Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The Great Commission, Pentecost, and Paul's Meeting with the Apostles


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I had a huge post I had planned on giving on the 23rd for this thread. It was so long it got my IP blocked when I tried to upload it (it didn't upload). There's no way to answer effectively in a short post. I had gotten up early (around 4 am) on the 23rd, prayerfully did bible study and notes for my answer, and sometime between noon and 4 pm I attempted to upload my study notes

On 12/24/2015 at 8:11 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

so I feel that I'm posting this in vain...but I'm posting it anyway

.

 So during my 11 days off of OB I wondered whether or not the post loaded (I found out today it did not), then I again contemplated if I should even bother with it... was it God's Will that I don't post it? Or was it the devil hindering me from delivering my study notes? Would I also feel (as No Nicolaitans did above) that I was posting in vain? I suspect I would... my summary verse was 1 Cor. 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (The "I" of the verse, was the apostle Paul.)  I'll pray for further guidance whether or not to attempt to re-post my study notes on this topic thread, or to leave the thread alone as is. And if I do re-post, how to post the information without a spam bot knocking me off for length... there just isn't a way to break it down into "bite-size" chunks, lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Especially considering that church history DOES indicate that most of them engaged in evangelistic work away from Jerusalem and Judaea.

Just consider, Scripture does not record the death for most of the disciples either; so do we believe that they never died, but are still alive.

Also, biblically speaking, we do know that Peter went to Antioch (for example)...yet, he was the apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8)?

Did they stay in Jerusalem? Did they use Jerusalem as a "home-base" and make occasional missionary trips...then return to Jerusalem after each trip? Did they stay in Jerusalem for quite some time and then leave on permanent missionary endeavors?

Hmmm...the Bible doesn't say, but the Bible does say that the Lord Jesus Christ told them to go...beginning at Jerusalem, all Judaea, Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. I guess it's more than possible that they could have disobeyed a direct command from the Almighty Risen Lord God Jesus Christ and stayed in Jerusalem...I just find it highly unlikely.

17 minutes ago, Ronda said:

I had a huge post I had planned on giving on the 23rd for this thread.

And if I do re-post, how to post the information without a spam bot knocking me off for length... there just isn't a way to break it down into "bite-size" chunks, lol. 

If that's the only way you can post it, then do it that way. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've tried to condense (as much as possible) without throwing out needed content. I'll post in 2-3 parts (and 5 minutes+ apart so it doesn't merge). Please allow me the time to post all before commenting, so it's one continuous study. Thank you :)

(PART ONE):

Who did Jesus command the disciples to give the gospel to? Matthew 10:5-6
5 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:" 6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Jesus Himself was teaching the gospel only to whom (during His earthly ministry, prior to His death, burial, resurrection)?
Matthew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel".

God had a plan all along. He knew that MANY Jews would accept Jesus, but he also knew that many (at that time) would reject Jesus as their 
promised Messiah. God's plan for the gospel went specifically to the Jews during Jesus' time on earth.

It wasn't until AFTER Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection that the gospel  was then sent to the Gentiles as well.

It isn't until Acts that we see the gospel being given to the Gentiles. 
We start at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 8, and see a clear transition happen.
Gentiles being saved (prior to this time) was unthinkable.

In Acts 9 we read of Paul being chosen by God  "he is a chosen vessel unto me,  to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On 12/24/2015 at 0:36 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

I hear this quite often. My only question is...and I'm asking this sincerely and humbly...what is that based upon?

As far as I've read in the biblical record, the only apostle that never left Jerusalem was James (the brother of John), and that was because Herod killed him...

Unless I've missed it somehow, I've never seen any other biblical evidence that any of the apostles stayed only in Jerusalem.

