Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
James agree to confine his ministry strictly to the Jews, while he allow Paul to have the right of ministry to the Gentiles. If they are indeed in perfect agreement, why that "compromise" in Galatians 2?

And why didn't James defended Paul anywhere in Acts 22 and 23, if he is in perfect agreement with him?
The agreement was not comprised .

What would make you think they were not in a agreement according to Acts 22 and 23?

It would seem in Galatians they had separate plans hoping it would work which would never work to begin with .The gospel was to go out into the whole world and affect all the pagan religions.

When James was confronted he gave into the ceremonial laws even though the reformation had already came. he gave into temptation as it would seem the fear of man. There were many outward Jews who insisted on hoping the flesh could profit even knowing the veil was rent.

Christ typified as our bloody husband the first born Son of God finished that work demonstrated at Calvary. The shadow had become substance. The veil was rent or cut off. The demonstration was over.

Using Moses' first born to represent the first born the Son of God. Sort of like the parable of Isaac and Abraham . Where Zipporah intervenes moved by faith that worked in her .

I would offer .The lord gives us a beautiful parable that sets the foundation of His first born the Son of God as our bloody husband called circumcision. a ceremonial law as a shadow.

And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.


And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. Exodus 4:21-26

We know the son of Moses and Zipporah is not the literal bloody husband .. it must as a shadow point ahead prophesying the grace as 1 Peter informs us.

It would seem Zipporah was receiving the end of he faith, Christ in us our mutual hope we can have in Him .

Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 1 Peter 1:9-11
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
James agree to confine his ministry strictly to the Jews, while he allow Paul to have the right of ministry to the Gentiles. If they are indeed in perfect agreement, why that "compromise" in Galatians 2?

And why didn't James defended Paul anywhere in Acts 22 and 23, if he is in perfect agreement with him?
There was no compromise, they had different roles and purposes.
They both preached the same Gospel......if you read the book of James properly it is clearly evident.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
The agreement was not comprised .

What would make you think they were not in a agreement according to Acts 22 and 23?

It would seem in Galatians they had separate plans hoping it would work which would never work to begin with .The gospel was to go out into the whole world and affect all the pagan religions.

When James was confronted he gave into the ceremonial laws even though the reformation had already came. he gave into temptation as it would seem the fear of man. There were many outward Jews who insisted on hoping the flesh could profit even knowing the veil was rent.
. 111
I see, so you believe that James was in complete agreement with Paul that all of them have died to the law after the death burial resurrection of Christ. However, he was afraid of the believing Jews who were zealous for the law.

I guess you would also believe that James did not speak up for Paul in acts 22 and 23, even though he silently agree with Paul, due to the same fear?

Okay I respect your interpretation. We can agree to disagree here.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
There was no compromise, they had different roles and purposes.
They both preached the same Gospel......if you read the book of James properly it is clearly evident.
If you believe they were preaching the same gospel, why the need to separate the ministries? And why would James raised the point that paul needed to participate in Jewish customs in acts 21, if both agreed that the law of Moses has now passed?
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
I hate replying to looooong posts. I'll go with first point...

I never said such a thing. God gives us difficulties according to our faith. His grace is sufficient. 1Cor 10 and 2Cor 12.
Then when I ask you whether rahab would have been saved if she just believe but chose not to hide the spies for fear of discovery, what is your answer?
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
Unlike you, I don't "anticipate revelation".
Unlike you, I do not pit the bible against the bible while ignorantly and falsely saying JAMES disagreed with PAUL........so....good luck with that blather!!
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
I see, so you believe that James was in complete agreement with Paul that all of them have died to the law after the death burial resurrection of Christ. However, he was afraid of the believing Jews who were zealous for the law.

I guess you would also believe that James did not speak up for Paul in acts 22 and 23, even though he silently agree with Paul, due to the same fear?

Okay I respect your interpretation. We can agree to disagree here.
First and foremost the reformation had come. The ceremonial law as a shadow in respect to circumcision had become substance. It was not a matter of was it necessary for more shadows like sacrificing a lamb or having a Levite Priesthood or any other old testament ceremonial law .

