Let's Add to the Gospel!

[Chester]

Ok, let's start over.
Do you believe the 'proper' way of expressing it...We are saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone? (Part of the Solas of the Reformation). I do...your turn.

No, I do not say it that way. I understand the "solas" of the Reformation, but they are man's statements and are OK in their context, but are not the way I talk of salvation.

I say we are saved by grace through faith, not of works. Please do not add to the Gospel . . .

 

[crossnote]

No, I do not say it that way. I understand the "solas" of the Reformation, but they are man's statements and are OK in their context, but are not the way I talk of salvation.

I say we are saved by grace through faith, not of works. Please do not add to the Gospel . . .

Ok, Rome says the same thing but somehow slip in works. I believe the word 'alone' clarifies things and the concept in Scripture is
Please answer this. I take it you hold to the Trinity, even though the Bible doesn't use that exact phrase, so why won't you ascribe to the word 'alone' in the phrase "We are saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone" when the concept is there? What would you add to 'faith'?

 

[crossnote]

By the way, crossnote, I love your line "a theologian is a person who can't sing"!!!

Funny thing is, you are a pretty good theologian yourself, and I somehow bet you are a good singer too!

Let me explain my signature a bit.
I have noticed that many (not all) theologians have a dry academic approach to the Scriptures. They are devoid of the joy of the Lord because they are devoid of His Life...and therefore can't sing and/or won't sing.

 

[Chester]

Let me explain my signature a bit.
I have noticed that many (not all) theologians have a dry academic approach to the Scriptures. They are devoid of the joy of the Lord because they are devoid of His Life...and therefore can't sing and/or won't sing.

a theologian = can't sing
crossnote = can't sing

means crossnote is a theologian!?

Faulty reasoning, I know!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

a theologian = can't sing
crossnote = can't sing

means crossnote is a theologian!?

Faulty reasoning, I know!

sounds more reasonable than some stuff I have seen lately

 

[Guojing]

There was a transitional period in Church history where saved Jews continued to be faithfully Torah observant. There is nothing surprising about that, since Christ Himself was Torah observant.

It took some time for Christian truths to be established in the churches and the teachings of Paul to be circulated throughout the churches. But the church at Jerusalem was altogether Jewish, and as long as the temple stood, they observed Jewish customs. And in order to avoid these saved Jews, Paul accommodated them without compromising Christian truth.

At the same time the apostles preached the true Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ, and His finished work of redemption. And Peter was the first apostle to preach to Gentiles and bring them to salvation.

Yes, the resurrected Christ never told anyone that the Law of Moses was no longer valid for them.

That is why when we read James now, especially his chapter 2, we should understand what he was saying based on the OT's point of view, that for Jews at that time, keeping the law was part of the requirement for entering the promised kingdom (Matthew 5:17-19). James had not heard of Paul's epistles at the time of writing.

 

[tourist]

(warning: the following paragraph is said 'tongue-in-cheek', although many believe this way)

Apparently, Christ's perfect obedience unto death was not enough, therefore what should we, sinful beings, add to make His sacrifice sufficient for our salvation?
Should we add...
'our determination to be obedient'?
'our faithfulness and endurance to the end'?
'our good works'?
'our forgiveness to others?'

@oldethennew really nailed it. I believe that we should do everything that you listed, not as a means to ensure salvation but rather as a humble servant to the Lord.

 

[pottersclay]

The words Israel and Jacob have meaning attached to them . One represents those born again having the power of God with them to overcome flesh and blood. The other before the born again conversion as a deceiver natural man

I see it more he was talking to mankind the multitude .He is not respecter of corrupted, dying flesh. He informs us to know no man after the flesh as brothers sisters and mothers. All have the same father

Rather than the rebirth of born again Israel (one new birth is required) a new name the father propmised as a beautiful city. . not reckoned of here under the Sun .

He re- named his bride in Acts a more befitting as the bride made up of all nations. Christian . A word with no extra meaning added that literally meanings ."Residents of that heavenly city prepared as His bride the church" She is named after her founder and husband Christ. . Previously named her Israel. . until the time of reformation.
A time like never before or ever again. . . still feeling the effects .

