ECT How is Paul's message different?

[lifeisgood]

Keep asking such questions until its clear because my bet is that what I just said muddied the water for you. It is critical that we define terms before proceeding.

This is my 'battle' with Christian friends of mine. As I tell them all the time 'the world has taken our definitions, made a mess of them, changed them, and brought back to us nicely packaged and most take it line, hook, and sinker.'

I agree totally with you that we must define terms before proceeding. Most do not want to do that though. Notice the 'most'.

 

[musterion]

I agree totally with you that we must define terms before proceeding. Most do not want to do that though. Notice the 'most'.

Because determining the definitions is more than halfway toward controlling the conversation.

Side note: just above is the 2nd time Shugart has ignored questions of context. Why? Because to abide by context deflates his false arguments. So he pretends to address what he didn't address, IMMEDIATELY AND LOUDLY coupled with irrelevant counter-questions that (if you fall for it) put him back in control of the conversation.

It's a troll tactic and Shugart is employing it often these days. Sad to watch.

 

[musterion]

I know we all know this but it bears pointing out.

Satan's ministers cannot preach truth in 100% purity, for obvious reasons. What they do instead is misuse truth by blending it with various forms of lies (definitional and contextual lies are just two but they may be the biggest).

At that point the truth is no longer the truth, but that's enough to deceive most people. Once the false teacher has got that foot in someone's mental door, he or she can feed them flat-out lies which the deceived will readily believe -- they've already invested their trust in half-truth lies, so questioning whatever is taught next does not occur to them, or is actively precluded on pain of Hell.

So yes, defining specific terms and determining limits of context are key in exposing error.

Refuting error is another matter...refuting something is really a matter of perception. What that means is, those observing an exchange may already be invested in believing a lie (though of course they don't view it as a lie). The lie they've already accepted is foundational to everything else they've built into a belief system. They've got a lot invested in that, usually their hope of escaping the Lake of Fire depends upon it. So when the truth comes along, they reject the truth because it appears, to them, to be a lie. Result: honest conversation, much less refutation of lies on the basis of truth, is impossible.

And sometimes it seems to me that the more clearly truth is preached, the more hardened the opposition to it becomes.

Question: Why does this phenomenon happen with such dependable regularity on TOL?

Simplest answer: Because it's allowed to. False teachers are not dealt with here according to how Paul says they're to be dealt with.

 

[Clete]

I agree we need to clarify the points that we are trying to get across.

Ok, for arguments sake let's say he's not addressing Peter's converts. Sticking with the Corinthians, can we agree that they heard Paul's message of the "gospel of grace" and are in Christ?

"In Christ"?

It depends on just what you mean by the phrase. If you mean it in the sense that all believers are therefore "in Christ" then fine, even Peter used the phrase in that sense, but if you are referring to the identification truths spoken of by Paul (Romans 6-8 and elsewhere) then, no. Converts of the Twelve were members of the Kingdom of Israel and where not members of the Body of Christ.

As for whether they heard Paul's gospel, I have no doubt that some did and some did not. It wouldn't have mattered if they had or not because God's callings are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29) or, as Paul put it elsewhere...

I Cor. 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.​

In other words, someone who accepted Peter's gospel and became a believer under the previous dispensation could not become a member of the Body of Christ. Peter, James and John could not stop being Apostles of the previous gospel and become a follower of Paul under his new gospel of grace. It just doesn't work that way. Once you came to Christ under one "oikonomia" then that's where you remained.

What did Paul proclaim to them so that they would believe?

Same thing Jesus did. Trust God, obey His commandments. Trust and obey the law. That is the gospel according to Jesus and the Twelve.

The difference, starting with Acts 2 is that there was no longer any place for animal sacrifice or other ritualistic practices that had to do with a High Priest and the Holy of Holies, et. al.

If you want to know specifically what was preached, read the James, I & II Peter, I, II & III John, Jude and Revelation. In short read the New Testament minus the stuff written by Paul.

People, in modern times, who do that and practice what they read consistently call themselves Messianic Jews, whether they are ethnically Jewish or not.

Now, eventually, the twelve were no longer actively evangelical. They were commissioned by Christ to go unto all the world preaching the gospel which He had taught them (Matt 28). There's a very good reason that they agreed with Paul not to do that and instead remain in Jerusalem ministering to the believers there while Paul went to the rest of the world (Gal. 2). That reason being that is had been made clear to them that Jesus was not coming back soon as they had been told and as they had been preaching (Acts 3-4). The Apostles and their converts had sold all of their possessions and lived communally in expectation that Jesus would return and set up Israel's Kingdom. When that turned out not to be the case, they ended up in poverty (as long term communism always does) and were in need of charity which Paul's converts provided and which the Twelve oversaw.


Out of time!


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Evaded it again.

No, I didn't evade anything.

I addressed exactly what believers are redeemed from.

You are the one who has not answered what you think that the Gentile believers are redeemed from.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This is Paul's Gospel (Romans 2:16 & 16:25; II Timothy 2:18). It does not exist outside of Paul's epistles and if Paul's epistles did not exist we would all be Messianic Jews or the equivalent.

