Galatian Conundrums
- Thread starter RickStudies
- Start date
-
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.
After having this long debate, I begin to see two main groups who disagree with mid Acts dispensationalism.
One group is one that believed that it has always been by grace thru faith in Christ, apart from works ever since the fall of Adam. This is the covenant theology doctrine. For example, they believe that, even during the 4 gospels, believing in Jesus alone is sufficient for salvation.
To back up this doctrine, they simply quote verses that "seem" to imply that belief in Jesus is all that is required, for example the ever popular John 3:16, and ignore all other verses when Jesus talked about following the Law of Moses, or simply interpret all those passages in the light of Pauline doctrine,
Another group is like you, one who insist that everyone must try their best to keep the Law, along with belief in Jesus.
To back up this doctrine you would make sure to quote the OT, all the verses in the 4 Gospels that Jesus talked about following the Law, as well as all the passages in 1 John that emphasize the same doctrine.
One group is one that believed that it has always been by grace thru faith in Christ, apart from works ever since the fall of Adam. This is the covenant theology doctrine. For example, they believe that, even during the 4 gospels, believing in Jesus alone is sufficient for salvation.
To back up this doctrine, they simply quote verses that "seem" to imply that belief in Jesus is all that is required, for example the ever popular John 3:16, and ignore all other verses when Jesus talked about following the Law of Moses, or simply interpret all those passages in the light of Pauline doctrine,
Another group is like you, one who insist that everyone must try their best to keep the Law, along with belief in Jesus.
To back up this doctrine you would make sure to quote the OT, all the verses in the 4 Gospels that Jesus talked about following the Law, as well as all the passages in 1 John that emphasize the same doctrine.
Well I would word my belief different; one must believe in and follow Jesus as Jesus says. and quote from everything except Paul.
A verse I would use to support that is from the LAST book written, Jesus revelation given through John:
Revelation 14:12-13, " 12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. 13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”
A verse I would use to support that is from the LAST book written, Jesus revelation given through John:
Revelation 14:12-13, " 12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. 13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”
I don't see any contradiction between Peter and Paul.
I see Paul explaining a lot more things in a lot more detail because Paul understood more about the law. And because he understood more about the law he understood more about Grace.
Peter was a fisherman trying to explain to experts in Judaism who Christ is. He wasn't ready to get into theological debates about whether the law of moses was over, especially considering what that would have done financially and emotionally to all the Jews who believed.
But God helped him to see the bigger picture.
Its pretty interesting that Peter is the spokesman to the Jews and Paul is the spokesman to the Gentiles. Only God would have chosen to do it that way. Anybody else would have obviously used Paul to explain to the Jews and Peter to the Gentiles.
And then Paul would have been killed instantly.
I see Paul explaining a lot more things in a lot more detail because Paul understood more about the law. And because he understood more about the law he understood more about Grace.
Peter was a fisherman trying to explain to experts in Judaism who Christ is. He wasn't ready to get into theological debates about whether the law of moses was over, especially considering what that would have done financially and emotionally to all the Jews who believed.
But God helped him to see the bigger picture.
Its pretty interesting that Peter is the spokesman to the Jews and Paul is the spokesman to the Gentiles. Only God would have chosen to do it that way. Anybody else would have obviously used Paul to explain to the Jews and Peter to the Gentiles.
And then Paul would have been killed instantly.
-
1
- Show all
Guoging says Jesus and the disciples and the apostles preached a law centered gospel. A different gospel.
So the point is valid. Did Jesus know the truth?
Another member confirms this with the concept the jesus and his words pre ascention vs after ascention.
Clever insertions to make paul stand alone as the ONLY ONE with the correct doctrine.
So the point is valid. Did Jesus know the truth?
Another member confirms this with the concept the jesus and his words pre ascention vs after ascention.
Clever insertions to make paul stand alone as the ONLY ONE with the correct doctrine.
When you are teaching someone you begin with what they know and start from there. It might look like two messages, but that is because the starting position is different. Jews and Gentiles are very different in this regard, but whoever you are talking to, the message will always converge on Jesus, and when you get there it will be the same message.
-
2
- Show all
Abel the first evangelist was saved by the law of faith (believing God not seen.... the eternal one)
Its quoted in the whole gospel .The word of God. Genesis through Revelation...Can't separate the good news of God that begins on day one with different prophets ending with John in Revelation. . one gospel not four.
Belief coming from the words of Jesus (the faith of Christ) that works in the believer to both will and do His good pleasure is all that is required .
It does not leave out the written law of Moses made complete or perfected by the law of faith the unseen .Two laws making one perfect law . The letter of the law kills .The unseen spirit of faith creates anew
Like love and marriage can't have one without the other.
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter,(Moses) but of the spirit: (Christ) for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Its quoted in the whole gospel .The word of God. Genesis through Revelation...Can't separate the good news of God that begins on day one with different prophets ending with John in Revelation. . one gospel not four.
Belief coming from the words of Jesus (the faith of Christ) that works in the believer to both will and do His good pleasure is all that is required .
It does not leave out the written law of Moses made complete or perfected by the law of faith the unseen .Two laws making one perfect law . The letter of the law kills .The unseen spirit of faith creates anew
Like love and marriage can't have one without the other.
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter,(Moses) but of the spirit: (Christ) for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
-
1
- Show all
No.
I mean Peter was not skilled enough in Scripture, in the law of Moses, to make that determination.
It wasn't until God revealed to him what He revealed in Acts 10 that it became clear to him.
But what Peter did know, is that Salvation is in Christ and in no other. Which does not contradict anything Paul says.
I mean Peter was not skilled enough in Scripture, in the law of Moses, to make that determination.
It wasn't until God revealed to him what He revealed in Acts 10 that it became clear to him.
But what Peter did know, is that Salvation is in Christ and in no other. Which does not contradict anything Paul says.
-
1
- Show all
I disagree with your last sentence.
He said that Salvation is ONLY in Christ in Acts 4. If he was skilled enough to understand what that meant and what the impact would be, he would have known, as Paul did, that he would have to be dead to the law so he could be alive to Christ.
By Acts 15 he was ready to start making statements like that. Because of what God showed him in Acts 10.
He didn't realize he already pretty much said it in Acts 4.
He said that Salvation is ONLY in Christ in Acts 4. If he was skilled enough to understand what that meant and what the impact would be, he would have known, as Paul did, that he would have to be dead to the law so he could be alive to Christ.
By Acts 15 he was ready to start making statements like that. Because of what God showed him in Acts 10.
He didn't realize he already pretty much said it in Acts 4.
You are the one, actually, that showed me that Peter didn't have it all nailed down to begin with.
You called it a progressive revelation, I think.
Which, for Peter, that was a correct term, I think.
For Paul, because of his knowledge of scripture and law, he seems to have his theology all squared away. He doesn't back down from something he said previously. He, more or less, describes the same things over and over in different ways.
You called it a progressive revelation, I think.
Which, for Peter, that was a correct term, I think.
For Paul, because of his knowledge of scripture and law, he seems to have his theology all squared away. He doesn't back down from something he said previously. He, more or less, describes the same things over and over in different ways.
-
1
- Show all