ECT Would MAD be more accepted if Gal 2:7 were not in the text

[tetelestai]

You mean the New Covenant, which was made with the house of Israel and Judah that Paul makes clear the believing gentiles are a part of because Christ on the cross has broken down the wall of hostility making one new man where there was two, thus making the gentiles co-heirs and fellow citizens (See Ephesians 2:1-22)?

There is a reason that Paul tells the Roman gentiles that they have been “grafted in” to the cultivated olive tree. God did not set aside the olive tree and plant some new tree, He grafted believing gentiles into the tree that had nourished the believers of the nation of Israel.
This is why Paul (the apostles to the gentiles) can call himself the minister of a new covenant (2 Cor 3:6) and why Paul instructs gentiles in the New Covenant ordinance of the Lord’s Supper (see 1 Cor 11:25).

Did you ever wonder why Paul was instructing the Corinthians in a commemoration of a covenant you don't believe they have any part of?

Struggling to reconcile these very clear truths of scripture with dispensational theology has led some dispies to claim there are two new covenants, one for Israel and one for the church.

:doh:

Hogwash!


“"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mar 1:15 ESV)

See answer above.

Israel until Jesus pronounced that the gospel be preached to all nations in Matthew 28.


Repent, believe, be baptized. Same as today.

And yet Paul can draw the following distinction.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. (Rom 11:6 ESV)

I asked where in the bible it teaches this.
You replied:

It’s nice that you think this, but I don’t care what you think, I want to know where in the BIBLE we find the mosaic law referred to as a gospel.

Or is this another man made tradition that is part of the man-made superstructure dispensationalism tries to shoehorn the bible into?

Verse please… or have the honesty to admit that the only reason you believe this is because that’s what you been taught to believe.

Of course!

They didn’t.

Do you know why?


Nope. And thank goodness. Because the New Covenant is a better covenant, with better promises sealed by the blood of a better Sacrifice made by a better Priest. (see pretty much the entirety of the book of Hebrews).


Paul preached works of righteousness.
Haven’t you ever gotten around to reading Ephesians 2:10?

Either you believe that Jesus preached that Israel was saved by faith plus obedience to the law or you believe that Jesus and Paul were harmonious in their soteriology.

Which is it?

On to Romans 1:2-3.

You said:

Yup.

If one confesses that Jesus is Lord (and truly means it) and genuinely believes that God raised Him from the dead, they are saved.

Now, if one is truly saved, the Holy Spirit will move in their lives so that they walk in the good works that God has created beforehand that they should walk in them.

Now you give some truly confusing answers:

Huh?

You believe that Gentiles were cast off dogs at the time Paul wrote Romans?

:idunno:


Where in those passages does it say that the gospel was revealed to Paul alone?

It doesn’t in Romans 16:25-26.
:nono:

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith-- 27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
(Rom 16:25-27 ESV)​

It doesn’t say that Paul alone got the gospel of grace does it?

:nono:

Oh, Paul does call it “my gospel” and I suppose if you wanted to do some fancy pants mental gymnastics you could try and claim that this means it wasn’t Peter’s gospel, but then when you came across passages where Paul refers to Jesus as “my Lord” – like he does in Phil 3:8 – you would have to argue (to remain consistent) that this means that Jesus wasn’t Peter’s Lord.

:doh:

It doesn’t say that in Ephesians 3.

:nono:

To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. (Eph 3:8-10 ESV)​

In fact, Paul says that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known.

The Church predates the conversion of Paul as is clear from the fact that the Greek word ἐκκλησία describes the body of Christ even before Paul comes on the scene.

And it doesn’t in Col 1:26 either.

:nono:

of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,
26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.
(Col 1:25-26 ESV)​

In fact, it says that the mystery was revealed to his saints.

Is Peter one of His saints?

Hmmm.

:think:

1 Cor 1:2 says that “all those in every place that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ…” are saints.

Did Peter do that?

:thumb:

Yup. Peter is a saint, Peter did that before Paul, and therefore the mystery is revealed to Peter as well.


Now, you try and avoid my comment here:

You say:

You guys are so predictable. You just get insulting when you are backed against the wall theologically.

