Different Gospels

[BartholomewB]

@Musicmaster, by the way, in case yon're not already familiar with it, here is a website that I have found to be very conveniently arranged and user-friendly. It seems to be a one-man show, run by Alan Bunning, a professor at Purdue University in Lafayette, IN.

https://greekcntr.org/collation/

 

[Thaddeus]

It appears you're pushing this into the realm of anti-intellectualism. I hope that's not the case.

MM

Let us quote Paul:
The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise are futile: 1Cor3:20
‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’[
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1Cor1:19&20
Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 26-28
And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. ch2:1-5

 

[Thaddeus]

Folks, generally speaking, the anti-intellectualism of some belief systems that embrace erroneous doctrines need to understand something pivotal, and Norman Geisler had this to say about philosophy rather than to demonize it:

Christian-Specific Reasons to Study Philosophy​

• Imago Dei and Rationality
  • Genesis 1:27: humans are made in God’s image; Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 affirm this for all people, including unbelievers.
  • Reason is part of God’s image, grounding Christian thinking in divine likeness.
• Fulfillment of the Greatest Command
  • Jesus commands loving God with heart, mind, soul, and strength; loving God with the mind is central.
  • Philosophy helps fulfill this by cultivating rational love and devotion.
• Understanding Theology
  • Theology is reasoning (logos) about God (theos); major theological issues are philosophical.
  • False philosophies (e.g., existentialism shaping neo-orthodoxy via Kierkegaard, influencing Barth, Brunner, Bultmann) yield false theology; sound philosophy supports orthodoxy.
• Effective Evangelism and Pre-Evangelism
  • Evangelism depends on worldview context: theistic contexts (e.g., parts of Africa, South America) ease gospel communication.
  • Pantheistic contexts (e.g., India, Asia: “God is all, all is God”) render gospel claims (e.g., unique Son of God) unintelligible without philosophical bridges.
  • Pre-evangelism (per Francis Schaeffer) moves non-theistic/pantheistic views toward theism so the gospel is coherent; anecdote: a Jewish student found resurrection evidence unpersuasive because he didn’t believe in God.
• Defending the Faith (Apologetics)
  • 1 Peter 3:15 calls Christians to give reasons for their hope; Jude urges contending for the faith; Paul defends the gospel (Philippians 1) and reasons on Mars Hill (Acts 17).
  • Scripture prescribes and models rational defense and argument for faith claims.

I hope this helps.

MM

Im sure you are far more intellectual than I could ever be. So let's put your intellectualism and my simple faith to the test. And let us use Paul to do so:
Why is the power of sin the law 1Cor15:56
Why are sinfull passions aroused in us by the law Rom7:5
How was sin able to take occasion of the commandment not to covet to arouse all manner of concupiscence in Saul? Rom7:8

 

[Musicmaster]

It appears you're pushing this into the realm of anti-intellectualism. I hope that's not the case.

Let us quote Paul:
The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise are futile: 1Cor3:20
‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’[
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1Cor1:19&20
Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 26-28
And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. ch2:1-5

It's sad that you appear to be suggesting that being learned is some sort of automatic indicator for a lack of spiritual vitality and understanding.

In answer to your question, Paul was speaking from a past stage of his life, especially the time before he fully understood the law’s spiritual demand—most likely his experience as a Pharisee before conversion, or at least the period when the commandment confronted his conscience and exposed sin in him. The point is not a diary entry with a date, but a representative “I” showing what the law does to a sinner. Pharisaicism had a severe tendency toward a lack of the spiritual, which is an extreme that I have not gone into nor reommended.

Sin could take occasion of the commandment because the commandment is good, but sin is rebellious. When God’s command said “You shall not covet,” sin, because of fallen, human nature, used that very prohibition to stir up the forbidden desire in Paul’s fallen nature. The law did not create sin. It tended to provoke and expose it, turning latent desire into active rebellion.

In short: the commandment became a trigger in the minds and hearts of the most base because sin uses even holy things to produce resistance.

