How old are you? Why did you feel defensive based on my comment?
ECT Works of Law and Works of Grace, Is That Biblical?
- Thread starter iamaberean
- Start date
How old are you? Why did you feel defensive based on my comment?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Here is why I said "just like":
"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).
How many times are you going to ignore this verse? Do you not know that if it takes "works" then it cannot be said to be of "grace."
Last edited:
[MENTION=16603]turbosixx[/MENTION],
I wonder if, in addition to responding to what I've already said, you could answer a question for me. It might help move the discussion along...
What roll does the Apostle Paul play, in your view? What purpose does he serve?
Is he simply a thirteenth apostle, the first of hundreds or perhaps thousands of people who have held the office of apostle?
Is he the last of a total of thirteen apostles?
Is it that Mathias was illegitimate and Paul the real replacement for Judas as the twelfth of twelve apostles? (I've actually met people who believe this one, by the way.)
or...
what?
Clete
P.S. By the way, that is only ONE question. I asked it several ways so as to communicate the intent as clearly as possible.
I wonder if, in addition to responding to what I've already said, you could answer a question for me. It might help move the discussion along...
What roll does the Apostle Paul play, in your view? What purpose does he serve?
Is he simply a thirteenth apostle, the first of hundreds or perhaps thousands of people who have held the office of apostle?
Is he the last of a total of thirteen apostles?
Is it that Mathias was illegitimate and Paul the real replacement for Judas as the twelfth of twelve apostles? (I've actually met people who believe this one, by the way.)
or...
what?
Clete
P.S. By the way, that is only ONE question. I asked it several ways so as to communicate the intent as clearly as possible.
Right Divider
Body part
Sometimes we joke here... lighten up a little...
P.S. Although I quoted you, the comment was not about you.
turbosixx
New member
I understand your frustration. I think you're right in that a platform like this is not suitable to really get our understanding of the scriptures across. I do appreciate your time.
I knew you would have to have addressed these passages in the past in order for them to fit your doctrine. I'm just curious how you view them. I think your fooling yourself with the snippet of explanation you did provide but since you didn't want to go as far as you did I will be content to move on.
I've been thinking about our discussions of the law and wondering if that might be something we could/should focus on. You say I'm going back to the law but I say no. I am not under the law of Moses and Gentiles have never been under the law of Moses. It was intended for and delivered to the Jews. I'd be willing to bet my ancestors all the way back to Moses have never been under the law of Moses.
You posted these verses.
13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
What was your point in using these verses?
turbosixx
New member
I believe Paul to be the last apostle. I believe we can see the requirements for an apostle as outlined in the choosing of Mathias. I do not believe Mathias to be illegitimate.
It's my OPINION that Paul was chosen later because of his age. At the stoning of Stephen he is a young man and his involvement was holding coats. Not the man we see later taking active part in put men and women into prison.
It is also my opinion God chose him for his zeal. He was doing his very best to please God even when unknowingly fighting against God. He said he worked harder than the others and I believe it's because he persecuted the church. What better person to take the word to the rest of the world.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Act 14:14 KJV Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
So Paul came after Barnabas?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Here is why I said "just like":
"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).
How many times are you going to ignore this verse? Do you not know that if it takes "works" then it cannot be said to be of "grace."
I knew that you would! i mean, I didn't simply expect that you would, I knew it! That's why I deleted 45 minutes worth of writing of a more detailed explanation.
You can't help but think that because you're a proof-texter. (Not a pejorative - just a descriptor). In you view what I said about that Colossians passage MUST sound like rationalization. I can't possibly sound to your ears like anything else. It's the whole rest of Paul's message and ministry that informs one otherwise. If you get that wrong and think that Paul isn't teaching a new gospel, then that single sentence in Colossians is turned into Paul's whole ministry and Paul himself is turned into just another apostle.
I don't recall what I said when I quoted them but whatever it was that I typed before quoting that verse was the point I was making. The verse is there to support it. However, Paul states clearly that the laws purpose is to convict of sin and sentence the offender to death.