Gal 2:8-9 says that, historically, Paul was sent to the gentiles and Peter, James and John to the Jews. But Paul has already made it clear that any other gospel is a false gospel.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
(Gal 1:6-8 ESV)​

First, verse 7 makes it clear, there is no other gospel!!!!

Second, If Peter were to come along and to preach to the Galatians a “so called” circumcision gospel that required obedience to the law to merit eternal life, then Paul says (verse 8) that he should be damned to hell for doing so.

Now you have a problem.

Because MAD has taught that Peter only preached a the gospel of the circumcision, and that 1 and 2 Peter are reflections of that unique gospel.

Peter wrote his epistles to the Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter, about 14 years later than Paul wrote Galatians, and he wrote it to the same audience as Galatians.

Houston, MAD has a problem.

:BRAVO:

:first:

 

[Nang]

Houston, MAD has a problem.

Amen and Amen!


:BRAVO:

 

[tetelestai]

Peter wrote his epistles to the Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter, about 14 years later than Paul wrote Galatians, and he wrote it to the same audience as Galatians.

Yep.

(2 Peter 3:15-16) Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[musterion]

Dialogos fails again

Dialogos fails again

You mean the New Covenant, which was made with the house of Israel and Judah that Paul makes clear the believing gentiles are a part of because Christ on the cross has broken down the wall of hostility making one new man where there was two, thus making the gentiles co-heirs and fellow citizens (See Ephesians 2:1-22)?

I repeat: when was a covenant made with Gentiles after the fall of, and without regard to, Israel? Show it in Scripture.

Did you ever wonder why Paul was instructing the Corinthians in a commemoration of a covenant you don't believe they have any part of?

I repeat: does Paul say any covenant was made with Gentiles apart from Israel? Show it in Scripture.

Struggling to reconcile these very clear truths of scripture with dispensational theology has led some dispies to claim there are two new covenants, one for Israel and one for the church.

First, go talk to them about it. It has no place in this discussion because I don't believe that.

Second, many covenant (!) folks believe the Church is Israel, or the Church is the Kingdom, so the Church has inherited the covenant(s) which apostate, Christ-rejecting Israel forfeited. Of course, you won't have a problem with believing that.

Repent, believe, be baptized. Same as today.

That is not the gospel for today. You cannot be saved while believing that you MUST be somehow water baptized else God won't save you. To believe that is a false gospel. I won't bother asking you if that's what you believe because we already know the answer.

It’s nice that you think this, but I don’t care what you think, I want to know where in the BIBLE we find the mosaic law referred to as a gospel.

We don't. Not that I'm aware of. Yet it was still good news to them. We don't find the word "Bible" in the Bible either, or "trinity." But we use them because anyway and we're not wrong to do so. Same here.

Paul preached works of righteousness. Haven’t you ever gotten around to reading Ephesians 2:10?

Yes, they are for those who are already in the Body of Christ to do. They are not to help one get into the Body of Christ or to help one remain in the Body of Christ; those are false gospels and the majority of Christendom believes one or the other, or both.

Water baptism was a Kingdom rite a Jew HAD to submit to if he was repentant. It was non-negotiable. There is nothing akin to it during this dispensation of grace. Salvation today is by grace through faith ALONE, without works, in Christ. Funny how we consistent dispensationalists hold more truly to the solas than you professing Reformed do, with your magical quasi-Catholic salvific water rites and your confessional-minded "keep short accounts with God" and your works righteousness-driven Lordship Salvation.

Either you believe that Jesus preached that Israel was saved by faith plus obedience to the law or you believe that Jesus and Paul were harmonious in their soteriology.

•What would have happened to a Jew who said "I believe Jesus is the Messiah" but refused to submit to John's baptism?

•What would have happened to a Jew who heard of the command recorded in Mark 16:16 and said, "No, my faith in Jesus as the Messiah is enough - I'm not in the mood to get wet, thanks"?

•What would have happened to a Jew at Pentecost who said "I believe Jesus is the Messiah" but refused Peter's command of Acts 2:38?

If one confesses that Jesus is Lord (and truly means it) and genuinely believes that God raised Him from the dead, they are saved.