Perhaps not the best answer while on the fly, but I welcome your thoughts as well.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Im sure you are far more intellectual than I could ever be. So let's put your intellectualism and my simple faith to the test. And let us use Paul to do so:
Why is the power of sin the law 1Cor15:56
Why are sinfull passions aroused in us by the law Rom7:5
How was sin able to take occasion of the commandment not to covet to arouse all manner of concupiscence in Saul? Rom7:8

Why?

Because the law is the standard that names sin. Sin has no authority apart from a command to rebel against, so the law becomes its “power” in the sense that it exposes, defines, and provokes sin on the basis of the fallen, human nature. When the command says “do not,” fallen nature hears a boundary and often pushes against it because of the fallenness of the flesh, thus the reason that same Paul spoke of the flesh being at war with the spirit.

The prohibition, by nature, is the reason sinful passions are “aroused” by the law in Romans 7:5: the law is good, but sin in us is not. The commandment confronts desire, and our corrupt nature turns that confrontation into stronger craving, guilt, and rebellion.

In Saul/Paul’s case, “You shall not covet” gave sin a target. The prohibition did not create covetousness; it activated awareness and resistance in a heart still governed by the flesh, so forbidden desire multiplied into “all manner of concupiscence.”

So the basic idea is: law is holy, sin is the parasite, and the law becomes the occasion sin exploits.

Does that help?

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

It's sad that you appear to be suggesting that being learned is some sort of automatic indicator for a lack of spiritual vitality and understanding.

In answer to your question, Paul was speaking from a past stage of his life, especially the time before he fully understood the law’s spiritual demand—most likely his experience as a Pharisee before conversion, or at least the period when the commandment confronted his conscience and exposed sin in him. The point is not a diary entry with a date, but a representative “I” showing what the law does to a sinner. Pharisaicism had a severe tendency toward a lack of the spiritual, which is an extreme that I have not gone into nor reommended.

Sin could take occasion of the commandment because the commandment is good, but sin is rebellious. When God’s command said “You shall not covet,” sin, because of fallen, human nature, used that very prohibition to stir up the forbidden desire in Paul’s fallen nature. The law did not create sin. It tended to provoke and expose it, turning latent desire into active rebellion.

In short: the commandment became a trigger in the minds and hearts of the most base because sin uses even holy things to produce resistance.

Perhaps not the best answer while on the fly, but I welcome your thoughts as well.

MM

Paul was writing of the time the law came to him, which would be at the age of thirteen for a young Jewish lad who then made a commitment to God.
We must assume he was raised strictly, the law must be obeyed. The pinnacle of the law was the ten commandments. If he could not obey that law, hell would await him.
He understood what obeying the ten commandments entailed. He must not lust/dwell on impure thoughts. Imagine a thirteen year old in such circumstances. They would be petrefied of impure thoughts, for then, they might believe in a literal burning hell. Can you escape thinking of what you fear, or, will thoughts of what you fear consume you?
What would be the result of being petrefied of impure thoughts/lust for a young teenager?
They would end up being consumed by all manner of concupiscence through their awareness of the tenth commandment.
They would have felt alive without the law/before they made that commitment to God, for their was no condemnation then, but when the law came:
The commandment the young person believed was ordained to life/if they obeyed it, instead brought death'/condemnation for they could not keep it.
That sin through the law becomes exceeding sinfull(verse13)

 

[Thaddeus]

Why?

Because the law is the standard that names sin. Sin has no authority apart from a command to rebel against, so the law becomes its “power” in the sense that it exposes, defines, and provokes sin on the basis of the fallen, human nature. When the command says “do not,” fallen nature hears a boundary and often pushes against it because of the fallenness of the flesh, thus the reason that same Paul spoke of the flesh being at war with the spirit.

The prohibition, by nature, is the reason sinful passions are “aroused” by the law in Romans 7:5: the law is good, but sin in us is not. The commandment confronts desire, and our corrupt nature turns that confrontation into stronger craving, guilt, and rebellion.

In Saul/Paul’s case, “You shall not covet” gave sin a target. The prohibition did not create covetousness; it activated awareness and resistance in a heart still governed by the flesh, so forbidden desire multiplied into “all manner of concupiscence.”

