1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Be wary of the Spirit?
I trow not.
Last edited:
Has the Church Replaced Israel ?
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
I trow not.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Just as Adam slept and his wife was created from him, so Jesus died, and his wife is created from him.
I have not idea what you mean here. Would you like to clarify it for me as you addressed it to me?
What does that matter?
Romans 4:9-13 is your answer my dear friend......
"Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised."
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
This is not two separate sets of folks.
For Abraham to be their father they had to also walk.
This is spirituality.
Death knell for carnal Dispenstionalism.
That is your opinion.
You say that as if you had an onion in your mouth.
Dispensationalism is a way of ordering things—an administration, a system, or a management.
In theology, a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time; each dispensation is a divinely appointed age.
Dispensationalism is a theological system that recognizes these ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. Dispensationalism has two primary distinctives:
1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and
2) a view of the uniqueness of Israel as separate from the Church in God’s program.
Classical dispensationalism identifies seven dispensations in God’s plan for humanity. Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the Church.
Dispensationalists hold that the Church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the Church.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
If one reads the bible literally yer no. 2 cannot be logically plausible.
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised."
I DO and YOU are incorrect my friend. Israel is separate from the Church in God’s program. The church and Israel as a nation form two distinct groups in God's program. God, prior to the church age, dealt primarily with the nation Israel; in the church age He deals primarily with the church; and following the church age He will deal primarily with the nation Israel once more.
Whether or not it is logically true does not matter. What it is, is Biblically true!
Abraham was justified by faith, not circumcision!
Abraham is declared righteous for his faith in Genesis 15 as God was promising Abraham a son. Sometime later, Ishmael was born when Abraham was 86 years old (Genesis 16:16). Abraham was not circumcised until he was 99 years old (Genesis 17:24). So it was at least 13 years after God declared Abraham righteous before he was circumcised.
We are told that Abraham believed God, and God credited that faith as righteousness. Paul's point is that Abraham's circumcision had nothing to do with Abraham being declared righteous by God for his faith. The two were not connected. So what is there to exclude the uncircumcised non-Jewish world from being justified by God for faith in Christ?
Good start!
This makes no sense whatsoever. There is no such thing as an illogical truth, biblical or otherwise.
James disagrees!
James 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Was James wrong?
Thanks for the question. 1st of all.........Again, what we think is not logical or makes sense has no revelance. The only thing that matters is what God said.
2nd......James does not contradict Pauls and he is NOT saying that Abraham was justified by his works,
I am a believer that the Bible is inspired by God and It is the very word of God, written. Therefore, I believe that the Bible is true and coherent. It does not teach us things that are false. It does not contradict itself.
Remember, the same God-Man who taught Paul also taught His half Brother James.
Now, please do not misunderstand me, because this does not mean that there are no problems for us in the Bible. We are finite. We are sinful. We are culturally biased. We bring our own false thoughts and teachings to the Word of truth, And language itself can confuse us when different words carry the same meaning, and when the same words carry different meanings.
So then......Does James aim to refute the doctrine of Paul that justification is by faith alone, which would mean there is a massive contradiction in the Bible which seems to be your goal in life.
So then, in the Scripture you used in James states clearly, in the form of a question, that Abraham was justified by works when he obeyed God's command to sacrifice Isaac—until the moment God said "stop," in Genesis chapter 22.
Context, however, is crucial. All of James's words leading up to verse 21 have been about how works demonstrate saving faith. Paul used the term "justify" to describe the formal process by which God declared a person righteous. This is clear from the context of his other words. James, in this passage, has been describing the difference between a living faith and a dead faith. James is using the term "justify" to refer to proof, in the eyes of people. Paul and James are not contradicting each other; they are speaking of two different things.
James is pointing to Abraham's faith as the motivating power behind his works. James will also show that it was Abraham's belief that allowed him to be counted as righteous. His works were evidence of that faith, and therefore evidence of his salvation.
So we can easily see that James's point throughout this section has been that works flow naturally from saving faith.
Thank you brother for the question and allowing me to correctly divide the Word Of God!
How would you know what God said without using logic (i.e. reason)?
David Koresh quoted the bible all day long and used it to defend his sexual relations with children.
I thought you said that what you think has no relevance and that the only thing that matters is what God (i.e. God's word) says!?
I quoted the passage directly! All one needs to do is read it. The context is entirely about salvation and what it takes to get saved and James specifically and explicitly states that Abraham was saved by works.
I thought you just said that what we think has no relevance.