So devout Mormons are saved. Devout Catholics are saved. Oatmeal is saved. Meshak is saved. I am saved. Pretty much every professing member of Christendom on TOL who confesses that is saved. That what you're saying?

You're saying they do not have to know, thus don't have to believe, He died FOR THEIR SINS and was raised from the dead FOR THEIR JUSTIFICATION? They're saved even in ignorance of those Bible facts -- or even in rejection of them?

Clarify it.

Now, if one is truly saved, the Holy Spirit will move in their lives so that they walk in the good works that God has created beforehand that they should walk in them.

That's what I already said. Question is, which gospel are people believing? Nevermind...you've already made it clear which one you believe saves.

You believe that Gentiles were cast off dogs at the time Paul wrote Romans?

No. :idunno:

Where in those passages does it say that the gospel was revealed to Paul alone?

Already answered this in detail and provided Paul's own words on the matter. You just don't want to accept it.

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith-- 27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
(Rom 16:25-27 ESV)​

It doesn’t say that Paul alone got the gospel of grace does it?

Yep, it does.

Oh, Paul does call it “my gospel” and I suppose if you wanted to do some fancy pants mental gymnastics you could try and claim that this means it wasn’t Peter’s gospel, but then when you came across passages where Paul refers to Jesus as “my Lord” – like he does in Phil 3:8 – you would have to argue (to remain consistent) that this means that Jesus wasn’t Peter’s Lord.

I heard you the first several times you said Paul's "my gospel" was not just "his gospel." I get that.

What you have avoided is explaining why Paul still called it "my gospel" anyway, and more than once.

Explain it.

It doesn’t say that in Ephesians 3.

To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. (Eph 3:8-10 ESV)​

In fact, Paul says that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known.

But revealed by God to and through Paul first. What part of that is so difficult for you to understand? It's right there in the very passage you quoted. You simply don't believe him because it'd blow most of what you already believe out of the water?

Also...what here being made known? To whom and how is it made known?

To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God

Paul didn't say the revelation of the mystery is made known directly to the church. That was revealed to him alone. What he says here is that the manifold wisdom of God may be shown through the Body of Christ to the principalities and powers in the heavenlies, the same principalities and powers that members of the Body will one day judge.

The Church predates the conversion of Paul as is clear from the fact that the Greek word ἐκκλησία describes the body of Christ even before Paul comes on the scene.

The revelation of the previously hidden secret was revealed to and through Paul alone, not directly to the Church. Only to Paul. He was the conduit.

And it doesn’t in Col 1:26 either.

of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,
26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.
(Col 1:25-26 ESV)​

In fact, it says that the mystery was revealed to his saints.

God first revealed it through Paul.

Is Peter one of His saints?

Yes. Peter learned of things given to Paul that were "hard to be understood" from Paul and confirmed to him by the Spirit.

Yup. Peter is a saint, Peter did that before Paul, and therefore the mystery is revealed to Peter as well.

God first revealed it through Paul.

Your deficient logic, as far as I can follow it, appears to be that Paul was not the only one to receive the revelation of the mystery (despite his saying so repeatedly). It appears you start this chain of reasoning based on the term "saint." Okay. Abraham was a saint. David was a saint. Zaccheus was a saint. But none of them received the revelation given directly and exclusively to Paul. Nor did Peter. Paul said it was unknown to man before God made it known to him...that's either true, or Paul lied.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
(Gal 1:6-8 ESV)​

First, verse 7 makes it clear, there is no other gospel!!!!

You are twisting Paul's words to your own destruction. He did not say "...not that there is another one." He said "...which [the specific message they were hearing] is not another."

Second, If Peter were to come along and to preach to the Galatians a “so called” circumcision gospel that required obedience to the law to merit eternal life, then Paul says (verse 8) that he should be damned to hell for doing so.

Now you have a problem.

No, I don't. That's why I highlighted your "if." Peter wouldn't do as you speculate because he agreed in Galatians 2:9 to confine his ministry to the circumcision (and geographically to Israel) both of which he did.

Because MAD has taught that Peter only preached a the gospel of the circumcision, and that 1 and 2 Peter are reflections of that unique gospel.

That's true, because Peter did not preach to Gentiles after Paul was on the scene, and his letters are addressed to the circumcision, not to the uncircumcision.