Are you serious, Clete? Can you not see that the following words found in Peter's first epistle is in fact the same gospel which Paul first received?:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet. 1:18-19).​

The same can be seen in Peter's words here:

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (1 Pet.2:24).​

In fact, those who had received Peter's epistle were given the stewardship to preach the gospel of grace:

"As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Pet.4:10).​

Where did you ever get the idea that the gospel which was first given to Paul is not found in any epistles except for the ones which Paul wrote? Have you never even read Peter's epistles?

 

[musterion]

No, I didn't evade anything.

I addressed exactly what believers are redeemed from.

Third time. That's not what I asked you. And that's also a lie: first time or two, you tried to focus on HOW they were redeemed (which I did not ask), instead of WHAT Peter said his readers were redeemed from. You still won't touch it because it shows you're a liar.

You are the one who has not answered what you think that the Gentile believers are redeemed from.

See that, folks? He did it AGAIN. Refuses to answer, claims he did answer, then throws out another irrelevant question to camouflage that he never did answer.

Shurgartism. A trolling cult of one.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In other words, someone who accepted Peter's gospel and became a believer under the previous dispensation could not become a member of the Body of Christ.

Where did you ever get that idea, Clete? The Scriptures contradict that idea.

At one time Apollos was a believer "knowing only the baptism of John":

"And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John" (Acts 18:24-25).​

But later, after Aquila and Priscilla had "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (v.26) we see Paul saying that Apollos watered what he had planted and they are both "one":

"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one" (1 Cor.3:5-8).​

Apollos was watering what Paul had planted because both were members of the Body of Christ and both were ministering to those in the Body of Christ. It is inconceivable that Apollos was not a member of the Body of Christ since Paul says that "he that planteth and he that watereth are one." In the following passage Paul speaks about that oneness:

"For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby" (Eph. 2:14-16).

Here we see the Apostle Paul speaking about the Jews and Gentiles being made "one" and reconciled in one Body. It is inconceivable that Paul would say that both he and Apollos were "one" but yet they were not "one" because Paul belongs within the Body of Christ but Apollos did not.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

See that, folks? He did it AGAIN. Refuses to answer, claims he did answer, then throws out another irrelevant question to camouflage that he never did answer.

Here is my answer and all you did was to deny that I ever answered:

An unbeliever is viewed as a slave "sold under sin" (Ro.7:14) and under the sentence of death (Ro.6:23) but are able to be redeemed by the purchase price, the blood of the Lamb.​

Then when I asked you what you think that the Gentile believers are redeemed from all you did was call me a liar!

Fine Christian man you are!

 

[turbosixx]

"In Christ"?

It depends on just what you mean by the phrase. If you mean it in the sense that all believers are therefore "in Christ" then fine, even Peter used the phrase in that sense, but if you are referring to the identification truths spoken of by Paul (Romans 6-8 and elsewhere) then, no. Converts of the Twelve were members of the Kingdom of Israel and where not members of the Body of Christ.

As for whether they heard Paul's gospel, I have no doubt that some did and some did not. It wouldn't have mattered if they had or not because God's callings are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29) or, as Paul put it elsewhere...

I Cor. 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.​

In other words, someone who accepted Peter's gospel and became a believer under the previous dispensation could not become a member of the Body of Christ. Peter, James and John could not stop being Apostles of the previous gospel and become a follower of Paul under his new gospel of grace. It just doesn't work that way. Once you came to Christ under one "oikonomia" then that's where you remained.


Same thing Jesus did. Trust God, obey His commandments. Trust and obey the law. That is the gospel according to Jesus and the Twelve.

The difference, starting with Acts 2 is that there was no longer any place for animal sacrifice or other ritualistic practices that had to do with a High Priest and the Holy of Holies, et. al.

If you want to know specifically what was preached, read the James, I & II Peter, I, II & III John, Jude and Revelation. In short read the New Testament minus the stuff written by Paul.

People, in modern times, who do that and practice what they read consistently call themselves Messianic Jews, whether they are ethnically Jewish or not.

Now, eventually, the twelve were no longer actively evangelical. They were commissioned by Christ to go unto all the world preaching the gospel which He had taught them (Matt 28). There's a very good reason that they agreed with Paul not to do that and instead remain in Jerusalem ministering to the believers there while Paul went to the rest of the world (Gal. 2). That reason being that is had been made clear to them that Jesus was not coming back soon as they had been told and as they had been preaching (Acts 3-4). The Apostles and their converts had sold all of their possessions and lived communally in expectation that Jesus would return and set up Israel's Kingdom. When that turned out not to be the case, they ended up in poverty (as long term communism always does) and were in need of charity which Paul's converts provided and which the Twelve oversaw.


Out of time!


Resting in Him,
Clete

Again, I would like to address things in this post and hopefully we will in the near future but I would suggest we are dealing with symptoms and not the root issue.