Where did Paul go (in comparison to where the disciples currently were teaching)?
Galatians 1:15 "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace"
    16 "To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:"
    17 "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus."
*** Not to say they all stayed at those respective places forever... only that that was where they were teaching at the time...
So where were they at that time? The "other apostles before" him were in JERUSALEM (Gal. 1:17). They (the 12) were following the commandment Jesus had given them to give the gospel to every (Jewish) part of the "world" in the great commission.
It wasn't until the Jews has rejected the gospel again with the stoning of Stephen, that God changed gears (as He already foretold He would in Isaiah 42:6), and started His focus on Gentiles.

God's plan for THIS dispensation is that we follow the mysteries and orders revealed to Paul, as Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles.

(One a side note:) God is by no means "done with" Israel. There are Jewish people who have accepted Christ since the days of Paul and will continue to be Jewish 
people accept Christ throughout this dispensation of grace.

.But right now, in this current dispensation, God's focus is on the Gentiles.
He will again return His focus to the Jewish people during  the time of "Jacob's trouble", to try them and 1/3 of the remaining Jewish
 people (the remnant as described in Zech 13:9) will come to Christ during  that time. That will be during a different dispensation... God deals 
differently with people in different dispensations. (He has in the past and will in the future... which requires an entire study on dispensations and I'm not including that here).

(END OF PART ONE.... PLEASE WAIT FOR 15 minutes before commenting so that I can upload the remaining answers/study notes (since a continuous post would be too long and boot me off). THANK YOU!!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 12/24/2015 at 8:11 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

One gospel. The one and only gospel

What does the Bible itself say about the gospel? Was it (and is it) the exact same gospel being preached to both Jews and Gentiles alike? 

Galatians 2:7
7 "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Let's carefully study the wording in Galatians 2. In verses 7-8 we see 2 separate things here: 

"the gospel of the uncircumcision" (uncircumcision meaning Gentiles here)
 and "the gospel of the circumcision" (circumcision meaning Jews here)

furthermore we see that the gospel OF the Gentiles (uncircumcision) was commited to Paul
and we see that the gospel OF the Jews (circumcision) was committed to Peter.

Next we see in verse 9 that James, Cephas, and John were to go to the Jews (circumcision), and that Paul and Barnabus were to go to the Gentiles (heathen).

Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

If it were in fact the exact same gospel in all respects, why did the Holy Ghost separate the two in verse 7? Why would it not have read that the gospel was given to the uncircumcision (Gentiles) by Paul and the circumcision (Jews) by Peter? It clearly separates the 2 not only in audience but by the very words "the gospel of the uncircumcision" and the "the gospel of the circumcision"

I'm sure there will be contention over the meaning, but I am taking the words as literally as possible. 

(PART TWO) Please wait 15 minutes to respond as I have more info to upload) THANK YOU :)


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If Paul and Peter were preaching/teaching the exact same message why would Paul have had to admonish Peter? And why would Peter admit Paul's writing were "some things hard to understand" if it was the same message?

Peter (in verse 12 of Galatians 2) actually refused to even EAT with the Gentiles because Peter feared what the Jewish people (circumcision)
 would think about him!!!

12 "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."

We see that Peter's attitude and actions had even "rubbed off" on Barnabus  (the man who was chosen above to accompany Paul in his ministry)

13 "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation."

So Paul has to correct Peter about his actions. He asks Peter WHY is he encouraging the Gentiles to follow the same rules as the Jews?

Gal 2:14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

Next, Paul clarifies that his gospel is by faith in Jesus Christ. He further states that no flesh shall be saved by the works of the law.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Through the remaining verses Paul goes on explaining the gospel of grace, and how righteousness is not attained by following the law, but by the grace of God through Jesus' death and resurrection.

Gal 2:17-21
17 "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid."
18 "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." 19 "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." 20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ  liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith  of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." 21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law,  then Christ is dead in vain."

If Peter was preaching the same gospel that Paul was preaching, why would Paul  have to continue to explain the differences?

Let's go back to verse 1 (of Galatians 2) to see something we may have missed:

Gal 2:1 "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also."