Peter wrote his epistles to the Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter, about 14 years later than Paul wrote Galatians, and he wrote it to the same audience as Galatians.

Peter didn't address Gentiles.

Houston, MAD has a problem.

Only when you don't understand it. Which you don't.

 

[Dialogos]

I repeat: when was a covenant made with Gentiles after the fall of, and without regard to, Israel? Show it in Scripture.

Why do you keep adding criteria without biblical warrant to your question?

The answer to your question is that the New Covenant was made with the house of Israel and Judah (Heb 8:8) and that the gentiles were included - according to Romans they were "grafted in" (Romans 11:17) - when, on the cross, Christ broke down the dividing wall between Jew and gentile (Eph 2:14) making them fellow citizens (Eph 2:19) so that believers are heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:29).

That's why Paul calls himself a minister of a New Covenant (2 Cor 3:6) and why he instructed the gentiles in the appropriate celebration of the Lord's Supper, which is the sign of the New Covenant (1 Cor 11:25).

If the Gentiles have no part of the New Covenant, then why are they celebrating the Lord's Supper?
If the gentiles have no part of the New Covenant then why does Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, call himself a minister of a new covenant?
If the gentiles have no part of the NC why does Romans refer to the gentiles being grafted into the cultivated olive tree that nourished believing Jews?

Second, many covenant (!) folks believe the Church is Israel,

Of this I am aware and I think that this is somewhat inaccurate as it is an oversimplification. Israel, the nation, was comprised of believing Jews and non-believing Jews. The Church is entirely comprised of believers.

...or the Church is the Kingdom,

Well only the church will be in the Kingdom, that's for sure.

...so the Church has inherited the covenant(s) which apostate, Christ-rejecting Israel forfeited.

Some covenants aren't inherited. The church doesn't inherit the Old Covenant. Only the church benefits form the New Covenant.

One of the problems with Dispensationalism is that it tries to maintain a false contrast between the church and Israel. The church was started by a remnant of believing Jews and we continue to see Jews come into the kingdom (praise the Lord!) A non-believing Jew is just as lost as a non-believing gentile and has no place in the current covenant (the New Covenant).

Of course, you won't have a problem with believing that.

No, I don't have any problem believing that there is only one group of people who can accurately call themselves the people of God and those people are the ones who call Jesus Lord.

That is not the gospel for today. You cannot be saved while believing that you MUST be somehow water baptized else God won't save you.

I didn't say that you must be water baptized or God won't save you. Paul is clear that faith is sufficient to save. Incidentally, Jesus is also clear on this point as He announced that the thief on the cross next to Him would be with Him in paradise despite His not being baptized as a believer.

However, one who refuses water baptism, despite it being a clear biblical command, might want to ask themselves why they say to Him "Lord, Lord" but will not do what He commands. Is that faith a genuine faith?

Now, you are honest enough to admit that nowhere in the bible is the mosaic law called a gospel.

We don't. Not that I'm aware of.

:thumb:

So far so good.

Then you say:

Yet it was still good news to them.

:doh:

Traditions of men hard at work....

We don't find the word "Bible" in the Bible either,

Sure we do.

See Acts 1:7 in Greek for example.

or "trinity."

Yet we can easily deduce the clear truths of the Trinity from scripture, can't we?

1. There is only one God (Gal 3:20)
2. The Father is God (2 Cor 11:31), the Son is God (John 1:1) and the Spirit is God (Acts 5:4)
3. The Three are distinct in Person (2 Cor 13:14)

Where are the clearly articulated principles that lead us to the conclusion that the mosaic law was a gospel?

:idunno:

And you probably don't know either. It's just something that some dispensationalist teacher taught you and you bought it and now refuse to consider that it isn't true despite the fact that you can't substantiate it with scripture.

If you continue to maintain that the mosaic law was a "good news" then why does Paul call the mosaic law a "ministry of death" 2 Cor 3:7?

Does that sound like good news to you?

Bottom line, obedience to the law could never save, therefore it was not a gospel, in fact all it could do was tutor Israel until the time of the Messiah could come, read Galatians 3 paying special attention to verses 19-25. The law was not good news, it just prepared gospel people for good news.