Now, don't go trying to reset the entire discussion. There is tons of things I've said that I think deserves a response. Not the least of which had directly to do with this issue of the law.
So just to be crystal clear, you believe there to be thirteen legitimate apostles.
Your opinion is in conflict with Paul's own writings.
His claim to being the "chief of sinners" was based on the fact that he "persecuted the church and destroyed it" (the words "tried to" are not found in the original language).
Of all the people who were present at Stephen's execution, the one person who was mentioned by Luke (Acts 8:1) was some young kid who was just providing valet services and I suppose you think it's coincidental that his name was Saul.
He chose Paul from his mother's womb, T6.
But it doesn't matter! It just doesn't matter. You answered the question that I was asking so now I have a follow up question...
Why was the Apostle which Jesus loved (a.k.a. The Apostle John) under the impression that there were "twelve apostles of the Lamb"; How is it possible that he was so unaware that God had added a thirteenth apostle that it failed to make it into God's word? (Revelation 21:14)
Further, was the conversion of Paul an after thought? Jesus states explicitly that the Twelve Apostles would "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Why is there not going to be thirteen foundations of the New Jerusalem with the names of the thirteen Apostles? Why only twelve thrones for twelve apostle rather than thirteen?
Further still, the number twelve is always associated with governmental perfection in general and Israel specifically, not thirteen. Thirteen is associated with rebellion.
The consistent use of numbers as symbolism through scripture is one of the major evidences that the whole of scripture, while having many human author's, has only one true Author. For there to have been a thirteenth apostle would have thrown quite a large wrench into the works in regards to the structure and cohesiveness of the whole of scripture.
Notice how I keep coming back to that same theme - "The whole". "The whole" of Paul's ministry; "The whole" of scripture. It is this holistic, top down, big picture approach to scripture that is the key to understanding the bible and the New Testament in particular.
Clete
I'm not the bible scholar, you as a Legend appear to be. Please explain why the law was given and why it was removed. We agree at this point it was not "just like" for those under the law.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The main reason that the Mosaic Covenant (the law) was given to Israel is stated as follows:
"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation" (Ex.19:5-6).
Since none of the Jews kept the law perfectly then the law could in no way contribute to the salvation of any of them. After all, James explained that if a Jew broke even one commandment he was guilty of all (Jas.2:10) so being guilty of all cannot in anyway contribute to the salvation of those who lived under the law. Nonetheless, there were some Jews who thought that they could make themselves acceptable to the LORD according to their personal righteousness:
"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God" (Ro.10:3).
Paul explains that Christ is the end of law for righteousness for all who believe:
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Ro.10:3).
That explains the fact that the Lord Jesus told the Jews who lived under the law the following:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (Jn.6:47).
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).
Right Divider
Body part
What about these two?
Luk 1:5-6 KJV 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. (6) And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Their righteousness was not their own but the same righteousness which is imputed to all who believe:
"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).
"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. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Ro.4:3-5).
Next, Paul applies the same principle to David, who lived under the law:
"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered" (Ro.4:6-7).
Neither Zechariahs nor Elizibeth were sinless (Ro.3:23) but because they followed the ordinances of the Mosaic Covenant they could be called "blameless."
Of course there will always be some people within Christendom who will insist that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works despite the following words of the Savior Himself spoken to them:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (Jn.6:47).
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).
There will always be some people who claim to be Christians who refuse to believe those words of the Lord Jesus spoken to the Jews who lived under the law.
Right Divider
Body part
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You know better than that! When I was speaking of no one keeping the law perfectly I referred to James and what he said about the Ten Commandments (Jas.2:10). Or perhaps you think that Zachraias was "blamesless" in the sense that he was "sinless" and not guilty of all? If so then you must think Paul was in error when he said that all have sinned. Is that what you believe?
Do you actually believe what the Lord Jesus said in the following verses to those who lived under the law?:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (Jn.6:47).