This is FOURTEEN YEARS after Paul started his ministry... 
surely in fourteen years you would have thought they'd all be on "the same page"  in their reasoning if they were teaching the same gospel?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

On 12/24/2015 at 8:11 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

The apostles agreed that Paul was teaching the same thing they were teaching. Hmmm...


Acts 15:7 "Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe" 8 "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;"
9 "And put no difference between us and them,  purifying their hearts by faith."
10 "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a  yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
11 "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ  we shall be saved, even as they."


And in Acts 15:13-17 James expounds further to convince the multitude of Jews that God had foretold of His plan for Gentiles, "to take out of them a people
 for his name".
James tells them that it was God's plan all along 
in Acts 15:18
SO WE DO see AGREEMENT here in Acts 15:22 how it pleased 
"the apostles and elders with the whole church" that Paul was correct in the  view that they shouldn't be putting the burden of works of the law upon the
 Gentiles. They (apostles, elders, brethren of the church) sent letters to the  Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia in Acts 15:23
stating that they gave no commandment to the Gentiles to be circumcised, nor to keep the law in Act 15:24
They DID however tell the Gentiles (in these letters) that they should: "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things
 strangled, and from fornication" Acts 15:29

After this seeming agreement in reference to the DIFFERENT messages being 
taught to Jews in contrast to the message Paul was teaching the Gentiles...
 we see Paul goes throughout Syria and Cilicia (Gentiles).
So then, let's back
 up to verses 7-11, where Peter DOES say in verse 11:  "But we believe that 

through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
"
We thought we saw an agreement there, right? If we read that verse alone, 
it surely looks like Peter is in agreement. 
So WHY (many years apart) does Paul have to rebuke Peter for his teaching
 in Galatians 2 (as I've shown above)
and we thought Peter understood that 
the Gentiles were no longer to be considered "unclean", when God Himself gives
 Peter a dream in Acts 10:10-15 , God had to repeat it 3 times in Acts 10:16!!!
 (Isn't that interesting since Peter denied Christ 3 times before the rooster
 crowed back in Matthew 26:69-75 even after Peter denied he would ever do such
 a thing, but Jesus foretold that he would in Matthew 26:33-34).
SO even though
 Peter said he wouldn't deny Christ, he did. 
And even though Peter has to be
 shown in a dream 3 times that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered 
"unclean" in Acts 10 ... what do we find Peter doing in Acts 15? 
Refusing to even eat with Gentiles. Sound like agreement here? 
It doesn't to me.

Once again, please wait 15 minutes, since my study isn't done (sorry, but I have to bring out all points in order to show the differences) THANK YOU!


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

CONCLUSION!!!!:  ( have tried repeatedly to upload my conclusion on this proper thread yesterday... I've logged out, cleared my cache, closed my browser, re-opened the browser, logged back in, and I still can't get my final post to upload! Very strange... I think it's the spam bot settings which preclude my posting another lengthy post???) Hopefully it will upload (without blocking my IP). It did allow me to post it on an entirely separate thread, though (I have no idea why)

The differences in the messages taught by Paul in contrast to the messages
 taught by Peter are many.

Peter was chosen (among the 12) to preach to a 
Jewish audience: Matthew 10:5-6(et al)

Paul was chosen to preach to a Gentile audience:
2 Tim 1:10-11(et al)

We see that Paul had to rebuke Peter in Galatians 2. 
 
We see that Peter himself admits that Paul's teaching are "some things hard to be understood" in 2nd Peter 3:16
so my question is... If Paul's teachings are still difficult for Peter to understand... 
HOW can it be the SAME message?

I also would have to ask, why did the Holy  Spirit guide the writings in the bible to show the contentions between them?

Should we consider the obvious strivings and differences to be irrelevant information? 
I believe the Holy Spirit chose to bring out the contention over  differences so we would take notice!