Concerning works of righteousness you say:

Yes, they are for those who are already in the Body of Christ to do. They are not to help one get into the Body of Christ or to help one remain in the Body of Christ; those are false gospels and the majority of Christendom believes one or the other, or both.

Who said that baptism gets or keeps one in Christ? I never did and I never would.

Water baptism was a Kingdom rite a Jew HAD to submit to if he was repentant. It was non-negotiable. There is nothing akin to it during this dispensation of grace.

What makes you think it is "negotiable" today?

Christ commanded His disciples to practice baptism (Matthew 28:19), Peter commanded those who accepted the gospel to be baptized (Acts 2:38) and Paul submitted to baptism himself (Acts 9:18) and practiced baptism among the gentiles (Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8, and 19:3).

Either MAD has some 'splaining to do as to why they refuse to follow Paul's example in baptizing those who receive the gospel or Paul has some 'splaining to do for practicing it so widely when he shouldn't have.

Whose right?

You or the apostle Paul?

Salvation today is by grace through faith ALONE,

Amen!

without works,

You might want to continue to follow Paul's argument and keep reading until you get to Romans 6:1.

We are justified by faith, not by works, not by baptism, by faith ALONE. Nevertheless, we are not saved to live a life of abject disobedience to the Lord nor are we saved to be ashamed of the gospel of Christ and refuse to testify to our faith in public profession through baptism.

Peter followed the preaching of the gospel with the invitation to baptism and it is clear that Paul followed the same practice so riddle me why MAD folks can follow the traditions of men rather than the commissionof Jesus, the commands of Peter and the practice of Paul?
:idunno:

Funny how we consistent dispensationalists hold more truly to the solas than you professing Reformed do, with your magical quasi-Catholic salvific water rites..

Your comments miss the mark here, I don't believe in baby baptism.

and your confessional-minded "keep short accounts with God"

...And I don't really buy this either... another swing and a miss.

and your works righteousness-driven Lordship Salvation.

If you mean that one has to confess that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:9 and that this actually means something for their life, and isn't lying when they say it, then I guess I'm guilty of this one and so is Paul, the guy who wrote Romans 10:9.

•What would have happened to a Jew who said "I believe Jesus is the Messiah" but refused to submit to John's baptism?...

If they refused baptism, knowing that this is what their God and Messiah has commanded, then we have sufficient cause to doubt the sincerity of their belief, don't' we?

So devout Mormons are saved.

Uh, no.

Different Jesus.

I know a guy who lives down the street named Jesus. No one will get saved by believing in him because this guy not the same Jesus as the Eternal Son of God who became flesh and Who died to save us from our sins. Same is true of the Mormon Jesus, we simply aren't talking about the same guy. The Mormon Jesus is simply a mythical character that can't save anyone. The fact that they share the same name is meaningless.

Devout Catholics are saved.

Perhaps. But most Catholics, like MAD believers, refuse baptism. Sprinkling a kid on the head with a few drops of water from a pretty little basin isn't baptism. So if a person's heart is genuinely regenerated by the Holy Spirit, why would they refuse to obey the very first command Jesus gives to them??

:idunno:

Do you?

Oatmeal is saved.

Dunno Oatmeal...
:idunno:

Meshak is saved.

:nono:

Nope. Her Jesus is not the Jesus of the bible. The Jesus of the bible is the incarnate, eternal Son of God. Meshak's Jesus isn't. Meshak's Jesus can't save anymore than the guy I know named Jesus down the street.

I am saved.

I hope so, but you might want to ask why you refuse to obey Christ's command to be baptized and teach others to refuse to obey the Lord as well.

You're saying they do not have to know, thus don't have to believe, He died FOR THEIR SINS and was raised from the dead FOR THEIR JUSTIFICATION? They're saved even in ignorance of those Bible facts -- or even in rejection of them?

Is that how you witness to people? You give them a theology quiz on substitutionary atonement before inviting them to come to Jesus?

I don't think a person has to understand the "ins" and "outs" of substitutionary atonement in order to be saved.

One isn't saved by grace through accurate theology...

Nevertheless, someone who willfully disputes that Jesus death is sufficient for the forgiveness of one's sins, for example, is a bit of a different story.