The faithless Jew like the faithless gentiles insisted that they were more than shadows. They were using those shadows as sign to confirm something rather than walking by faith . .

They were in agreement to send one group to faithless Jew, and another with the same gospel to the faithless gentiles .. But God's plan that there would be no division quickly spread . There is not one gospel for the unbelieving Jew and another for the unbelieving gentile. James I would think should not of gave into the division.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Then when I ask you whether rahab would have been saved if she just believe but chose not to hide the spies for fear of discovery, what is your answer?
God gave her His faith so that she could believe God not seen .His faith faithfully worked in her to both will (Hide the men as the plan of his faith) and empower her to move according to His good pleasure

Its not a matter of would she, but was she moved to perfom the good pleasure of one not seen...
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,742
3,670
113
Attn: Amillennialists.

If we are in the Millennium now, since the Cross, how come we are not seeing this?...

No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. (Isa 65:20)

Infants die left and right, and who lasts to 100 years old unless they are aged and decrepit hoping to die?
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,742
3,670
113
Then when I ask you whether rahab would have been saved if she just believe but chose not to hide the spies for fear of discovery, what is your answer?
(First of all, for some reason I am not getting all the notifications when someone responds to me).
Rahab was saved exactly the same way all people are, through believing the promises of God. I think I made that clear multiple times.
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
Attn: Amillennialists.

If we are in the Millennium now, since the Cross, how come we are not seeing this?...

No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. (Isa 65:20)

Infants die left and right, and who lasts to 100 years old unless they are aged and decrepit hoping to die?
Attention: Millenniumists we are not in the millennium now
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
If you believe they were preaching the same gospel, why the need to separate the ministries? And why would James raised the point that paul needed to participate in Jewish customs in acts 21, if both agreed that the law of Moses has now passed?
Are we focussing on the epistles or on Acts...because I see these as different points with regards to Paul and James?
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
Are we focussing on the epistles or on Acts...because I see these as different points with regards to Paul and James?
We are addressing the point whether James and Paul are truly in complete agreement.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
(First of all, for some reason I am not getting all the notifications when someone responds to me).
Rahab was saved exactly the same way all people are, through believing the promises of God. I think I made that clear multiple times.
You could have clearly said "Yes" to my question, "Rahab would still have been saved if she just believe but chose not to hide the spies for fear of discovery".
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
God gave her His faith so that she could believe God not seen .His faith faithfully worked in her to both will (Hide the men as the plan of his faith) and empower her to move according to His good pleasure

Its not a matter of would she, but was she moved to perfom the good pleasure of one not seen...
I find it strange that, for all those who really believed that Rahab was saved only because she believe in God and not because of her works in hiding the spies, why can't they give an unequivocal "Yes" to my question?

My perspective, based on Hebrews 11 and James 2, is a clear No. Rahab had to show her faith by her works, in order to be fully justified before God. That forms the basis for my belief that we Gentiles under the grace dispensation are truly blessed and are envied by all these OT saints, because we have Jesus completing all the works required on our behalf.

It is the same for those who will be saved during the Tribulation after the dispensation of grace is over. They have to believe in God (faith) and they have to deny the mark of the beast (works). in order to be fully justified before God. (Rev 14:11)
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
Unlike you, I do not pit the bible against the bible while ignorantly and falsely saying JAMES disagreed with PAUL........so....good luck with that blather!!
If anyone can read Acts 21 and claim that James and Paul are in perfect agreement, I rest my case.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,742
3,670
113
You could have clearly said "Yes" to my question, "Rahab would still have been saved if she just believe but chose not to hide the spies for fear of discovery".
Again that is twisting things. We are saved by faith alone (If you don't believe that, Rome has a position for you).
Secondly, those who are saved by faith alone do good works, not them, but the Spirit of God working in and through them.(1Cor 15:10)
Thirdly, we are saved by faith alone, but God never leaves alone those who are His.
Fourthly, I hope you don't twist Scripture like you twist the words of others.