I conclude that Peter did not understand  Paul’s doctrine, because Peter was not selected to minister to Paul’s 
audience.  
Peter had his own doctrine and his own audience. Paul had a different audience.

*****************************************************************************************

As I stated in previous posts, Paul was chosen to be the bearer of the gospel  in THIS dispensation (the current age of grace/church age).

He stated (in several places) that he (Paul) was to be followed by this dispensation. (as I noted more scripture in previous posts as well as these 
below).

1 Cor. 4:16 "Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me."

1 Cor 1:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, 
and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
"
Philippians 3:17 "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which
 walk so as ye have us for an ensample."

So let me also conclude with this... 
For those who willfully won't recognize the difference in the respective teachings and respective audiences of Paul in contrast with Peter 
(and the previous apostles)... and this comes from the BIBLE, not the word according to me, but the word according to God, by the Holy 
Spirit inspired The words written by Paul concerning them being COMMANDMENTS by the Lord Himself: :
1 Corinthians 14:37-38   
***37 "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I [Paul] write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." 38 "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

And again I say in summary: The contention and differences are noted in the bible for a reason. If they were teaching the same message, it surely wouldn't
 be difficult for Peter to understand. And even after fourteen years of Paul teaching, he still had to admonish Peter in regard to his attempting to add works to the gospel message in Galatians 2:14.   Peter didn't understand all of Paul's 
doctrine because Peter had a different doctrine and audience (Matthew 10:5-6)
 and Paul had a different doctrine and audience than Peter.

  We are no longer required to be baptized (by water) to receive the Holy 
Spirit or for salvation. 
The gospel NOW is (for this current dispensation 
of grace) are what Paul teached:  Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved 
through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God": 9 
"Not of works, lest any man should boast."    

Ephesians 1:7 " In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness
 of sins, according to the riches of his grace"

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other
 name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." 
 
2 Thes 2:16 "Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, 
which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope
 through grace"  

This is in contrast with Peter: When the Jews asked  Peter,
 
“What must we do to be saved?,” notice Peter’s answer: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38)

However, when the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved?,” notice what Paul and Silas declared: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31). 

Obviously, these are not the same message. Peter told people to repent and then get water baptized, so they could receive forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit. 
Yet, Paul simply taught that salvation comes by “believing on"  the Lord Jesus Christ, without preaching water baptism or repentance.

I believe all of the Bible should be taken literally as far as we can.
If words mean anything (and I revere the words of the Bible as being God's Word), Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels.

Our salvation (for us in this age of grace) is NOT contingent upon water baptism. We are baptized with the Holy Spirit when we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior. 
We read earlier in Acts 8 of the stoning of Stephen...after that we saw in Acts 9 where Paul is chosen of God, then in Acts 10  we read of Peter receiving the dream (being showed 3 times how the Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean), then we see an example in Acts 10  (which I believe to be a key reason why God chose Paul and not Peter to be the apostle to the Gentiles):
 We read this Acts 10:45-48  45 "And they of the  circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter,  because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." 
46 "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter," 47 "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,
 which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" 48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry 
certain days."  
We read that the Gentiles had the gift of the Holy Ghost poured out on them (prior to water baptism), and THEN Peter commands them 
to be baptized! 
Why??? (I believe) this shows how much Peter misunderstood.
 He is still commanding them (Gentiles) to be baptized even AFTER they've  received the Holy Spirit. 
He doesn't just suggest it, he COMMANDS (verse 48) it.

 
Paul doesn't teach this, and I do not believe this was meant for the Gentiles.
 That is one of the key differences in the gospel Peter preached compared to the gospel Paul taught.  
In the next chapter (Acts 11) we read that we think Peter "gets it" when he says: Acts 11:16 "Then remembered I the word of 
the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."  
It sounds like Peter understands that those Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit baptism... and thus they wouldn't 
be required (for salvation) to perform the work of water baptism for salvation, right? 
Well then why does Peter (in 1 Peter 3)  say this??? 
20 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited  in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, 
eight souls were saved by water." 21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, 
but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"  22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God;
 angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."