So the basic idea is: law is holy, sin is the parasite, and the law becomes the occasion sin exploits.

Does that help?

MM

Read my last response

 

[Thaddeus]

Why?

Because the law is the standard that names sin. Sin has no authority apart from a command to rebel against, so the law becomes its “power” in the sense that it exposes, defines, and provokes sin on the basis of the fallen, human nature. When the command says “do not,” fallen nature hears a boundary and often pushes against it because of the fallenness of the flesh, thus the reason that same Paul spoke of the flesh being at war with the spirit.

The prohibition, by nature, is the reason sinful passions are “aroused” by the law in Romans 7:5: the law is good, but sin in us is not. The commandment confronts desire, and our corrupt nature turns that confrontation into stronger craving, guilt, and rebellion.

In Saul/Paul’s case, “You shall not covet” gave sin a target. The prohibition did not create covetousness; it activated awareness and resistance in a heart still governed by the flesh, so forbidden desire multiplied into “all manner of concupiscence.”

So the basic idea is: law is holy, sin is the parasite, and the law becomes the occasion sin exploits.

Does that help?

MM

The law comes in two parts, what is written in the law and the penalty for transgresssion. Nothing wrong with the first part, it is holy, just and good(Rom7:12) it is the second that is the problem. So, as Paul states what is written in the law is now in the hearts of believers, whilst the penalty for transgression got removed. And so, the power of sin got removed!

 

[Thaddeus]

Why?

Because the law is the standard that names sin. Sin has no authority apart from a command to rebel against, so the law becomes its “power” in the sense that it exposes, defines, and provokes sin on the basis of the fallen, human nature. When the command says “do not,” fallen nature hears a boundary and often pushes against it because of the fallenness of the flesh, thus the reason that same Paul spoke of the flesh being at war with the spirit.

The prohibition, by nature, is the reason sinful passions are “aroused” by the law in Romans 7:5: the law is good, but sin in us is not. The commandment confronts desire, and our corrupt nature turns that confrontation into stronger craving, guilt, and rebellion.

In Saul/Paul’s case, “You shall not covet” gave sin a target. The prohibition did not create covetousness; it activated awareness and resistance in a heart still governed by the flesh, so forbidden desire multiplied into “all manner of concupiscence.”

So the basic idea is: law is holy, sin is the parasite, and the law becomes the occasion sin exploits.

Does that help?

MM

Here’s Paul’s core gospel message in a nutshell:

The power of sin is the law 1Cor15:56 The legally binding law with the power to condemn.

But as Paul states, the law, what is written in it is holy, just and good (Rom7:12)

So what was God to do? He obviously would want to remove the power of sin, but he would not want to remove what is holy just and good.
Law as we naturally understand law to mean comes in two parts, what is written in the law and the attached penalty for transgression. Nothing wrong at all with the first part, it is holy, just and good, its the second part that's the problem

So God did an incredible thing. He transferred the law/what is written in it, from an external law engraved in stone, and made it an internal law in the hearts and minds of believers(2Cor3:3&Heb10:15-17)) An external law does not mean you in your heart would want to obey it does it. But a law placed in your heart, does mean in your heart you want to follow it. So, what is holy, just and good remains intact, it is now in your heart and mind. It simply means in your mind you know how God wants you to live and in your heart you want to live that way. In your heart you do not want to murder, steal, commit adultery, covet, take the Lords name in vain etc. Hardly legalism! The law/what is written in the law that is now in your heart and mind cannot condemn you, you have no righteousness of obeying it, for Jesus died for your sins/your transgressions of the law: your sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more

And so, law as we naturally understand law to mean is abolished for the believer. But what is holy, just and good is now in the hearts and minds of believers.

Because, and only because you in your heart want to live as God desires you to live, he removed the penalty attached to the law for transgression from your life. He sent Jesus to die for your sins/your transgressions of the law. Therefore, the legally binding law with the power to condemn is removed from you. And therefore, the power of sin is also now removed from your life.



