J
When I didnt take your advice that was just sort of my way of blowing it off.
I might not have called Hizi out on a topic, as we were running into him on topics already, and I have chosen to ignore him
However, I would just rather stand behind an apostle of Jesus Christ, but you are more then welcome to count as your brother one that seeks to undermine the apostle of our Lord.
Thats is your choice.
I might highly respect the Lord choice for the apostle Paul, you might highly respect someone who disrepects the Lord's choice, and thats fine too.
Again, thats your choice.
But this does not surprise me given the times we live in.
I'm just not sold on all the respects of a persons as you might be, I am aparently not as impressed as you are.
The apostle Paul did more as a minister to the Gentiles than anyone, especially anyone here in this little sandbox.
But nearly 2000 years after Jesus Christ we have these young respected experts coming forth who can give us the heads up on our Lord Jesus sending his churches this unearned title "the false apostle Paul".
And the likes of them being strengthened by others support in standing with them?
It is sad, but its not like its a bad thing to begin to see the line in the sand
It has been brought to my attention that I was wrong on this.
Please accept my apologies.
It has been brought to my attention that I was wrong on this.
Please accept my apologies.
Beware! Non-Pauline Christians are no Christians at all. They look like a lamb on the outside, but they speak with the mouth of a Dragon.
They deny the grace of the gospel in Jesus Christ by promoting salvation through the works of the law. Beware, they are working in these forums.
That doesnt make sense though,
Theres one that rejects the Lords apostle Paul but the church is divided in the 20th century by the other which doesnt reject Paul along with any others like him that dont reject Paul?
I dont understand that reasoning at all.
Or this...
Yes indeed we are non-Pauline Christians and we don't for sure recognize nor welcome her followers. She is surely an alien to us, 'sorry you have the wrong number'.
I dont even know what you could possibly mean by the sentence alone
Then here...
The only person we know and recognize is Apostle Paul, an instrument of LORD JESUS CHRIST, chosen to minster onto the scattered Jews and Gentiles.
But above it you stated you were non Pauline, but here you something else?
Then this
Wake up child, for the dragon of deception is in you and those who agree with you, if you together continue in the flesh/carnality and it's fruits.
I dont understand your doctrine, anyone who believes that the Lord had sent Paul has a dragon of deception in them?
And then this one
"You actually deny the complete work of the New Covenant of CHRIST, in an incomplete testimonial faith. It is not only
'the grace of the Gospel in JESUS CHRIST, but 'Grace and Truth'
Beleiving that Jesus Christ sent the apostle Paul is denying the finished work Jesus Christ (who was full of grace and truth) And is yet an incomplete testimonial faith?
I dont know what that last sentence even means as stated.
The rest I couldnt make out, it was jumbled together and went into how you please God more where those who dont reject Paul are just pleasing men.
Did I at least get that last part right?
That doesnt make sense though,
Theres one that rejects the Lords apostle Paul but the church is divided in the 20th century by the other which doesnt reject Paul along with any others like him that dont reject Paul?
I dont understand that reasoning at all.
Or this...
Yes indeed we are non-Pauline Christians and we don't for sure recognize nor welcome her followers. She is surely an alien to us, 'sorry you have the wrong number'.
I dont even know what you could possibly mean by the sentence alone
Then here...
The only person we know and recognize is Apostle Paul, an instrument of LORD JESUS CHRIST, chosen to minster onto the scattered Jews and Gentiles.
But above it you stated you were non Pauline, but here you something else?
Then this
Wake up child, for the dragon of deception is in you and those who agree with you, if you together continue in the flesh/carnality and it's fruits.
I dont understand your doctrine, anyone who believes that the Lord had sent Paul has a dragon of deception in them?
And then this one
"You actually deny the complete work of the New Covenant of CHRIST, in an incomplete testimonial faith. It is not only
'the grace of the Gospel in JESUS CHRIST, but 'Grace and Truth'
Beleiving that Jesus Christ sent the apostle Paul is denying the finished work Jesus Christ (who was full of grace and truth) And is yet an incomplete testimonial faith?
I dont know what that last sentence even means as stated.
The rest I couldnt make out, it was jumbled together and went into how you please God more where those who dont reject Paul are just pleasing men.
Did I at least get that last part right?
Whereas you and others are saying "Pauline" as in "followers of Paul", he's apparently being sarcastic by referring to "Pauline" as a woman's name.Yes indeed we are non-Pauline Christians and we don't for sure recognize nor welcome her followers. She is surely an alien to us, 'sorry you have the wrong number'.
I dont even know what you could possibly mean by the sentence alone.
Whereas you and others are saying "Pauline" as in "followers of Paul", he's apparently being sarcastic by referring to "Pauline" as a woman's name.
Anyhow, almost everybody here could use a refresher course in how to speak to others.
