ECT Oikonomia (dispensation/stewardship) of Grace

popsthebuilder

New member
I don't know why you would think that from the above. You have to distinguish between ceremonial/dietary and ethical or it crashes. Paul was not a permissive.
I may have read more into the initial post I responded to than you were trying to convey, or missed what you were saying. I was speaking of holy stewardship in general and admit to not keeping up with the thread much.



Sent from my HTC Desire 512 using Tapatalk
 

Danoh

New member
I wouldn't be would I? Mystery Grace is nonsense and Kingom Fullness is futurist and therefore wrong.

No, the expression is not in Paul nor in how he thinks. Prove otherwise.


Not surprisingly, you conclude from what you have already shunned going in as being two false positives, that such is the case with the other of those three you also view as falsehood.

Not surprising, given the "one size fits all" approach your over reliance on external sources along with your own over the Scripture, has left you with.

The following is...

The Righteousness of the Law By Faith

Romans 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

They were to keep the law.

But not merely keep it outwardly, but inwardly, from the heart, or by faith.

2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Romans 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Had they kept the law by faith; had they actually believed it, and not merely professed it outwardly, they would have believed the Law's testimony that Jesus was the Christ.

They were walking the walk, talking the talk, but inwardly, they were in unbelief - whited sepulcre, pew warmers.

John 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. 5:41 I receive not honour from men. 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

In contrast to...

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

And...

John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

While, in contrast to that again...

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

There...

...is your requested proof...

Gainsay it all you want.

In contrast...

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh:
But not merely keep it outwardly, but inwardly, from the heart, or by faith.

That is not how faith contrasts. The "or" is mistaken. Faith is to access the work someone else has done on your behalf.

You don't know your way around because you aren't centered on justification.

re Rom 2 and the faults of the Jews.
I have never set aside the ethical heart of the law. Ceremony and dietary, yes. Look into Reformation theology's three purposes of the law.

Again if you knew justification as presented in Rom 3, you would also know the conclusion of 3 on the law. it is not set aside, because it's standards and call for justice have been met in Christ. You might say 'in the theory of atonement or propitiation.' To be honored by good ethical behavior, not by ceremonial and dietary considerations.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh:
But not merely keep it outwardly, but inwardly, from the heart, or by faith.

That is not how faith contrasts. The "or" is mistaken. Faith is to access the work someone else has done on your behalf.

You don't know your way around because you aren't centered on justification.

re Rom 2 and the faults of the Jews.
I have never set aside the ethical heart of the law. Ceremony and dietary, yes. Look into Reformation theology's three purposes of th

Again if you knew justification as presented in Rom 3, you would also know the conclusion of 3 on the law. it is not set aside, because it's standards and call for justice have been met in Christ. You might say 'in the theory of atonement or propitiation.' To be honored by good ethical behavior, not by ceremonial and dietary considerations.



Danoh,
I thought this was about 'obeying the law by faith.' I don't see how any of those passages necessarily illustrate that, or the lack of it. It's kind of a redundant expression anyway. About the only one I can think of that would be people said to be believers and 'zealous for the law' is that one example in Acts 21, and as good theology says, don't form a doctrine by one illustration in a narrative but by whole didactic sections that are clearly expounding that topic.

The Mt 23 kind of criticism meant that they were trying to hard to obey it, and missing the majors. The people who were on target were usually not stuck in issues about ceremony and dietary, but the majors. As worthwhile as it was/is to be on target on that, it was not what faith was to Paul. Those people might have faith in their high ethics. He meant people who had faith in Christ for them, about the question of justification, which is an eschatological question.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh,
Yesterday was too hot and long, and I missed one item here that should have been first. I think there has been a grammatical mistake about 'the obedience of faith' (Rom 16's last paragraph) that is the exact same confusion as 'the gospel to the Gentiles' in Gal 2. In English, the case of the prepositional phrase has been lost.

Rom 16 means that the nations have faith as they respond to the Gospel and obey God through that response. The phrase is not a 'solution' to a theological problem (for you) nor is it just the 4 items of the apostles' letter in Acts 15 (the council) re-titled. The obedience in mind actually is the faith they are having in the Gospel.

Of course, being true faith, it generates many good works of love, care, and hope.
 

Danoh

New member
Danoh,
Yesterday was too hot and long, and I missed one item here that should have been first. I think there has been a grammatical mistake about 'the obedience of faith' (Rom 16's last paragraph) that is the exact same confusion as 'the gospel to the Gentiles' in Gal 2. In English, the case of the prepositional phrase has been lost.

Rom 16 means that the nations have faith as they respond to the Gospel and obey God through that response. The phrase is not a 'solution' to a theological problem (for you) nor is it just the 4 items of the apostles' letter in Acts 15 (the council) re-titled. The obedience in mind actually is the faith they are having in the Gospel.

Of course, being true faith, it generates many good works of love, care, and hope.

Completely missed my point about how faith worked under the Law :doh:
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
You are seldom very clear, but perhaps there is something that could be agreed on. A person who really has a point can say it 10 ways clearly. You have no restatement.

In any case, the expression did not mean 'obedience (to the Law) by faith.' Not at that time when the Law meant all of its features--ceremonial and dietary, as Gal 4 shows.

You never talk about Gal 3 and 4. In fact, I don't see where you allow for the type of discord that existed. They should all have been buds.
 

Danoh

New member
You are seldom very clear, but perhaps there is something that could be agreed on. A person who really has a point can say it 10 ways clearly. You have no restatement.

In any case, the expression did not mean 'obedience (to the Law) by faith.' Not at that time when the Law meant all of its features--ceremonial and dietary, as Gal 4 shows.