Let me give you an example.

I know a guy named Bill. He went to Yale. If I am talking to a guy about someone named Bill and mention that he went to Yale, the other guy might learn that the Bill I know went to Yale. I wouldn't doubt that the guy knew the Bill I know just because he didn't previously know that Bill went to Yale. The guy might well have just met Bill and hadn't discovered this fact concerning Bill yet. But if I am talking with someone about Bill and the other guy insists that I am wrong, that Bill never went to Yale he went to MIT, then I know that we aren't talking about the same Bill.

Someone may learn that Christ's death saves them from their sins (actually, this happens pretty frequently with Arminians and Open Theists who don't believe that the atonement actually saves anyone). But if they argue that the cross isn't sufficient to save, then I start having some questions...


Now, on to the "my gospel" nonesense.

I heard you the first several times you said Paul's "my gospel" was not just "his gospel." I get that.

What you have avoided is explaining why Paul still called it "my gospel" anyway, and more than once.

Explain it.

Because it is "his gospel" just like the believers in Philippi were "his brothers" but only a fool would conclude that Paul calling the Philippians "his brothers" meant that they were only his brothers and no other person could call them brothers.

In the same way, Paul is not laying unique claim to the gospel by calling it "his" gospel.

No you just reiterate what you cannot prove with the Word.

But revealed by God to and through Paul first.

Whistle blown, flag on the play...

Where in the bible does it say that God revealed the gospel you and I receive today to Paul first?

What verse specifically says that God revealed that gospel to Paul first? Because none of the verses you have given to us say that.

It certainly isn't in Ephesians 3:8-10 where you seem to think it is. You tell us, which translation has the word "first" in Ephesians 3:8-10. Words have meaning don't they Musterion? You don't get to insert words into passages to rescue your theology.

What part of that is so difficult for you to understand?

The part where you somehow think that the word "first" is written in invisible ink in the translation you study from.

That part.

It's right there in the very passage you quoted.

Nope.

:nono:

Just because you want the word "first" to be in the passage doesn't mean it's in there.

You simply don't believe him because it'd blow most of what you already believe out of the water?

Ask yourself that question, I'm not the one inserting words into the text...

Also...what here being made known?

The manifold wisdom of God.

whom[/U]...

principalities and powers in the heavenly places...

and how is it made known?

according to the eternal purpose which God accomplished in Christ.


Your turn?

Where in that passage does it say Paul got that revelation first.

Paul didn't say the revelation of the mystery is made known directly to the church. That was revealed to him alone.

Ah, now we are putting the word "alone" in the text.

What version are you studying from that has the word "alone" in Ephesians 3:8-10?
:idunno:

What he says here is that the manifold wisdom of God may be shown through the Body of Christ to the principalities and powers in the heavenlies, the same principalities and powers that members of the Body will one day judge.

So far so good.

The revelation of the previously hidden secret was revealed to and through Paul alone, not directly to the Church. Only to Paul. He was the conduit.

Verse please...

God first revealed it through Paul.

Are you hoping that if you repeat it enough times it will magically appear in your bible?

Yes. Peter learned of things given to Paul that were "hard to be understood" from Paul and confirmed to him by the Spirit.

God first revealed it through Paul.

I am still waiting for the verse that says that the gospel we recieve today came to Paul first, or alone.

Where in the bible does it say that?

Your deficient logic, as far as I can follow it, appears to be that Paul was not the only one to receive the revelation of the mystery (despite his saying so repeatedly).

...Saying so repeatedly in a version of the bible known only to you apparently...

It appears you start this chain of reasoning based on the term "saint." Okay. Abraham was a saint. David was a saint. Zaccheus was a saint. But none of them received the revelation given directly and exclusively to Paul.

Don't be ridiculously anachronistic. Of course they didn't know what Paul knew, they were dead by the time Paul was born.

Nor did Peter.

What, specifically, is it that you don't think Peter knew that was essential to the gospel Paul preached?

Hmmm?

Paul said it was unknown to man before God made it known to him...

:doh:

:sozo:WHERE?????

Where, in the bible, do we have record of Paul saying this????

that's either true, or Paul lied.

Or (C) this is your tradition that you believe apart from biblical warrant.

