Theology Club: SaulToPaul and the Epistle to the Romans

[glorydaz]

And of course you just run and hide from these facts.

I'm not running or hiding from any of your oft repeated "facts", but you do put me in mind of a certain select group of men who took counsel how they might "entangle him in his talk". :chuckle:

Matthew 22:14-15
For many are called, but few are chosen. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'm not running or hiding from any of your oft repeated "facts", but you do put me in mind of a certain select group of men who took counsel how they might "entangle him in his talk". :chuckle:

Matthew 22:14-15
For many are called, but few are chosen. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.​

You continue to run and hide!

According to STP no one in the church at Rome was saved at the time when Paul wrote his epistle to them because they had not yet heard and believed the gospel of Christ.

So if STP is right then Paul would believe that none of those in the church at Rome was saved. Therefore, it is impossible that Paul would tell them this:

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you...For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Ro.8:8-9,15-17).​

Will you actually argue that Paul would tell the unsaved that?

 

[glorydaz]

You continue to run and hide!

According to STP no one in the church at Rome was saved at the time when Paul wrote his epistle to them because they had not yet heard and believed the gospel of Christ.

So if STP is right then Paul would believe that none of those in the church at Rome was saved. Therefore, it is impossible that Paul would tell them this:

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you...For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Ro.8:8-9,15-17).​

Will you actually argue that Paul would tell the unsaved that?

You have got to be kidding me. "IF the Spirit of God dwell in you..." If HE dwells in you, Jerry, why are you so contentious. Why hasn't the Lord smacked you upside the head?



I have tried hundreds of times to communicate with you and you refuse to listen to what I say. What's worse is that YOU, yourself, admitted that not everyone in any congregation is saved (after asserting they all were). So, Paul addresses all people everywhere regardless of their condition because, wonder of wonders, he does not know who is saved and who isn't. I don't know if you are saved....but I have to wonder sometimes how you could have reached the age you are as a saved man without the Lord knocking you off your high horse.

So, my argument is that you have blinders on and can only see one wall at a time....maybe it's because your crown has slipped down and is blocking your view to the sides.

My argument is that the verses you choose can be spoken to the saved or the unsaved. The arguments you make are one sided...totally one sided. You ignore every IF in every verse. You are trying to bull your way over anyone who dares to post on the same thread you are posting on. You're like a little boy on the playground who tries to engage all the kids lined up for the slide to side with you against the kid at the top. Now, don't you dare run and hide....explain your instigating attitude or tuck your tail between your legs and go. :dog:

 

[heir]

Here is the meaning

It means what it says. They were called to be saints.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

My argument is that the verses you choose can be spoken to the saved or the unsaved.

You really think that Paul would tell the unsaved the following:

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you...For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Ro.8:8-9,15-17).​

Your ideas are completely divorced from reality.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It means what it says. They were called to be saints.

Yes, they were "saints by calling."

Here is the meaning given by Vine's: "In Rom 1:7; 1 Cr.1:2 the meaning is 'saints by calling'" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

But of course you must deny the meaning put forth by the Greek experts even though no one considers you a Greek expert.

So these people's sainthood did not remain in the future because they were already "saints."

Now let us look at this translation from the KJV:

"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 theirs and ours" (1 Cor.1:; KJV).​

One becomes a saint when he is "sanctified in Christ Jesus," so these who are said to be "called to be saints" are already saints by calling.

You obviously do not know what it means to be "sanctified in Christ Jesus" and you do not want to know what it means.

Do you believe that the people in the church at Cornith were saved when Paul wrote his first epistle to them?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

No. Their promise was no longer. They were now Lo Ami.

Now it was to the Jew first, not to Israel as a nation, as in Acts 3.

Brother, just so you know; I have no issue with you and or yours.

You and yours are some of my favorite people on TOL.

I have fought tooth and nail with one supposedly our own, whenever they have attempted to belittle any of you in any way, shape or form.

That out of the way, I know your above view as to Israel's promise is what you assert.

My own, strong understanding of the standard Acts 9 Hermeneutic, together with, as well as, a result of, my being able to quickly pick up on things through their recurrent patterns and what those patterns point back to, allows me to easily see where you are coming from.

