These days there's too many secretive posters that don't wish
to divulge or Testify what they believe. That sends up a red flag!
to divulge or Testify what they believe. That sends up a red flag!
ECT Rightly Dividing
- Thread starter achduke
- Start date
My experience has been, there's a majority of Nonbelievers and a minority of "True Believers" on TOL, these days.
The "True Believers" are upfront and honest about their faith. The others, hide,
give half answers, cryptic answers, get angry if you ask them questions about
their faith or just ignore the questions altogether.
give half answers, cryptic answers, get angry if you ask them questions about
their faith or just ignore the questions altogether.
ACH, I'll just write you off as being one of those, "Secretive Types" who have
something to hide.
something to hide.
It does not appear that issue was merely that of the need for Gentiles to abstain from certain meats, rather; for them to abstain from partaking of said meats when in the presence of those that might offend.
And this is actually the principle, or practice in general, of “Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:” 2 Cor. 6:3, as applied to this particular issue here.
Why this issue “that the ministry be not blamed”?
Note how, in the following, although the freedom is there; so is the concern for another’s conscience, given an issue on the table here, that is of much of greater importance than the Believer’s liberty in such issues when in the presence of others -“that they may be saved” - verses 32-33, below.
1 Corinthians 10:
27. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
28. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
29. Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
30. For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
31. Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
32. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
33. Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
Verse 28’s first word “But” is in the sense of “rather,” or “in other words.” I know this from the sense of the flow of Paul’s thought throughout, there and in chapter 8.
achduke
Active member
I have told you before I have never been associated formally to any churchy buildings or religious organizations. Have I been in them yes. But for weddings and family events, nothing formal. I have not been secretive and I have answered your questions. I am not going to keep playing games when you ask "Are you a JW or are you a mormon?" The answer to them all is NO!
achduke
Active member
Yes. It has always been about faith and grace. Since the beginning.
achduke
Active member
I am not a liar. I am not involved with any religious organizations and I have never been a part of one. You will have to take my word on it. I have nothing else to offer here other than my word.
Last edited:
achduke
Active member
And you define a non-believers as anyone who does not believe like you?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Chrys,
Are you saying you don't know that it comes from I Tim 3:16? Or are you saying that the KJV is a bad trans?
The drift of Paul's thought there has nothing to do with how God has organized the ages, ie, before/after Christ. It has to do with pastoral challenges. So when the Dispensationalists popularized the expression RD, they once again showed that they look for sound bytes rather than the true, solid background.
2 Timothy 2:15 states: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
It's not? I found it in Scripture!
I'm done posting with you.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let me see? Should I believe your silly ideas or what Paul wrote here?:
"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's" (1 Cor.1:2).
All of the Jewish believers living in the first century did indeed call on the name of Jesus Christ so Paul's words in this epistle applies to them. And here is what he told every Israelite believer in every place:
"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).
There can be no doubt whatsoever that all those who called on the name of the Lord Jesus in every place must include all of the believers among the Israelites so they were told that they were baptized into the Body of Christ.
From this we can know that all of the believers in the first century were members of the Body of Christ so it is Romans through Jude that applies to them.
You say that my interpretation of these two verses is in error but at the same time you prove nothing. If my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:2 is in error then it must have another meaning.
Give me your interpretation of the meaning of that verse. All I ever see of you is telling me that my interpretation is in error but then you run and hide when asked to give your interpretation.
So prove that you have the courage to tell us the meaning of what Paul said at 1 Corinthians1:2. After all, since you say that my interpretation is in error then you must think you know the correct interpretation.
What is your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:2?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Do you deny that those who are being addressed in the book of Hebrews are "perfected forever?:
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all...For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Heb.10:10,14).
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
That is one way whereby a Jew living under the law could theoretically obtain eternal life but in order to obtain it that way one had to keep the law perfectly. And no one ever did that but the lord Jesus.
Here is another way that the Jews who lived under the law could obtain eternal life. The Lord Jesus told them the following:
"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).
In this verse the Greek word translated "believes" and the Greek word translated "has" are both in the "present" tense.
In The Blue Letter Bible we read the following meaning of the present tense:
"The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense."
Therefore, John 5:24 is saying that those who were believing at the time the Lord Jesus spoke those words had already received eternal life. That is what is meant as something being "viewed as occurring in actual time."
So once those who lived under the law believed they received received eternal life. And the receiving of it was completely apart from law keeping.
Prior to the late 1800's, early 1900's, not a single person corrected the KJB, or believed in the satanic "Originals only-ism," "The Hebrew only-ism," "The Greek only-ism," or "Error only-ism."
So there.
"Use"....but not believing any one of them, "prefering" one, over the other, like ice creme, and correcting every one of them.
Lovely.
Jerry's "There can be no doubt whatsoever that" (fill in the blank) debate ender/clincher, that he thinks "seals the deal," which he spams on every thread, as if it add something to his "argument."
Stunning.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that Heir is correct, and Jerry is wrong.
QED.
Jerry taught us that.