I'm assuming (I could be mistaken) that there's some sarcasm in that response as well. In any case, God has not only called people from "every tongue", but I trust that He understands "every tongue" as well:I know I've been brushing up on my Hebrew as it seems to the mainstay here.
That's not what he said. IOW, he's accusing some people here (and elsewhere) of being "lawless" in that they preach a "grace" which is separated from "truth" and/or "obedience" and then identifying the same as what he believes to be the true cause of division in the church.That doesnt make sense though,
Theres one that rejects the Lords apostle Paul but the church is divided in the 20th century by the other which doesnt reject Paul along with any others like him that dont reject Paul?
I dont understand that reasoning at all.
Again, he's playing with your use of the word "Pauline".ISeeYou said:Or this...
Yes indeed we are non-Pauline Christians and we don't for sure recognize nor welcome her followers. She is surely an alien to us, 'sorry you have the wrong number'.
I dont even know what you could possibly mean by the sentence alone
Then here...
The only person we know and recognize is Apostle Paul, an instrument of LORD JESUS CHRIST, chosen to minster onto the scattered Jews and Gentiles.
But above it you stated you were non Pauline, but here you something else?
ISeeYou said:Then this
Wake up child, for the dragon of deception is in you and those who agree with you, if you together continue in the flesh/carnality and it's fruits.
I dont understand your doctrine, anyone who believes that the Lord had sent Paul has a dragon of deception in them?
IOW, he was seeking to "turn the tables" on InSpiritInTruth by suggesting that the ones who are truly "speaking with the mouth of a dragon" are those who teach a "grace" apart from "truth" and/or "obedience". Personally, I agree with him on this point in that that type of "grace" is really a "DIS-grace"...literally. IOW, God's "grace" enables us to OBEY HIM and His commandments.InSpiritInTruth said:Beware! Non-Pauline Christians are no Christians at all. They look like a lamb on the outside, but they speak with the mouth of a Dragon.
They deny the grace of the gospel in Jesus Christ by promoting salvation through the works of the law. Beware, they are working in these forums.
Again, he's referring to "grace and truth" because God's "grace" enables us TO OBEY his "truths". As such, those who preach what has been called "greasy grace" or "sloppy agape" or those who teach "grace" as the big "cover up" are teaching that which is "incomplete". Again, "grace" is an ENABLER in that it gives us the needed power TO OBEY. That's his point.ISeeYou said:And then this one
"You actually deny the complete work of the New Covenant of CHRIST, in an incomplete testimonial faith. It is not only
'the grace of the Gospel in JESUS CHRIST, but 'Grace and Truth'
Beleiving that Jesus Christ sent the apostle Paul is denying the finished work Jesus Christ (who was full of grace and truth) And is yet an incomplete testimonial faith?
I dont know what that last sentence even means as stated.
He didn't say that he "rejects Paul". Instead, he believes that Paul taught OBEDIENCE TO GOD'S COMMANDMENTS VIA GRACE.ISeeYou said:The rest I couldnt make out, it was jumbled together and went into how you please God more where those who dont reject Paul are just pleasing men.
Did I at least get that last part right?
That's not what he said. IOW, he's accusing some people here (and elsewhere) of being "lawless" in that they preach a "grace" which is separated from "truth" and/or "obedience" and then identifying the same as what he believes to be the true cause of division in the church.
Again, he's playing with your use of the word "Pauline".
An apparent allusion back to InSpiritInTruth's OP where he said:
IOW, he was seeking to "turn the tables" on InSpiritInTruth by suggesting that the ones who are truly "speaking with the mouth of a dragon" are those who teach a "grace" apart from "truth" and/or "obedience". Personally, I agree with him on this point in that that type of "grace" is really a "DIS-grace"...literally. IOW, God's "grace" enables us to OBEY HIM and His commandments.
Again, he's referring to "grace and truth" because God's "grace" enables us TO OBEY his "truths". As such, those who preach what has been called "greasy grace" or "sloppy agape" or those who teach "grace" as the big "cover up" are teaching that which is "incomplete". Again, "grace" is an ENABLER in that it gives us the needed power TO OBEY. That's his point.
He didn't say that he "rejects Paul". Instead, he believes that Paul taught OBEDIENCE TO GOD'S COMMANDMENTS VIA GRACE.
Anyhow, I don't normally seek to answer for others, but, in this particular case, I'm quite confident that I properly responded on his behalf. If not, then I'm sure that he'll correct me.
Hi, InSpiritInTruth.
Although I'm a firm supporter of both Paul and his writings, your opening statement isn't necessarily true. IOW, somebody could reject Paul's words out of genuine ignorance or as the direct result of sincerely believing wrong teaching.
Yet the Lord Jesus said:
Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Then i may consider you as an outsider, who is unable to make anything out. Anyway if this is not for you, then surely it is not for you, because it is hidden to thy understanding.