True! Sounds like you like logic after all.
Talk out of both sides of your mouth much?
He did not, however, teach them the same thing.
Seems like I remember you saying something about Israel and "the church" (more difinitely referred to as "the body of Christ") aren't the same thing.
Nonsense. The bible isn't written in code and James' writings are clear as can be as are Paul's. They aren't hard to understand and they both wrote precisely what they meant and both mean precisely what they seem to mean by a casual surface reading of the text. Literally any third grader can understand it.
False premises (plural).
1. James was making no effort to refute Paul, he was simply teaching a gospel from a different dispensation.
2. There is no contradiction but it isn't because Paul and James aren't teaching different things but because they are ministering two different gospels to two different bodies of believers.
Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me [Paul], as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, 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.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a doctrine that didn't require you to figure out how to make whole sections of scripture say the opposite of what it plainly states?
Besides, now your contradicting Paul's explicit teaching that it is he who DOES NOT HAVE WORKS is the one who is saved.
Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
Again, the resolution doesn't come by trying to twist James' teachings to fit with Paul's as you are doing, or to twist Paul's to agree with James' as many other Christian sects do. It comes by understanding that they are ministering two different gospels to two different bodies of believers. One is teaching law to Israel and the other is teaching grace to the Body of Christ.
Rightly dividing the word of God is precisely what you are not doing. You start to do so but stop short because you fail to see when Israel was cut off or that the ministry of the Twelve (and their converts like James) didn't switch away from Israel. Peter, James and John were members of Israel and ministers to the same and continued to be so throughout their natural lives, for the callings of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).
Paul was not recruited, commissioned, sanctioned or endorsed by the twelve when he started his ministry. Paul did not receive his gospel from man nor was he taught it. He received it by direct divine revelation from the risen Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If that gospel was the same as what was already being taught by the other Apostles, then why would that need to happen? If it was the same gospel, why would God tell Paul, again by direct divine revelation, to go to Jerusalem and tell the Twelve what his gospel was? Why, if they were teaching the same things, would the "pillars" in Jerusalem (Peter, James and John) agree with Paul to limit their ministry to Israel, in contradiction to the great commission, while Paul went to the whole rest of the world? Indeed, if Paul was teaching the same thing as the rest of the Apostles, where is the need for Paul's ministry at all?
The answer, of course, is that they were not teaching the same thing. Peter, James and John were teaching the gospel of the Kingdom which required obedience to the law. James, in Acts 21 says that his followers were all "zealous for the law", as well they should have been. Paul, on the other hand, preached a gospel that was explicitly about not allowing yourself to be placed under the law. This happened because Israel had been cut off (that it Israel, as a nation, lost their special status. The existing believers weren't cut off, which is why there was still a need for the Twelve to minister to them), and there was no longer any distinction between Jew or Gentile in regards to having a relationship with God.
Prior to Israel being cut off, the prophesied program for Israel was still on track. Jesus had already fulfilled the feasts of Tabernacles (birth), Passover (death), Unleavened bread (three days in the grave) and First Fruits (resurrection). The next feast on queue was Pentecost, which was fulfilled in Acts 2, and Peter's sermon was to Israel and in keeping with that taught in the gospels which was to repent, turn back to God so that Jesus will return and Israel will be given their Kingdom.
So, God was still working with Israel up to this point and it wasn't until after the Holy Spirit "fertilized the Fig Tree" (Luke 13:6-9), and Israel as a nation still refused to accept their Messiah, that God cut them off. It was when Stephen stood before the leaders of Israel and spoke with "irresistible wisdom" (Acts 6:10) and their response was to murder him, that a certain man named Saul comes into the story. God then gives Peter this vision where he was to kill and eat things that the law forbade him to eat and Saul was confronted by the risen Lord on the Damascus Road and became the Apostle Paul and God's cutting off of Israel and His turning instead to the Gentiles was completed. This did not happen in the gospels, it didn't happen at the crucifixion or resurrection of Christ and it didn't happen at Pentecost. It happened in or around Acts chapter 9.
This history of events, which is very clearly laid out for us in the book of Acts, makes it so that I can read Romans 4:5 and James 2:26 and understand them both to mean precisely what they seem to mean without getting even a little bit anxious about it. There is no conflict because they are not talking to the same group of people. One is talking to people who were under the law and the other is talking to people who were (are) not under the law.
Clete
Last edited:
Are those logical statements?
Maybe not..........but they are correct statements.
Allow me to clarify where I was coming from. Souls being torments in Hell eternally to me is not logical and I do not like it.