Lets chat about Galatians 1:7

You are twisting Paul's words to your own destruction. He did not say "...not that there is another one."

ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο (Gal 1:7a)

The Byzantine and Alexandrian witnesses are in harmony here.

Not (οὐκ) that there is (ἔστιν) another (ἄλλο).

Consequently the:
HCSB "not that there is another gospel"
ESV "not that there is another one."
KJV "which is not another."
NAS "which is really not another"
NIV "which is really no gospel at all"
NKJ "which is not another."

He said "...which [the specific message they were hearing] is not another."

Not another what?

The message they were hearing from the Judaizers that one must be circumcised and obey the law of Moses to keep themselves saved was not another gospel, it was a perversion of the gospel. But MAD says that it was another gospel just delivered to the wrong address.
:nono:

No, I don't. That's why I highlighted your "if." Peter wouldn't do as you speculate because he agreed in Galatians 2:9 to confine his ministry to the circumcision (and geographically to Israel) both of which he did.

So why is Peter addressing his epistle to the elect exiles in Galatia and reminding them that Paul wrote to them (2 Peter 3:15)?

2 Peter 3:15 is indesputable, Peter is writing to the same audience as Paul wrote.

So which gospel is Peter preaching in 1 and 2 Peter Musterion?

The same gospel as Paul or a different gospel?

:sozo: PLEASE!!!! Answer this question.

That's true, because Peter did not preach to Gentiles after Paul was on the scene, and his letters are addressed to the circumcision, not to the uncircumcision.

:nono:
Wrong!

You just directly contradicted God's Holy Word for the sake of maintaining your tradition and you probably don't even know it.

2 Peter 3:15 is indisputably clear.

You like the NKJ it seems, so here it is in the NKJ.

" Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2Pe 3:14-16 NKJ)

Peter wrote to the same group of believers that Paul wrote to in Galatians!!!!

Peter didn't address Gentiles.

'splain 2 Peter 3:15 then...

 

[Nang]

Dialogos asked:

That's why Paul calls himself a minister of a New Covenant (2 Cor 3:6) and why he instructed the gentiles in the appropriate celebration of the Lord's Supper, which is the sign of the New Covenant (1 Cor 11:25).

If the Gentiles have no part of the New Covenant, then why are they celebrating the Lord's Supper?

MADists deny observing the Sacraments. Not allowed under their concept of saving grace.

They also deny the New Covenant as being a present fact.

They think they have it all wrapped up, do they not?

 

[Nang]

Peter wrote to the same group of believers that Paul wrote to in Galatians!!!!


'splain 2 Peter 3:15 then...

He can't and won't.

Most pertinent question to ask of any MADist, tho . . .

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

MADists deny observing the Sacraments.

How often are we supposed to take communion? Is once every 10 years okay? Should we be dunked in water, or sprinkled?

Where can we find the instructions in scripture?

What other sacraments should we be keeping, and where are the instructions?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

They also deny the New Covenant as being a present fact.

What does "present fact" mean?

Indeed the LORD shed the blood of the New Covenant many years ago.

Should I assume from this that all of the results of the New Covenant have taken place (found in Jer 31)?

I have read them and I can see that they have not. Why do you ignore, spiritualize, or just write them off has having been fulfilled?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

He can't and won't.

Most pertinent question to ask of any MADist, tho . . .

Assuming that we could not "splain" 2 Peter 3:15,

the facts remain that Peter's doctrine does not match Paul's.

Peter - the atonement is at the 2nd coming, inheritance is a city
Paul - the atonement is past, inheritance is heaven

 

[Nick M]

MADists deny observing the Sacraments.

I am going to a fish fry tonight.

:smokie: :cheers:

So there.

 

[Nick M]

Should I assume from this that all of the results of the New Covenant have taken place (found in Jer 31)?

If you get on google maps and click on the satellite picture, you can still see the bone boxes on the Mount of Olives. And Simon son of Jonah is still in the nearby church. I am pretty sure they were not opened up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Two other things:

1. Paul told the Corinthians, "When ye come together, this is NOT to eat the Lord's Supper..."

2. Paul ministered the spirit of the new testament, which is the righteousness of God. This righteousness is unto all and upon all them that believe. Check out Jeremiah 31 to see the letter of the new testament, written on their hearts, God CAUSING them to walk in his statutes.