A time when the use of corruptible flesh was cut off .

He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.Luke 13 6-9

Leaves are used to represent the temporal like flesh. Represented by the veil . When Adam and Eve were revealed as dead they were shown as naked. The glory of God had departed. They used leaves that had no power to make the letter of the law death without effect.. Fig leaves with no fruit are used to represent the healing of nation .Not the fruit of salvation. We walk by faith.

Matthew 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

1948 is my birth year. Again we walk by faith .The veil is rent.

Are you saying that the church replaced Israel?

 

[crossnote]

Yes, the resurrected Christ never told anyone that the Law of Moses was no longer valid for them.

That is why when we read James now, especially his chapter 2, we should understand what he was saying based on the OT's point of view, that for Jews at that time, keeping the law was part of the requirement for entering the promised kingdom (Matthew 5:17-19). James had not heard of Paul's epistles at the time of writing.

The resurrected Christ spent 40 days teaching His disciples, how can you say that in those 40 days He never taught them that 'the Law of Moses was no longer valid for them.'? Were you there? Peter seems to approve of Paul's teaching and Paul claims he received his teaching from Christ Jesus Himself.

 

[crossnote]

@oldethennew really nailed it. I believe that we should do everything that you listed, not as a means to ensure salvation but rather as a humble servant to the Lord.

What @oldethennew said was true, I just thought that without the new birth all that 'good stuff' was not possible.

 

[crossnote]

1948 is my birth year. Again we walk by faith .The veil is rent.

Ditto here...you 'ol codger! LOL

 

[Guojing]

The resurrected Christ spent 40 days teaching His disciples, how can you say that in those 40 days He never taught them that 'the Law of Moses was no longer valid for them.'? Were you there? Peter seems to approve of Paul's teaching and Paul claims he received his teaching from Christ Jesus Himself.

First, you are making an argument from silence.

Second, we have enough evidence in Acts that goes against your hypothesis.

1. There will be no need for Acts 15:1 and the Jerusalem council.
2. Peter was a law keeper in Acts. We also won't have verses that goes Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. Acts 10: 28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
3. We won't have Acts 21:20-25 as we have discussed earlier.
4. We also won't have the testimony of Ananias in Acts 22:12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

All these indicated that Jesus could not have told them during those 40 days that the "the Law of Moses was no longer valid for them.'

 

[crossnote]

First, you are making an argument from silence.

Not really.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: (Gal 1:15-16)

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
(2Pe 3:15)

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8-9)

 

[Guojing]

Not really.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: (Gal 1:15-16)

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
(2Pe 3:15)

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8-9)

We are not talking about Paul here in the first place. We are talking about the 11 original apostles and the resurrected Christ, before the latter ascended to heaven.

Peter wrote 2nd Peter near the end of his death so your point is irrelevant. We are talking about the time period of Acts.

Stick to the correct time period, and the correct people involved.

 

[crossnote]

We are not talking about Paul here in the first place. We are talking about the 11 original apostles and the resurrected Christ, before the latter ascended to heaven.

Peter wrote 2nd Peter near the end of his death so your point is irrelevant. We are talking about the time period of Acts.

Stick to the correct time period, and the correct people involved.

Who started this thread in the first place? You may be talking about the 11 (that seems to be all you talk about) but this thread started with Paul and the Gospel he preached. You have attempted to derail this thread over and over by your Mid Acts approach. I'll ask you once again, go start your own thread.
Congrats, you are on IGNORE for awhile.

 

[Guojing]

Who started this thread in the first place? You may be talking about the 11 (that seems to be all you talk about) but this thread started with Paul and the Gospel he preached. You have attempted to derail this thread over and over by your Mid Acts approach. I'll ask you once again, go start your own thread.
Congrats, you are on IGNORE for awhile.

You replied to my post to another guy, disagreeing with what I said, so I was explaining my point.

And no need to tell anyone publicly you are ignoring them. This is not a playground and no one cares.