However, it is what God said so then what I think about it just does not matter either logically or not. It is what it is because God said that it is.
Right Divider
Body part
To be a "correct statement", it must be logical.
What is "not logical" about it?
God is completely logical and never illogical.
Isa 1:18 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:18) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Right Divider
Body part
Logic is not a matter of personal opinion.
No, Rodger!
There is NO SUCH THING as an irrational truth!
I have a feeling that you don't mean what the words you are using seem to communicate. I suspect that what you actually mean is,
"Whether we agree with, understand or like [insert biblical teaching] doesn't come into it."
I do not know that for a fact and so am going to respond to the actual words you've written because, either way, it's a topic worth fleshing out.
How are you going to do that without using logic?
What does it mean to "clarify" something, in this context, if it doesn't mean "let me show you the logic"?
First of all, as Right Divider points about above, the phrase "to me X is not logical" is a non-sequitor. It isn't up to you. It is either logical or it isn't. Also, this "I do not like it" phrase is what makes me suspect that you actually mean something other than what your words would imply.
The fact that you do not understand the logic of something doesn't make it ACTUALLY illogical. One's ignorance or lack thereof is not the standard by which sound reason works. Same goes for one's personal opinions and emotional states of mind.
So you believe that God is arbitrary?
"Because God said that it is" IS NOT the reason why things are the way they are in regards to issues of morality and justice! Quite the reverse, actually!
Please believe me when I tell you that you DO NOT have to live your life believing that God is irrational and/or arbitrary! On the contrary, there can be no such thing as righteousness, justice, mercy, or love without reason! There is no such thing as illogical righteousness. There is no such thing as mindless or causeless (i.e. non-logical) love. Without sound reason, there is no knowledge. Without knowledge, there is no volition. Without volition there is no morality. Your anti-logic stance is not only anti-intellectual, it's literally anti-Christ! Not that you intend that but it's entirely the truth.
I wrote a post on this precise subject that does a pretty decent job of establishing the basic principles within this area of Christian ethics and epistemology. I wrote it in answer to the question, "Is God moral?". Please read it! I'd be interested in your reaction to it.
Is God Moral?
It is an excellnt post. Well thought out and presented. I would recommend to you a book by Christian theologian Paul Copan:.............
Is God a Moral Monster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God.
Now I only say that because It’s important to realize how deep this topic can be, & since a single article could never really do the subject justice.
I would also add here that apart from God, it’s not possible to have truly objective morality. Opinion is not enough—for the claim “God is a moral monster” to be meaningful, it has to be based on some unchanging standard. Ideas such as “suffering” or “human flourishing” are not objective. There is no rational reason for opinions or subjective ideas to be the source of moral reasoning.
So, the first problem with claiming that God is immoral is that meaningful moral claims require God to exist in the first place. Labelling anything “good” or “evil” requires assumptions that lead inevitably to God. This fact is related to the next common objection about divine morality.
I would also say that if the ultimate measure of morality is some human opinion, then there can always be different ways to interpret that opinion. “Human flourishing” sounds like a great basis for morality until someone conveniently defines certain people as less than human.
Of course this leads to a major instance of hypocrisy. In claiming that God is morally wrong, people are claiming more than a knowledge of a better moral system; they are claiming to be the standard of morality. That is the Humanity Equation and That claim not only makes their criticism of God’s morals less impactful, but it makes it meaningless.
Thank you for asking me for my opinion.
I DID NOT ask for your opinion and I can tell by this post that you didn't read the post that I asked you to read. Neither did you respond to anything said in the post that you quoted! You simply took it as an opportunity to pretend like you know more than you do and to bloviate as though you're some sort of bible answerman. You seem to be incapable of substantive two way discussion.
This website is a waste of my time.
Right Divider
Body part
Not as much as you think. There are many of us that get great edification from your posts.
You just said..........
"You seem to be incapable of substantive two way discussion."
LOL! That is really really funny!
You know.......you are just about the rudest person I have encountered on what I thought was a Christian forum. You are disrespectful and you do not show any ability to properly communicate with others (Me).
I took the time to read your very long dissertation which you asked me to do and gave you my honest thoughts. And the result is that you disrespect me by calling me a liar.
Now I do not care even little bit whether you asked for my opinion or not. I gave it to you and if you do not want it..........please place it in you flower box for fertilizer.
It would please me greatly if you would not respond to me any more as I just do not have the ability to be nice to someone who shows such ignorance and disrepect!