I contend that  Peter continued to preach water baptism as a contingency of salvation - to Peter's audience. 
Whereas Paul taught baptism of the Holy Ghost (when we accept Christ as Lord and savior) to his audience. 

Paul recognized that  (water) baptism was an outward show of an inward change that had already 
taken place (the baptism of the Holy Spirit) the moment we accepted Jesus
 as our Lord and Savior, but that water baptism was NOT a contingency TO 
salvation itself.

I've gone over SEVERAL differences in the teaching between
 the 2 (Peter and Paul) as well as taken several hours to study (prayerfully) 
and type this out.  I have brought forth (an opposing view). I seriously doubt
 I will change one single mind here either.  However, that said... the 
differences are there, and are apparent if you are even attempting to realize
 that they each had a different audience.
 Once that is accomplished  (noting the different audience in and of itself) there are no longer 
seeming contradictions.  The Bible makes sense (to me) now that I have divided
 in that aspect. But... (and many will) fault me in my study method. 
However, I felt compelled of the Holy Spirit to take the time to attempt to describe 
SOME of the differences in the writings of Peter compared to the writings
 of Paul (and that is just SOME, there are many MORE). 
I wrote (typed) down my study in the sincere hope that one person
 MAY see the differences as well, and may also gain from the understanding 
the way I have gained. 
 So fault me if you'd like... but I truly believe  I am studying the very way we are TOLD to study, rightly dividing (2 Tim 2:15)
, and studying like a workman. And I also believe I am following the doctrine  prescribed for this current age of grace, 
as was shown in 1 Cor. 4:16, 1 Cor. 11:1, Philippians 3:17, 2 Thes. 3:7,
 and other places, which tell us to follow Paul's teachings. 

I believe we are to take the word of God literally. As literally as possible. I believe we should revere God's word enough to respect His literal wording.

So when I am accused (as some have done) of "wrongly dividing",
 I have already stated I prayerfully inquire the Lord's guidance through the
 Holy Spirit prior to starting Bible study, and I try to adhere to the study 
method instructions given in the Bible itself, in the verses I noted above.... taking as literally as possible all scripture given.
So to those who yet say my study method is faulty... 
what method of study do you use? 

Thank you for allowing me the time and space needed to bring out some (of the many) differences the Holy Spirit brought to my attention during my studies!
God Bless!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sis. Ronda was finally able to post her conclusion in this thread. As promised, I removed the post preceding her concluding post for the sake of congruity and allowing her to have a fluid set of posts detailing her position. I also am aware that there have been several responses to her concluding post in the thread that she started for her concluding post.

At this time, I don't have time to give any type of a response; therefore, whether in this thread or the other, I hope to be able to respond later this evening.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, Ronda said:

Thank you for allowing me the time and space needed to bring out some (of the many) differences the Holy Spirit brought to my attention during my studies!
God Bless!!!

Sis. Ronda,

First, I hope this response will be read with the humbleness of spirit with which it is intended. If (at any time) you read through my response and think that I'm attacking you, please be assured that it isn't my intention to do so. 

Secondly, though I hoped to have time for a more detailed response in regard to various points of disagreement, it would appear that my time is still limited. However, as I thought about how to respond (and what to respond with), I felt it would be better to take a different approach than what my original response would have been and what it would have consisted of. 

I understand your points of view. In fact, I am very familiar with all that you've put forth. I've seen and heard those same points in various places.

As I said before, this has been discussed here in the past. There was a former member who held many of the same beliefs as you. In fact, that member was such a "right divider", that not only were dispensations divided, not only were Paul/Peter divided, not only were different methods of salvation divided, but that member even divided up the books that Paul wrote into divisions that pertained to Jews/Gentiles.

I've heard those points from various preachers also...whether while listening online, on Youtube, or talking to them in person.