What I see when I take on your approach as if my own (which the study of things through their recurrent patterns allows) - what I see when I take on your approach as if my own, is that your basic approach greatly differs in key respects.

As a result, its no surprise our conclusions will also.

What I see coming back out from looking at things from within your view is that what you assert not based on the standard Acts 9 Hermeneutic.

That is what I see. I don't love any of you guys any less for it.

All respect to you STP.

In the spirit of Eph. 4:16.

Danoh the Great,

Reading Paul's speech in Acts 13, we see that the promise was still available to Israel...in a different form, in the form of the gospel of Christ.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I suspect this was Jerry's favorite song as a younger man,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L69Xn4Iiro

 

[Danoh]

I suspect this was Jerry's favorite song as a younger man,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L69Xn4Iiro

Lol, I'd say its more her "Love Is A Battlefield."

 

[Danoh]

Danoh the Great,

Reading Paul's speech in Acts 13, we see that the promise was still available to Israel...in a different form, in the form of the gospel of Christ.

Happy Sunday, bro. Care to lay that out? Perhaps as a Paul's Acts 13 Speech thread, or some other title, we might then explore each our understanding of, and how we arrived at it? Thanks.

 

[Danoh]

It means what it says. They were called to be saints.

Consider, does it also say what it means?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It means what it says. They were called to be saints.

Were we not called to be saints also?

And what do you know, we are indeed saints.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

My argument is that the verses you choose can be spoken to the saved or the unsaved.

You really think that Paul would tell the unsaved the following:

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you...For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Ro.8:8-9,15-17).​

Your ideas are completely divorced from reality.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It is true that Paul was the first saved by grace, and the first in the Body, the prototype for all that followed.

No, it is not true. We can see that Abraham was saved by grace:

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt" (Ro.4:4).​

We can also see that Peter was also saved by grace:

"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:11).​

 

[Danoh]

You really think that Paul would tell the unsaved the following:

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you...For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Ro.8:8-9,15-17).​

Your ideas are completely divorced from reality.

You continue to be a jerk.

The sister's mom recently passed away, its been difficult on her, and she perhaps visits here right now just for some fellowship with those of like precious faith, only to have to continue to put up with your completely idiotic standard of "the world owes it to completely agree with me, or have to deal with my insulting them left, right, and every which way my jerk perspective compels me to vomit on anyone who so much as says hello to me..."

Be ashamed of yourself already!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You continue to be a jerk.

The sister's mom recently passed away, its been difficult on her, and she perhaps visits here right now just for some fellowship with those of like precious faith, only to have to continue to put up with your completely idiotic standard of "the world owes it to completely agree with me, or have to deal with my insulting them left, right, and every which way my jerk perspective compels me to vomit on anyone who so much as says hello to me..."

Be ashamed of yourself already!

No one told me!

So how can I be blamed?

 

[Danoh]

No one told me!

So how can I be blamed?

One, you're to be blamed for your continued put downs of this precious sister in the Lord - and one of our own, no less.

Two, you did know her mom died. You even said some bland thing about it in some other of your God knows how many negative posts of yours...

...and then you went right back to your same old put downs in the very next thread...

Cut that out - where's it getting you?

Nuff said...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

One, you're to be blamed for your continued put downs of this precious sister in the Lord - and one of our own, no less.

Two, you did know her mom died. You even said some bland thing about it in some other of your God knows how many negative posts of yours...

...and then you went right back to your same old put downs in the very next thread...

Cut that out - where's it getting you?

Nuff said...

Thanks for backing up Glorydaz. She's one of the best posters
on TOL. A personal favorite of mine.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

One, you're to be blamed for your continued put downs of this precious sister in the Lord - and one of our own, no less.

I continue to attempt to have a serious debate on these issues.

You continue to attack me at every opportunity.

Two, you did know her mom died.

I did not. Once again you attack me personally even if you have to make things up.

You are calling me a liar and that does not resemble Christian behavior in the least.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It is true that Paul was the first saved by grace, and the first in the Body, the prototype for all that followed.

No, it is not true. We can see that Abraham was saved by grace:

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt" (Ro.4:4).​

We can also see that Peter was also saved by grace:

"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:11).​