To get to the root, we need to determine the content of the “gospel of grace”, that Paul preached, that was sufficient enough to add them to the body of Christ.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

To get to the root, we need to determine the content of the “gospel of grace”, that Paul preached, that was sufficient enough to add them to the body of Christ.

The following passage from the pen of Paul speaks of the gospel of grace and tells us that those who "believe" (and nothing else) received the imputed righteousness which is of the LORD God:

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).​

If you think that it takes more than faith to received this imputed righteousness which is of God then you are not believing this gospel.

 

[turbosixx]

The following passage from the pen of Paul speaks of the gospel of grace and tells us that those who "believe" (and nothing else) received the imputed righteousness which is of the LORD God:

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).​

If you think that it takes more than faith to received this imputed righteousness which is of God then you are not believing this gospel.

Was Paul writing this to people who were already Christians thus already believed the gospel?

 

[DAN P]

Where did you ever get that idea, Clete? The Scriptures contradict that idea.

At one time Apollos was a believer "knowing only the baptism of John":

"And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John" (Acts 18:24-25).​

But later, after Aquila and Priscilla had "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (v.26) we see Paul saying that Apollos watered what he had planted and they are both "one":

"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one" (1 Cor.3:5-8).​

Apollos was watering what Paul had planted because both were members of the Body of Christ and both were ministering to those in the Body of Christ. It is inconceivable that Apollos was not a member of the Body of Christ since Paul says that "he that planteth and he that watereth are one." In the following passage Paul speaks about that oneness:

"For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby" (Eph. 2:14-16).

Here we see the Apostle Paul speaking about the Jews and Gentiles being made "one" and reconciled in one Body. It is inconceivable that Paul would say that both he and Apollos were "one" but yet they were not "one" because Paul belongs within the Body of Christ but Apollos did not.

Hi and all that Apollos new , IN THE BEGINNING water the Baptism of John !!

Then Aquila and Priscilia EXPOUNDED the WAY ( means expounded the dispensation of the Grace of God ) to Apollos MORE PERFECTLY , in Acts 18:26 !!

It this then obviously Apollos then believed the MYSTERY and is saved , and then is in the B O C !!

We see then that APOLLOS ministry that were 2 DIFFERENT GOSPEL being preached THE GOSPEL of Repentance with water Baptism and the MYSTERY by Aquila and Priscilla !!

dan p

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It this then obviously Apollos then believed the MYSTERY and is saved , and then is in the B O C !!

He was saved before he heard and believed the mystery but despite that fact he ended up in the Body of Christ.

And that by itself disproves the ridiculous idea that those who accepted the gospel which was preached by Peter could not become a member of the Body of Christ.

 

[DAN P]

He was saved before he heard and believed the mystery but despite that fact he ended up in the Body of Christ.

And that by itself disproves the ridiculous idea that those who accepted the gospel which was preached by Peter could not become a member of the Body of Christ.

So , then how was APOLLOS , THEN saved ??

Gal 3:28 will always be a thorn in your RIDICULOUS idea that people saved under the Kingdom Program did move up to Grace and the MYSTERY and Apollos doe prove that it happened and became and apostle of Grace in Acts 18:27 and 28 !!

dan p

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So , then how was APOLLOS , THEN saved ??

He was saved when he believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Gal 3:28 will always be a thorn in your RIDICULOUS idea that people saved under the Kingdom Program did move up to Grace and the MYSTERY and Apollos doe prove that it happened and became and apostle of Grace in Acts 18:27 and 28 !!

You don't even understand what Paul was saying at Galatians 3:28.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Was Paul writing this to people who were already Christians thus already believed the gospel?

Paul was explaining exactly how people have always been saved. And what he says make it plain that the imputed righteousness which is of God comes to those who "believe." Period!

Since you think that faith isn't enough to receive this imputed righteousness which is of God then you are not believing the gospel of grace.

 

[turbosixx]

Paul was explaining exactly how people have always been saved. And what he says make it plain that the imputed righteousness which is of God comes to those who "believe." Period!

Since you think that faith isn't enough to receive this imputed righteousness which is of God then you are not believing the gospel of grace.

He is writing to those who have already believed. Exactly what did Paul tell those who hadn't heard so that they would believe?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He is writing to those who have already believed. Exactly what did Paul tell those who hadn't heard so that they would believe?

Paul preached the same gospel of grace to unbelievers (Col.1:5-6).

And at another place he speaks of receiving the righteousness which is of God and that righteousness comes by faith:

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" (Phil.3:9).​

If you do not believe that the righteousness of God comes to those who "believe" then you are not believing the gospel of grace of which Paul speaks here:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Ro.4:5).​

Here is another example of the same teaching:

"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith" (Heb.11:7).​

Again, if you deny that faith alone is sufficient for a person to receive the imputed righteousness in the eyes of the LORD then you are NOT believing the gospel of grace.

 

[DAN P]

He was saved when he believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.



You don't even understand what Paul was saying at Galatians 3:28.

Hi Jerry , so then explain what Gal 3:28 , then means and what the 4 verbs mean in that passage !!

I do see , some 7 different things in Gal 3:28 !!

dan p