You never talk about Gal 3 and 4. In fact, I don't see where you allow for the type of discord that existed. They should all have been buds.

My understanding of the phrase "the obedience of faith" is that it refers to believing God as to what He requires.

That obedience differed under the Law.

Under the Law the obediance of faith was not simply keeping the Law but doing so from the heart.

Not as pleasing men - see what a good Jew I am - but as pleasing God - LORD if this is what you would have me DO, then this I will believe I am to DO.

While, this side of that the obedience of faith is - LORD if this is what you would have me do - BELIEVE that Christ died in my stead - then this is what I will BELIEVE.

The Operative PRINCIPLE is the same in both. Its APPLICATION, however, DIFFERS in EACH.

This - "righteousness which is of the law"...

Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

In contrast to this...

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

As for Galatians 3 and 4 - unless the above is understood; what's the point of going there with you?

Galatians 3 and 4 are based on the above DISTINCTION between BELIEVING MESSIANIC Judaism and BELIEVING GENTILE Grace.

Fuse those TWO EQUALLY VALID GOSPELS into one - as SOME had attempted to in Acts 15, failed, but succeeded at Galatia - fuse those two into one - and what you have is "another gospel; which is not another" at all.

I remind you again that even the Greek sense agrees with this sense of "one of two" that all the various passages as one, make obvious.

Fuse both together as one and you render both as one "another which is not another" at all.
 

Danoh

New member
You lost me at...


Isn't the whole point of Galatians 1:6,7 that there is only one gospel?

Yes and no.

The point is that to fuse together as one that "righteousness which is OF THE LAW" with "But now the righteousness of God WITHOUT the law" is to preach another gospel comprised of those two.

Is to preach another, which is not another at all.

Read the whole of Galataians again.

Note how each is valid in its own right, but one is not the other, and to mix them as if they are one, is to end up at another; which is not another, at all.

The whole point is Gal. 2:2's "that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles."
 

Right Divider

Body part
The whole point is Gal. 2:2's "that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles."
Honestly, how hard is it for these "there can only possibly be one gospel" folks to understand Paul here?

If there really was only one "good news" that they were all preaching, why would Paul make such a statement?

Easy answer: It's not the same gospel.

P.S. Even if one of our resident "Greek experts" claims that it says "the gospel" instead of "that gospel", it wouldn't change the logic one bit.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Honestly, how hard is it for these "there can only possibly be one gospel" folks to understand Paul here?

If there really was only one "good news" that they were all preaching, why would Paul make such a statement?

Easy answer: It's not the same gospel.

P.S. Even if one of our resident "Greek experts" claims that it says "the gospel" instead of "that gospel", it wouldn't change the logic one bit.

You guys just don't get it.

The Gentiles weren't raised under the old covenant/Judaism.

It would make absolutely no sense to preach the same thing to a Jew born and raised under the OC/Judaism, as it would to a pagan Gentile who had no idea what the OC/Judaism even was.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
You just don't get it. There is more than one group of Gentiles in the Bible.

You should really look up the word "Gentile" in the dictionary.

Anyone who was not a Jew was a Gentile.

Yes, there were Gentile proselytes and pagan Gentiles, but that in no way is what Paul is referring to in Ephesians.

The "two" becoming one new man in Christ are Jews and Gentiles.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
You should really look up the word "Gentile" in the dictionary.

“And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.”-Tellalie

You should really look up the word "everyone" in the dictionary, little wimpy armed Craigie.


Identify this "everyone" that allegedly saw this "un-physical" Saviour return, but not to planet earth, in AD 70.

3 years of silence, eh greasy one?


"The land promises were fulfilled in Christ Jesus."-no chin "Frank Burns" Craigie


You should really look up the word "land" in the dictionary, punk.


Fun, as Craigie suffers another death knell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Right Divider

Body part
You should really look up the word "Gentile" in the dictionary.

Anyone who was not a Jew was a Gentile.

Yes, there were Gentile proselytes and pagan Gentiles, but that in no way is what Paul is referring to in Ephesians.

The "two" becoming one new man in Christ are Jews and Gentiles.
Paul had a multi-faceted ministry. There are so many things that you refuse to accept regarding things clearly shown in the scripture.

You and your "it's all spiritual" nonsense!
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Paul had a multi-faceted ministry. There are so many things that you refuse to accept regarding things clearly shown in the scripture.

You and your "it's all spiritual" nonsense!

Paul preached to Christ rejecting Jews, Christian Jews, Christian Jews who were resorting back to Judaism, Pagan Gentiles, Proselyte Gentiles, etc

However, Paul preached one gospel

You MADists can't understand that the one gospel was preached differently to the many different groups of people


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Danoh

New member
Paul preached to Christ rejecting Jews, Christian Jews, Christian Jews who were resorting back to Judaism, Pagan Gentiles, Proselyte Gentiles, etc

However, Paul preached one gospel

You MADists can't understand that the one gospel was preached differently to the many different groups of people


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quit lumping all MADs into one and the same understanding about this issue.

Do you, and say, I Am A Berean, and Interplanner hold to one and the same understandings about SOME things - no, you do not; you differ GREATLY in your RESPECTIVE understanding of SAID things - GREATLY SO.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Quit lumping all MADs into one and the same understanding about this issue.

Do you, and say, I Am A Berean, and Interplanner hold to one and the same understandings about SOME things - no, you do not; you differ GREATLY in your RESPECTIVE understanding of SAID things - GREATLY SO.
Ya... it make Danoh MAD!!!! :chuckle:
 
Top