With the power of sin removed from your life, you can now live a far holier life, a life you in your heart want to live for that is where the law now is. And you can do that because you are not under law/righteousness of obeying the law, but under grace/righteousness of faith in Christ. Christ died to pay the penalty of your sin, and he died to break the power of sin. And so Paul states:

Do we then make void the law by faith/righteousness of faith in Christ not obeying the law? God forbid: Yea, we establish the law Rom3:31

In other words, a righteousness of faith in Christ rather than obeying the law does not mean we can or will then act however we like, but rather, with the power of sin removed from us, we will live a holier life, that is in line with what is written in what is holy, just and good.

And:

For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law/ righteousness of obeying the law, but under grace/righteousness of faith in Christ. Rom 6:14

 

[Musicmaster]

Paul was writing of the time the law came to him, which would be at the age of thirteen for a young Jewish lad who then made a commitment to God.

Well, I can see that you're not reading my posts to you, so all of this is talking in circles and thus going nowhere. You argued the very thing I stated about Paul's past, as if I didn't just say that, of which you posted in your quote of me, so there's really not much else to say since it's not being considered.

In other words, I choose to not strive endlessly and in circular fashion with you.

MM

 

[biblestudent78]

I appreciate the conversation so far. However, it concerns me that virtually all our conversations focus on getting the right details in our unique Theological roadmap. We discuss almost endlessly about our version of the map. Defending our map is our priority. Refining the right map of salvation has been a very big part of Christianity from the start. It appeals to our intellect, instincts and deep need for validation and safety.

But, in the end, it is just a map. IMHO the problem is we only want to argue about the map and not about the voyage. By and large, our lives are indistinguishable from those of your everyday heathen. We could not pick out a Christian from any crowd outside a church building. We very seldom want to talk about our faith journey, our failures, our trials, our growth, our Christian lived life's insights, our fears and our confessions and need of prayer.

That may be because we have confused the map with the journey. It is not. We each have a unique Christian life. We share the same challenges but discussing the issues of lived Christianity seems somehow of much less interest than continuing our 2,000 yr old arguments about the MAP. Are we deceiving ourselves? Does anyone want to discuss our experiences from the Christian life we are actually living?

Matthew 25:

 

[biblestudent78]

Perhaps some real-life points for discussion

Character of the New Person
Be light – Let your light shine Matt 5:16
Be salt Matt 5:17
Be a servant Matt 23:11
Be a reconciler Matt 5:23-24, 18:15-17
Be on guard against greed and sin Luke 12:15, Matt 26:41
Take sin very seriously (Matthew 5:29–30)
Be perfect (in love) Matt 5:48
Be forgiving Matt 18:21-22
Be repentant Matt 4:17
Be born again John 3:5
Be the person who will go the second mile Matt 5:41
Be the person who can turn the other cheek Matt 5:39
Be the person who always gives to those who ask Matt 5:42
Be the person who will always loan their stuff Matt 5:42
Be the person who seeks Gods Kingdom first Matt 6:33
Be the person who honors their marriage Mark 10:6-9
Be the person who takes communion Matt 26:26-27
Be poor in spirit Matt 5:3
Be meek Matt 5:5
Be the person who hungers and thirsts for righteousness Matt 5:6
Be merciful Matt 5:7
Be pure of heart Matt 5:8
Be peace makers 5:9
Be the person who comes to Jesus for rest Matt 11:28

Heart of the New Person
Love and pray for your enemies Matt 5:44-46
The Golden Rule Matt 7:12
Love God Matt 22:37-38
Love your neighbor as yourself Matt 22:39
Love one another as I have loved you John 13:34, John 15:12, John 15:17
Love and invite the poor into your life Luke 14:12-14
Show your love by:
Feeding the hungry and quenching the thirsty Matt 25:35
Inviting in the stranger Matt 25:35
Clothing the naked Matt 25:36
Visiting the sick Matt 25:36
Visiting those in prison Matt 25:36

Things the New Person should avoid
Make no oaths – don’t swear Matt 5:34, 37
Don’t judge others Matt 7:1
Don’t lust Matt 5:27-30
Don’t fear those that can kill the body Matt 10:28
Don’t store up treasures on earth Matt 6:19

The Mission of the New Person
Find and enter the narrow gate Matt 7:13-14
Ask God for more harvest workers Matt 9:37-38
Preach the Gospel Matt 28:19-20

 

[Thaddeus]

Well, I can see that you're not reading my posts to you, so all of this is talking in circles and thus going nowhere. You argued the very thing I stated about Paul's past, as if I didn't just say that, of which you posted in your quote of me, so there's really not much else to say since it's not being considered.