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).
turbosixx
New member
I believe he is just another apostle.
Not to get too technical, Judas was listed as an apostle. So if Judas is not included yes, 13. If Judas included 14.
As I said it's my OPINION. If he was considered a man at the time of Stephens stoning, why was he holding coats instead of leading or at least partaking in the casting of stones? Take 5-10 years off back to when the 12 were first chosen and Saul might not have been of age yet.
Good questions. I would suggest that God can interchange anyone He desires. For example, in Rev. 7, it is not the original 12 tribes of Israel that John sees sealed.
I agree it should be whole but I don't see your doctrine as whole. I suggest it's in pieces that don't go together.
I'm not trying to reset the discussion and ignore some of your previous comments. I would very much like to address them. I've had comments of mine that you have not addressed but in order to keep it from getting too big I wanted to come back and focus on this. I was hoping we could find some common ground and move forward from there. You quoted Col. 2:13-14. If I understood your point correctly, you understand that Jesus took the law of Moses out of the way having nailed it to the cross. I just wanted to be sure I understood you correctly because that is the way I understand it.
13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
I would suggest Eph. 2 says basically the same thing.
I'm hoping that when we agree on a starting point, it might make it easier for each of us to understand the other and hopefully answer some of your questions. If not, I will be glad to revisit them and answer them.
Without biblical support.
Worse than that, in opposition to clear biblical support to the contrary!
Are you suggesting that Judas is still considered an apostle?!
You have got to be kidding me! There is flatly no way that Judas is even in Heaven, never mind going to be sitting on a throne in heaven, judging (i.e. ruling over) the Twelve tribes of Israel!
His office was taken by another. See Acts 1:20
The question is whether God replaced him with Matthias or with Paul. You inexplicably believe that his office was reoccupied with two people.
It is your unsupported and entirely speculative opinion that is born out of your doctrine and has nothing at all to do with what the bible says or even implies.
In fact, we can be pretty firm in our understanding of the time line because of a parable Jesus told. It was not 5 - 10 years but only about one year.
Luke 13:The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree
6 He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’ 8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ”
6 He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’ 8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ”
So Jesus spent the three years of His ministry and found basically no fruit in Israel. He then sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (a fulfillment of the Feast of Weeks showing Israel's program was still intact and on tract). A year goes by with still no fruit from Israel to the point that they officially reject Jesus as their Messiah and execute Stephen at which point we see Christ standing in Heaven (standing indicates coming judgment) and He cuts off Israel and converts Saul as he is traveling on the Damascus Road on his way to do more persecution of the church (i.e. his kicking against the goads).
So, your opinion is contradicted with solid biblical evidence. Will you modify your opinion?
Unfortunately, that is extremely unlikely.
They aren't mere questions. They make a rhetorical argument!
An argument that you make exactly zero effort to respond too in any way, whether to accept or refute!
What in the world are we doing here?
What?
You mean for no reason?! You really believe that God is going to just arbitrarily swap Matthias with Paul? Or is it even Matthias that gets the axe? Maybe God is going to swap out John with Paul. Perhaps Peter! Maybe God is going to do a round robin where Paul gets to sit on a different apostle's throne for a year at a time while one of the other eleven gets to go on vacation.
I am making fun of this on purpose, T6! You just simply cannot possibly believe this! You certainly have not thought any of it through.
That isn't the point though is it? Can you really not see how your point here defeats you?
Whether they were the original twelve or not, the point is that there is still twelve! Not thirteen, not eleven, not twenty two - TWELVE! There has only ever been twelve and there were never be anything other than twelve.
Your blindness here is the center of gravity around which this discussion is revolving.
And yet that is what your are doing.
There's no need to respond to every sentence the way I do. I'm a freak!
I am not asking you to respond to every single point but to take what I've said as a whole and at least address the major arguments or at the very least SOME of them!
"Agree on a starting point"?
And you say you're not trying to reset the discussion? We started a long time ago!