There is no a human being alive today that God is CAUSING to walk in his statutes (LAW), or he is doing a poor job, because no one does.

 

[heir]

You mean the New Covenant, which was made with the house of Israel and Judah that Paul makes clear the believing gentiles are a part of because Christ on the cross has broken down the wall of hostility making one new man where there was two, thus making the gentiles co-heirs and fellow citizens (See Ephesians 2:1-22)?

The NC was not made, but will be made (Hebrews 8:8 KJV). You seem to be confusing the NC with the “covenants of promise” (plural).

The wall of partition was between those in the promise (Galatians 3:29 KJV) and aliens and strangers from the covenants (plural) of promise (Ephesians 2:12 KJV). Both of these two groups included Gentiles. And just what do you say is the middle wall of partition that was broken down between them?

There is a reason that Paul tells the Roman gentiles that they have been “grafted in” to the cultivated olive tree. God did not set aside the olive tree and plant some new tree, He grafted believing gentiles into the tree that had nourished the believers of the nation of Israel.
This is why Paul (the apostles to the gentiles) can call himself the minister of a new covenant (2 Cor 3:6) and why Paul instructs gentiles in the New Covenant ordinance of the Lord’s Supper (see 1 Cor 11:25). Did you ever wonder why Paul was instructing the Corinthians in a commemoration of a covenant you don't believe they have any part of?

What a mess you have there. First, the Romans: yes, the Romans already had a graffed in position in the olive tree, but the tree was coming down and unless they continued in the goodness of God they were going to be cut off (Romans 11:22 KJV); to continue in the goodness of God would be to believe Paul’s my gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) and be established into the body of Christ (Romans 1:9-17 KJV, Romans 16:25-27 KJV). Paul was not a minister of the NC but, "able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:6 KJV). And you must be kidding about Paul telling the Corinthians to keep the Lord ’s supper. He commanded them NOT to eat ( 1 Corinthians 11:20 KJV). Paul was rebuking them! LOL

 

[Nick M]

Check out Jeremiah 31 to see the letter of the new testament, written on their hearts, God CAUSING them to walk in his statutes.

:think:

Israel is one of the most immoral nations on the planet:


Only nation in Asia that recognizes same sex marriage - Israel

Only nation in Asia that allows homosexual couples to adopt - Israel

Only nation is Asia that allows openly gay men and woman to serve in the military - Israel

Largest Gay Pride parade in Asia - Israel

Largest gay beach in Asia - Israel

Tel Aviv, Israel voted "the gay capital of the Middle East" by Out Magazine.

Best "gay city in the world for 2011" by LBGT Travelers - Tel Aviv, Israel

Tel-Aviv-trumps-New-York-named-worlds-best-gay-city

Soon to be a "religious state" huh?

Maybe that is Tets idea of keeping his statutes.

 

[heir]

Two other things:

1. Paul told the Corinthians, "When ye come together, this is NOT to eat the Lord's Supper..."

2. Paul ministered the spirit of the new testament, which is the righteousness of God. This righteousness is unto all and upon all them that believe. Check out Jeremiah 31 to see the letter of the new testament, written on their hearts, God CAUSING them to walk in his statutes.


There is no a human being alive today that God is CAUSING to walk in his statutes (LAW), or he is doing a poor job, because no one does.

You beat me to it, Brother STP!

:cheers:

 

[heir]

Houston, MAD has a problem.

Amen and Amen!


:BRAVO:

not even close

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

If you get on google maps and click on the satellite picture, you can still see the bone boxes on the Mount of Olives. And Simon son of Jonah is still in the nearby church. I am pretty sure they were not opened up.

Ezekiel 36:35 And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited.

Ezekiel 36:36 Then the heathen that are left round about you shall know that I the LORD build the ruined places, and plant that that was desolate: I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You beat me to it, Brother STP!

:cheers:

The Holy Bible>their SOF

:e4e:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

:think:



Maybe that is Tets idea of keeping his statutes.

Tet is dangerous with the google and wiki. He has stats and lists for every topic.