In other words, I choose to not strive endlessly and in circular fashion with you.

MM

Well you should have known it concerned a thirteen year old Jewish lad, or that is when he is writing from. Some of what you wrote has merit, but you didn't address all five verses and explain them all.
You could have said if you agreed with post 149. As Paul said, the law is now in Gentile believers hearts/what is written in it.

 

[biblestudent78]

Yes, the Gospel preached by Jesus and the twelve was indeed the foundational means unto salvation. That Gospel also included the requirement for water baptism for remission of sins, which is not for us today.

In other words, we don't have to be water baptized for the remission of our sins as was the case in what Peter preached in Acts 2:38. Paul's Gospel of Grace had no such requirement in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Paul's Gospel of Grace required only that one believe in the death, burial and resurrection in the third day of Christ Jesus for our sins. Anything else is a work; something of which many have boasted, thus cheapening the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ.

I understand the tendency within the "simplicity" stance to overlook differing elements given that Christ is the common denominator in both gospels, but the Kingdom Gospel simply is not for us today because you Gentiles don't have to join with us of Israel to be saved by the Blood of Christ. Not any more. Our fall as a nation of priests brought down that middle wall of partition, thus salvation having come unto the Gentiles who, before, were without God, without Christ, outside the commonwealth of Israel and without hope.

Does that make better sense?

MM

I believe that what we define as salvation is not salvation. We seem to believe it is all about what mental conceptualizations we acquire from our church dogmas, reading them to prove we are "right" and endless discussions about membership, who is in and who is out based on my unique historically invented understanding of the Gospel.

I believe that Gospel is the good news that God through Jesus has saved you for a purpose and a mission. You do not get to sign up for the salvation gift without the conversion requirement. You do not get to sit in a pew all your life while denying the call of Jesus to be part of the saved who are actually converted. Pewology is the 21st century replacement for Christianity. Many are called, but few are chosen.

 

[Musicmaster]

I believe that what we define as salvation is not salvation. We seem to believe it is all about what mental conceptualizations we acquire from our church dogmas, reading them to prove we are "right" and endless discussions about membership, who is in and who is out based on my unique historically invented understanding of the Gospel.

That's definitely foreign to me. Church dogmas? Mental conceptualizations? Membership? As for me, I don't attend any institutionalized expression of churchianity. I have no need for them. Your wording is indeed interesting.

I believe that Gospel is the good news that God through Jesus has saved you for a purpose and a mission.

That's indeed a lengthy and in-depth discussion.

You do not get to sign up for the salvation gift without the conversion requirement. You do not get to sit in a pew all your life while denying the call of Jesus to be part of the saved who are actually converted. Pewology is the 21st century replacement for Christianity. Many are called, but few are chosen.

Pewology has a very long history besides just something in the 21st century, of which I'm sure you already know.

I prefer to be out there speaking the gospel message to others who need it rather than to segregate myself to four-walled-churchianity that most call a fellowship...which is ample evidence for the fact that most have no clue what true, biblical fellowship really is as it's defined within inspired scripture.

MM

 

[biblestudent78]

Not really

It appears you're pushing this into the realm of anti-intellectualism. I hope that's not the case.

MM

I my opinion your are 25% out of kilter. Baptism is not about about demonstrating your faith. Is about confirming you commitment to obedience. There is NO salvation without obedience. Jesus said he that believe and is baptised will be saved....if they endure to the end. Philip said the same. Peter said the same. Paul was baptised. Paul said faith saves you from sin, but baptism alone can save you from spiritual death. (Romans 7-9) Baptism is physical submission and obedience to God's explicit will. It is the test of an "I believe" claim.