Col. 2 means what it says. It isn't even a matter of opinion. It is very explicit.
But, having said that, I will not get into a proof-texting battle with you, which you are constantly trying to engage me in. I will not do it, T6. If you ever succeed in getting me to bite on that bait, I'll just as quickly spit it back out again.
The central point of this disagreement has entirely to do with the Apostle Paul and the nature of his message and ministry. You want very badly to make it about a hand full of sentences but it just flatly isn't. If your opinions about Paul cannot be established biblically, which even you know that they cannot be or else you'd not be referring to them as opinions, and you are unable to refute the clear biblical evidence that I've presented that Paul was not "just another Apostle" then why cling to your opinions? WHY?
The only possible answer to that question is that your doctrine trumps the scripture. The argument that you've basically shrugged off as being merely some "good questions" is far more than that. Those "good questions" and the scriptures that inspired them, as well as the obvious grasping at straws you're doing with this baseless under-aged Saul idea and the notion that God just arbitrarily "interchanges" Apostles, demonstrates that your doctrine is not based on an understanding of scripture but rather the other way around. Your doctrine comes first and you interpret the scripture in light of it.
And before you accuse me of proof-texting, which I'm rather shocked you haven't done already, remember that I've stated before that I have no problem with having proof-texts per se but note that I'm not quoting individual passages that would contradict the whole rest of what the author's were saying or that is in any way inconsistent with the plain reading of the text as well as the whole history of nation of Israel from the time Isaac had twelve sons to this day. I'm not even trying to get the passages to say anything that you disagree with. In other words, my use of individual passages are consistent with and informed by the whole of scripture and not the other way around.
Lastly, I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that your doctrine is based almost solely on the fact that your bible has a New Testament and and Old Testament. That artificial demarcation that is not defined within the text of scripture itself but is purely a man made convention, is the primary basis upon which the vast majority of Christians build their doctrinal paradigm. You've taken at least one step away from this in that you are at least some flavor of dispensationalist but you've not stepped away from it very far. Your desire seems to be to maintain the integrity of the "New Testament" as a single "covenant" (for want of a better, less loaded term). You could say quite accurately that this whole discussion is about where that division should be (2 Timothy 2:15). Almost no one gets it right.
Clete
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
I’m not saying this to be accusatory but your post seem to be emotional (possibly angry) and I feel because of that you’re not giving me logical arguments to my points. That’s how it looks from my viewpoint. For instance, when I suggested that God can interchange one of the 12 apostles for Paul in order keep the number at 12, you said What? You mean for no reason? You did a great job in showing the importance of the number 12. If God wanted to include Paul in the 12 names on the foundation, He can do it. We have a biblical precedent for that. I shortened this to show the 12 tribes without taking up a lot of space.
Gen. 49:2 “Assemble and listen, O sons of Jacob,
listen to Israel your father.
3 “Reuben, you are my firstborn,
5 “Simeon and Levi are brothers;
8 “Judah, your brothers shall praise you;
13 “Zebulun shall dwell at the shore of the sea;
14 “Issachar is a strong donkey,
16 “Dan shall judge his people
19 “Raiders shall raid Gad,
20 “Asher's food shall be rich,
21 “Naphtali is a doe let loose
22 “Joseph is a fruitful bough,
27 “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf,
28 All these are the twelve tribes of Israel.
Now when we look at Rev. 7.
4 And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:
5 12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed,
12,000 from the tribe of Reuben,
12,000 from the tribe of Gad,
6 12,000 from the tribe of Asher,
12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali,
12,000 from the tribe of Manasseh,
7 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon,
12,000 from the tribe of Levi,
12,000 from the tribe of Issachar,
8 12,000 from the tribe of Zebulun,
12,000 from the tribe of Joseph,
12,000 from the tribe of Benjamin were sealed.
Here is solid biblical evidence that God has interchanged Dan with Manasseh. If He did it for the tribes in order to keep the number at 12, how can you say He will not do the same for the apostles?
