't been able to locate it yet.

 

[Clete]

I'm afraid you're not reading the scriptures that confirm Paul is talking about the Jews.

On the contrary, I do not dispute that Paul is talking ABOUT the Jews.

Deut. 30:11-14
For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Paul isn't speaking in the third person because he is quoting from scripture. Verse 9 is describing Peter and the remnant of ISRAEL.

No, glorydaz! Read it for yourself. Paul is referencing Israel in the third person, throughout those chapters. He's talking TO his audience ABOUT Israel. So when we read Romans 10:9-10 and it's NOT in the third person then that would indicate that he not talking to Israel but to his audience (i.e. the believers in Rome).

Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
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.

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.

Why do you keep making the same exact point over and over and over again?

And why do you stop short of verses 11-13?

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.”

There isn't any way that Paul can be making the distinction you are suggesting and then one sentence later state explicitly that there isn't any such distinction. Either that, or he's saying that what is true of the Jew is also true of the Gentile which would also argue against your position because you're here saying that the Jews had to make confession but that Gentiles do not. You can't have it both ways. There is either a distinction or there isn't. Paul says there isn't and so either which way you want to play it, this passage cannot be compatible with the doctrine your suggesting is being taught here. (Not to mention the fact that Paul has just spent the preceding nine chapters establishing that the law is ended for righteousness sake.)

Clete

 

[glorydaz]

On the contrary, I do not dispute that Paul is talking ABOUT the Jews.

Yep....the entire time he's talking about the Jews.

No, glorydaz! Read it for yourself. Paul is referencing Israel in the third person, throughout those chapters. He's talking TO his audience ABOUT Israel. So when we read Romans 10:9-10 and it's NOT in the third person then that would indicate that he not talking to Israel but to his audience (i.e. the believers in Rome).

This sure looks like first person to me. Who is being addressed here? We know it's the Jews because we see the exact thing in Deuteronomy.

Romans 10:6-6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Deut. 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Notice the sentence doesn't end with "we preach". In Deut. it says....that thou mayest do it. What is it that they were to do?

But in the next verse, you suddenly switch to the Body of Christ being required to confess Jesus Christ as Lord, when it's always been Israel that is required to turn with all their heart and soul? Deut. 30 "and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul."

It's only Israel that is required to confess Jesus as Lord.

Why do you keep making the same exact point over and over and over again?

And why do you stop short of verses 11-13?

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.”

There isn't any way that Paul can be making the distinction you are suggesting and then one sentence later state explicitly that there isn't any such distinction. Either that, or he's saying that what is true of the Jew is also true of the Gentile which would also argue against your position because you're here saying that the Jews had to make confession but that Gentiles do not. You can't have it both ways. There is either a distinction or there isn't. Paul says there isn't and so either which way you want to play it, this passage cannot be compatible with the doctrine your suggesting is being taught here. (Not to mention the fact that Paul has just spent the preceding nine chapters establishing that the law is ended for righteousness sake.)

Clete

No, even Romans 9 is Paul's "treatise" on the Jews.

I keep making the same points over and over again because you aren't getting it.
Before Paul ever came on the scene, Jesus and the twelve were preaching confession of the Messiah....because it was required of the Jews.

Matthew 10:32

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

We see the religious Jews would put those out of the synagogue who confess that Jesus was the Christ.

John 9:22

These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

Acts 4:7-10
And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

When Paul says there is no distinction, he means it as concerning the word of faith which was preached to Jew and gentile alike from the beginning of time. I gave examples....Abel, Noah, Abraham, himself, who was not a Jew when he believed. You certainly can't ignore Abraham, can you? There has never been a distinction between people when it comes faith.

Just as Peter says about Cornelius.
Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Romans 2:9-12
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
For there is no respect of persons with God.
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;


No one has to make a confession today, and that's why you won't see Paul preaching it to anyone in the body of Christ.
Right Division

 

[Clete]

Yep....the entire time he's talking about the Jews.

The fact that those verses in Romans 10 are in the first person while the whole time the Jews are mentioned in the third person means that Paul cannot be talking to the Jews and yet you IGNORE that point entirely and simply flip it to somehow mean the opposite. I don't know if you're just being stubborn or if I'm not communicating the point well or what but I'm done repeating myself in response to your doing the same.

If you want to defend this nonsense in the future, I recommend a different tactic because what you've managed to do here is firmly convince me that there's no basis for it whatsoever.