You are signing up for a life of obedience? Or just a life of health, wealth and happiness that comes to all true believers.... This demonstrates that you have accepted a salvation that is not just mental assent. Not just wishful thinking. It requires commitment and obedience. Baptism is inconvenient, the water may be cold and you might look foolish to your friends, but that is the heart of God for your life. We must come to understand and accept that as a Christian our lives are forever changed. We may be embarrassed. We may be inconvenienced. By Rejecting baptism you signal what your call your "faith" is sufficient for God to get off your back about making changes to your life. He has to accept you in your purposeful rejection of His will because of your beauty of your dogma's "faith claim." Rejecting water baptism is a sign your religion declares I believe more in my 600 yr old religious dogmas than in anything in the bible because we have gotten rid of all the stuff that makes us "special" to God and uniquely "righteous."

Jesus was baptised. Paul was baptised because God's messenger in Damascus told him what he must do. He was baptised. But baptism is not a magical formula. It is the answer of a pure heart to God's will. However, it is only the start of a Christian life that must mature by loving service, healing, being a reconciler a bright light that all can see and be attracted to Jesus. As far as I can tell there are no Christians in the New Testament who were saved without ever leaving their pews. Salvation is for an mission, for a personal purpose, for a converted life enable by a greater and greater understanding of what the Love of God requires of our love skills and purpose.

 

[Musicmaster]

I my opinion your are 25% out of kilter. Baptism is not about about demonstrating your faith. Is about confirming you commitment to obedience.

Obedience to what, and for what, may I ask?

There is NO salvation without obedience.

Where is that written, and to whom?

Jesus said he that believe and is baptised will be saved....

Yes He did say that, and that was spoken to Israel, not to Gentiles.

if they endure to the end. Philip said the same. Peter said the same.

Again, yes to us of ancient Israel, not not for the body of Christ today. Are you a Messianic Jew? They believe in what you're saying as did the Jews in Jerusalem from whom the Judaizers originated.

Paul was baptised.

Yes, and he was baptized by one who was under the Kingdom Gospel given that the Gospel of Grace had not yet been established and placed in force.

Paul said faith saves you from sin, but baptism alone can save you from spiritual death. (Romans 7-9)

Would you mind quoting that and highlighting where you think you see that in the text?

Baptism is physical submission and obedience to God's explicit will. It is the test of an "I believe" claim.

Yes, it was...to whom it was commanded, which was Israel.

Jesus was baptised. Paul was baptised because God's messenger in Damascus told him what he must do. He was baptised.

Again, please quote that with highlights as to where you think it says such.

But baptism is not a magical formula. It is the answer of a pure heart to God's will. However, it is only the start of a Christian life that must mature by loving service, healing, being a reconciler a bright light that all can see and be attracted to Jesus. As far as I can tell there are no Christians in the New Testament who were saved without ever leaving their pews. Salvation is for an mission, for a personal purpose, for a converted life enable by a greater and greater understanding of what the Love of God requires of our love skills and purpose.

What's interesting is that Jesus told Israel that those who believe shall do all those miraculous things who believe. Do you do those things? If not, then why? Do you lack faith? Can you speak in other tongues? Can you lay hands upon and heal the infirmed? Can you be bitten by a deadly serpent or drink deadly things and not be harmed, or would you die like all the rest of us if not infused with antivenom or having your stomach pumped?

I'm asking because this drives at the heart of the belief that failure to rightly dividing the word of truth is a virtue and therefore a non-confusing practice so prolific among so much of modern Evangelicalism and a number of other -isms.

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

On the one hand, you have those, who in effect preach righteousness of obeying the law, on the other extreme you have dispensationalism, which is only interested in part of what Paul wrote:

‘We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

17 ‘But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a law-breaker. Gal2:15-18

So firstly, Paul tells us the believer cannot be justified by the works of the law/observing the law.

What is observing the law? As sin is the transgression of the law(1 John3:4) observing the law is not committing sin. So, according to Paul, you cannot be justified by not committing sin. A licence to sin, say some, though in this part dispensationalists I’m sure would agree.