Eph. 2: 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
We have more than one apostle here. From your point of view, how many and which ones?
If all you are going to do is give me your passionate opinion on what I’m not seeing or what I’m doing wrong, I think we have reached a stopping point. As much as I value your input, your opinion means nothing to me without scriptural support. I know you call it “text proofing” but scripture is where we find the truth. If we don’t go to scripture, where else is there to go? That is the only place I'm going.
When he preached the gospel to non-Christians, it was exactly the same sermon as when Peter preached to non-Christians. When he converted non-Christians, he did it exactly the same way as the other apostles and just as Jesus instructed the 12. He did so on every journey right up to his LAST recorded conversion. As you said, it's not a matter of opinion. That's what the bible says. He even baptized a Gentile believer just like Peter did before him. WHY would he ever do that IF he was different?
Gen. 49:2 “Assemble and listen, O sons of Jacob,
listen to Israel your father.
3 “Reuben, you are my firstborn,
5 “Simeon and Levi are brothers;
8 “Judah, your brothers shall praise you;
13 “Zebulun shall dwell at the shore of the sea;
14 “Issachar is a strong donkey,
16 “Dan shall judge his people
19 “Raiders shall raid Gad,
20 “Asher's food shall be rich,
21 “Naphtali is a doe let loose
22 “Joseph is a fruitful bough,
27 “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf,
28 All these are the twelve tribes of Israel.
Now when we look at Rev. 7.
4 And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:
5 12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed,
12,000 from the tribe of Reuben,
12,000 from the tribe of Gad,
6 12,000 from the tribe of Asher,
12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali,
12,000 from the tribe of Manasseh,
7 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon,
12,000 from the tribe of Levi,
12,000 from the tribe of Issachar,
8 12,000 from the tribe of Zebulun,
12,000 from the tribe of Joseph,
12,000 from the tribe of Benjamin were sealed.
Here is solid biblical evidence that God has interchanged Dan with Manasseh. If He did it for the tribes in order to keep the number at 12, how can you say He will not do the same for the apostles?
Eph. 2: 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
We have more than one apostle here. From your point of view, how many and which ones?
If all you are going to do is give me your passionate opinion on what I’m not seeing or what I’m doing wrong, I think we have reached a stopping point. As much as I value your input, your opinion means nothing to me without scriptural support. I know you call it “text proofing” but scripture is where we find the truth. If we don’t go to scripture, where else is there to go? That is the only place I'm going.
This doesn’t help me understand where you’re coming from. I believe the passage is telling us that Jesus did away with the law of Moses nailing it to the cross. You have not confirmed nor denied this so all I can do is assume. I'd rather not assume.
Here is my solid biblical evidence that Paul is just like the other apostles.
When he preached the gospel to non-Christians, it was exactly the same sermon as when Peter preached to non-Christians. When he converted non-Christians, he did it exactly the same way as the other apostles and just as Jesus instructed the 12. He did so on every journey right up to his LAST recorded conversion. As you said, it's not a matter of opinion. That's what the bible says. He even baptized a Gentile believer just like Peter did before him. WHY would he ever do that IF he was different?
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Here we can see the gospel which Peter preached to non-Christians:
"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick...And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where" (Lk.9:1-2,6; KJV).
The facts reveal that when they were preaching that gospel the Twelve were not even aware the the Lord Jesus was going to die. After being given that command and after preaching that gospel the transgiguration followed (Lk.9:29-36; Mk.9:2-13). Then after the Twelve preached the gospel of the kingdom and after the transfiguration we read the following exchange between the Lord Jesus and the Twelve:
"They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, 'The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.' But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it" (Mk.9:30-32).
The facts reveal that the Twelve did not even know He was going to die as late as shortly before the Cross:
"Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.' The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about" (Lk.18:31-34).
These facts prove conclusively that the gospel which the Twelve were preaching at Luke 9:6 was not the same gospel which Paul referred to in the following way:
"For the message of the cross, is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor.1:18.).