 

[Poly]

HI, did the person ever answer your question ?

I don’t think so.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don’t think so.

He probably hasn't ever even viewed the thread. Your best bet is to challenge him in the threads he posts in.

 

[glorydaz]

The fact that those verses in Romans 10 are in the first person while the whole time the Jews are mentioned in the third person means that Paul cannot be talking to the Jews and yet you IGNORE that point entirely and simply flip it to somehow mean the opposite. I don't know if you're just being stubborn or if I'm not communicating the point well or what but I'm done repeating myself in response to your doing the same.

If you want to defend this nonsense in the future, I recommend a different tactic because what you've managed to do here is firmly convince me that there's no basis for it whatsoever.

So this was in response to my saying, "Yep....the entire time he's talking about the Jews?

I'm seriously starting to think you don't even read what I write.
About and To are not the same.

I have always said that Paul is writing about the Jews for all of chapters 9, 10, and 11. You just don't want to admit it.

Since you don't bother to look up the scriptures in the OT that Paul is quoting, you've ended up falling into legalism. You're taking something that was only for Israel, has always been for Israel, and are trying to make it a part of Paul's gospel. This is error. Whether you want to admit it or not.

Anyway, it's up to you, I guess. You can turn your back, shut your eyes, and continue to preach something that is a WORK ..confessing with the mouth which was required of Israel. Ample proof of that throughout the OT. It was the Jews who were to confess with their mouth that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. I have more, but I'm thinking your pride can't take much more this go round.

 

[Clete]

So this was in response to my saying, "Yep....the entire time he's talking about the Jews?

No, I quoted the first sentence as a way of referrencing the whole. The confusion there is understandable. My fault.

I'm seriously starting to think you don't even read what I write.
About and To are not the same.

I have always said that Paul is writing about the Jews for all of chapters 9, 10, and 11. You just don't want to admit it.

I have never denied it! Being talked ABOUT is NOT the same as being spoken TO!

How much more completely obvious of a point can that be?

Since you don't bother to look up the scriptures in the OT that Paul is quoting, you've ended up falling into legalism.

THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE POINT!!!!

Romans 10:9-10 IS being taught to the Jews but to the same people he was just telling ABOUT the Jews! You can tell this because he is speaking to his audience there in the first person but speaks ABOUT Israel in the third person. The parallels he's making in those chapters lend credence to the what he's telling his audience! He is essentially establishing the validity of his gospel by showing its Jewish roots. He flat out IS NOT teaching Jewish believers how to get saved under the law!

You're taking something that was only for Israel, has always been for Israel, and are trying to make it a part of Paul's gospel. This is error. Whether you want to admit it or not.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Anyway, it's up to you, I guess. You can turn your back, shut your eyes, and continue to preach something that is a WORK ..confessing with the mouth which was required of Israel. Ample proof of that throughout the OT. It was the Jews who were to confess with their mouth that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. I have more, but I'm thinking your pride can't take much more this go round.

I've told you REPEATEDLY that I'm happy to discuss it SO LONG AS something substantive is being said.

I responded to this post because I had inadvertently caused confusion with the way I quoted your previous post but if you want to continue, you will have to do more than merely make that claim that these three chapters are Paul teaching someone other than the same audience that he's teaching throughout the rest of the book because I'm not buying it a bit. I can read just as well as the next guy and I can easily tell that the audience has not changed when you start Romans 9. The subject matter moves to Israel but so what? The point of his letter is still the communication of the gospel under the dispensation of grace. The subject of what happened with God's people in the previous dispensation and subsequent transition to the new dispensation is a perfectly normal thing to bring up in such an essay. It would be weird if it wasn't in there!

Not only that but there isn't any need to think that Paul switched audiences for three chapters. It's a solution is search of a problem because there's practically no one on the whole planet who reads Romans 10:9-10 and thinks "Ah ha! That's legalism!"

Clete

 

[glorydaz]

In post 416

I wrote this..... "Legalism? Where in the world do you get that idea? Romans 9, 10, and 11 all pertain to Israel. That's my whole point, and I don't know why it's so impossible for you to consider. "

Clete responded with this......
"You've given me no reason to consider it. It's plain lunatic insanity. Those chapters are the crescendo of the single greatest theological treatise in the history of mankind and one that follows one of the most eloquent teachings of the difference between law and grace that it is possible to pen and you somehow - SOMEHOW - imagine that those chapters were written for the Jews and teach law! There's more reason to believe that God predestined Adam's fall than there is for believing that the Apostle Paul taught law to Kingdom Jews ANYWHERE much less in the tenth chapter of the greatest presentation of the grace gospel that anyone will ever read!"