But who is Paul writing to? Believers, people who are new creations as Paul put it. People in whom the Holy Spirit resides. People who in their hearts want to follow after Christ.

So to reiterate, believers have no righteousness/justification of not committing sin according to Paul’s core message. But what does he then go on to say:

But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?

Now despite some dispensationalists best efforts, the above is clearly not speaking of an instantaneous event. Justification is instantaneous under a righteousness of faith in Christ, yet here Paul is, after saying you cannot be justified by obeying the law, immediately writing of a justification that clearly takes time to be seen.

Paul writes that if you are a slave to sin it leads to death. Some dispensationalists say that refers to physical death only. Not credible. According to Paul, the Romans USED(are no longer) to be slaves to sin, yet they will die a physical death, just the same as those who are slaves to sin will.

So how can Paul preach a message whereby believers have no righteousness of not committing sin, but at the same time believe if you are a slave to sin it leads to death?

 

[Musicmaster]

On the one hand, you have those, who in effect preach righteousness of obeying the law, on the other extreme you have dispensationalism, which is only interested in part of what Paul wrote:

‘We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

17 ‘But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a law-breaker. Gal2:15-18

So firstly, Paul tells us the believer cannot be justified by the works of the law/observing the law.

What is observing the law? As sin is the transgression of the law(1 John3:4) observing the law is not committing sin. So, according to Paul, you cannot be justified by not committing sin. A licence to sin, say some, though in this part dispensationalists I’m sure would agree.

But who is Paul writing to? Believers, people who are new creations as Paul put it. People in whom the Holy Spirit resides. People who in their hearts want to follow after Christ.

So to reiterate, believers have no righteousness/justification of not committing sin according to Paul’s core message. But what does he then go on to say:

But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?

Now despite some dispensationalists best efforts, the above is clearly not speaking of an instantaneous event. Justification is instantaneous under a righteousness of faith in Christ, yet here Paul is, after saying you cannot be justified by obeying the law, immediately writing of a justification that clearly takes time to be seen.

Paul writes that if you are a slave to sin it leads to death. Some dispensationalists say that refers to physical death only. Not credible. According to Paul, the Romans USED(are no longer) to be slaves to sin, yet they will die a physical death, just the same as those who are slaves to sin will.

So how can Paul preach a message whereby believers have no righteousness of not committing sin, but at the same time believe if you are a slave to sin it leads to death?

What is a dispensationalist? Who among those who don't fit that label don't still sin? Where's that threshold of acceptable levels of sins and unacceptable?

This is an interesting avenue because Paul taught the need for righteous deeds and shunning/avoidance of sin, so who do yo know personally who says otherwise, because this sentiment seems to be more of a hypothetical witch hunt than something that is found to be seated in solid facts and personal experience with the very people one is complaining about.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

So to reiterate, believers have no righteousness/justification of not committing sin according to Paul’s core message. But what does he then go on to say:

But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?

Now despite some dispensationalists best efforts, the above is clearly not speaking of an instantaneous event. Justification is instantaneous under a righteousness of faith in Christ, yet here Paul is, after saying you cannot be justified by obeying the law, immediately writing of a justification that clearly takes time to be seen.

Paul writes that if you are a slave to sin it leads to death. Some dispensationalists say that refers to physical death only. Not credible. According to Paul, the Romans USED(are no longer) to be slaves to sin, yet they will die a physical death, just the same as those who are slaves to sin will.

So how can Paul preach a message whereby believers have no righteousness of not committing sin, but at the same time believe if you are a slave to sin it leads to death?

When you ask, "But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?"

That's a rhetorical question you're using to express an argument-by-objection (a kind of “straw-man” concern): You're raising up a challenge to a hypothetical position—“If this leads to sinners too, then doesn’t it follow that Christ is encouraging sin?”—so it can be addressed directly in a discussion.

The problem with your question is that it assumes a false equivalence, that “being among sinners” means “Christ promotes sin.” Why not separate justification from permission to sin? Why the false hypothetical? There's no right answer to the wrong question, meaning that the premise itself is unvalidated by anything else you said prior to this.

MM