This is where the error started, and Clete is still refusing to admit those chapters are about Israel.
What Israel lacked was NOT obedience to the law, so that law argument goes right down the drain.
What unbelieving Israel lacked was FAITH in their Messiah. Only believing Israel had faith in HIS NAME.
This is elementary ....or should be.


Whatever is added to Paul's gospel is preaching falsehood. Be it water baptism, confessing with the mouth, forgiving others in order to be forgiven, repentance of sins. Anytime anything is added to Christ's work on the cross, you can be assured it's false doctrine.

NEVER in Paul's gospel are members of the body told we must confess Jesus as Lord in order to be saved.
Those who claim to be members of the body of Christ need to clean up their message.

 

[Clete]

In post 416

I wrote this..... "Legalism? Where in the world do you get that idea? Romans 9, 10, and 11 all pertain to Israel. That's my whole point, and I don't know why it's so impossible for you to consider. "

Clete responded with this......
"You've given me no reason to consider it. It's plain lunatic insanity. Those chapters are the crescendo of the single greatest theological treatise in the history of mankind and one that follows one of the most eloquent teachings of the difference between law and grace that it is possible to pen and you somehow - SOMEHOW - imagine that those chapters were written for the Jews and teach law! There's more reason to believe that God predestined Adam's fall than there is for believing that the Apostle Paul taught law to Kingdom Jews ANYWHERE much less in the tenth chapter of the greatest presentation of the grace gospel that anyone will ever read!"

This is where the error started, and Clete is still refusing to admit those chapters are about Israel.
What Israel lacked was NOT obedience to the law, so that law argument goes right down the drain.
What unbelieving Israel lacked was FAITH in their Messiah. Only believing Israel had faith in HIS NAME.
This is elementary ....or should be.


Whatever is added to Paul's gospel is preaching falsehood. Be it water baptism, confessing with the mouth, forgiving others in order to be forgiven, repentance of sins. Anytime anything is added to Christ's work on the cross, you can be assured it's false doctrine.

NEVER in Paul's gospel are members of the body told we must confess Jesus as Lord in order to be saved.
Those who claim to be members of the body of Christ need to clean up their message.

SAYING IT DOES MAKE IT SO!!! Even if you repeat it over and over again!

Glorydaz wants you to believe that saying that you believe something verbally amounts to legalism and that the reason its fine that Paul said such a thing as "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" is because he was teaching the Romans that "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" is how Jews get saved under the previous dispensation of law. She effectively is trying to tell you that the phrase "for the Jew" is implied in Romans 10:10, Romans 10:12 not withstanding.

The ONLY evidence she has presented is the mere fact that Israel is being talked about in chapters 9-10. She then takes a leap in logic to declare that because Paul has brought up Israel that, therefore, chapters 9 - 10, (nearly 20% of the book), of Romans is not doctrinally applicable to the Body of Christ.

She has all but ignored any counter argument....

• She refused to acknowledge that by the same reasoning, Romans 14 wouldn't apply to the Body of Christ either but simply declared "So, Paul is, indeed, teaching body truths." while ignoring the fact that Israel was clearly being spoken about.
• She flatly refused to respond to my question about whether her saying "I love you" to her husband meant that his love for her wasn't free and simply declared that to be irrelevant to the point with no explanation as to why.
• She has basically ignored the point about references to Israel in Romans 9-11 are in the third person but that the teaching in chapter 10:9-10 is in the first person, indicating that Paul isn't talking to Israel there but to the audience that the letter is written to. Her only response being to somehow flip it over in her head to mean the exact opposite - again without explanation.
• And, finally, she has completely ignored the fact that Paul's explicit statement "there is no distinction between Jew and Greek," is just one sentence removed from what she claims to be Paul stating how Jews are saved and not Greeks.

In short, glorydaz has presented an idea that does not logically follow from her own stated premise and then refused to substantive respond to any objection raised against the idea and she wonders why no one is convinced and reverts to simply repeating the position as though nothing of any consequence has been said in opposition to it.

Clete