One of the strongest resemblances that I've heard in relation to what you've posted though...is Les Feldick. I watched him for awhile several years ago, and he put forth so many of those same teachings.

All of that to say this...I'm familiar with your view, and I understand your view. There are others here that also hold those views...whether they hold to all of them or not, I can't say definitively, but I do know of many similarities.

With that said, if I took the time to respond to each point with which I disagree, it would take much too long. Also, I feel that I would be repeating myself on various points. You (or others) would then repeat your (their) points, and it would just be a lot of repeating. I could be wrong, but that's my initial feelings on the matter. However, if anyone else would like to respond to any, as many, or all points with which they disagree, that's fine with me too. After all, it's a "discussion" forum. ;)

As I said, I feel it's best to take a different approach which comes down to this...

All of the "Peter vs. Paul" laid aside and all of the "baptism plus faith vs. faith alone" laid aside, I see all of this as having a single-important root cause which stems from a misunderstanding in regards to salvation in the Old Testament vs. salvation in the New Testament. This also extends into salvation during the Tribulation Period.

In another thread (I don't remember which one), you made several references that Peter was teaching the Old Testament "faith plus works". You also indicated that there are "several verses" that indicate that salvation was by works plus faith in the Old Testament. I later posted in regards to what God himself said the results were for obeying and disobeying the law (works). 

I assert and believe that salvation has always been, is today, and will always be...solely by grace through faith. 

What I would like to ask of you is this...at some point in the future, would you please consider looking up the references that I'm about to give?

1. In Exodus 19:5-6, God gives a quick overview of what the results were for obedience to the law.

He then gives the initial law in Exodus chapters 20-23.

He then gives the results for obedience and disobedience to the law in Exodus 23:20-33.

2. In Leviticus (which basically consists of only the law!)...in Leviticus chapters 1-25, the law is given...which includes all aspects of life, the priesthood, sacrifices, the Day of Atonement, and everything in between.

He then gives the results for obedience and disobedience to the law (which included the sacrifices) in Leviticus 26.

3. In Deuteronomy chapters 1-27, a brief history of Israel's travels in the wilderness are given and then the law is repeated to them again.

He then gives the results for obedience and disobedience to the law in Deuteronomy chapters 28-30...with emphasis on chapter 30:15-20.

Sis. Ronda, if nothing else, at least find the time to look up the references for obedience and disobedience to the law. Never...ever...not one time, is spiritual salvation given as a result for obedience to the law...never. All that is promised is physical blessings for obedience and physical curses for disobedience. 

Anyway, I feel that a misunderstanding about this is the root cause that leads to other misunderstandings.

I hope you receive this with the grace in which it was meant...as I hope anyone reading this will also.

Respectfully in Christ,

No Nicolaitans

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On December 24, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Critical Mass said:

They didn't. The converts did.

This statement is not backed by scripture. You don't know that they didn't go to the uttermost themselves. Church tradition tells us certain apostles did intact go to the uttermost, whether that's true or not I don't know.

 

but your absolute statement is has no basis in scripture accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother "No Nicolaitans":

Thank you for the amiable discussion!!! We are brothers/sisters in Christ, and I respect that we each have differing conclusions on our methods of study/interpretation. I am thankful that such a forum exists in order to fellowship amongst each other, even when we disagree.

First, I want to say that I don't think I've heard but one or two half hour programs/teachings from Les Feldick prior to this week. I'm sure whatever I did hear from him (in the distant past) had no reference to the Pauline doctrine in comparison, etc.
It's funny that you mention him, as another friend also mentioned him to me just a couple days ago.
I've done a little "digging" in the last couple of days, and have found (so far) only one thing I disagree with him on... the "gap theory". One of the reason I don't believe in that theory is that the word "replenish" (in Genesis 1:28) means FILL and not re-fill, according to several different Hebrew lexicons.
Otherwise, I think I will be listening to him quite a lot in the future (God willing).

I have certainly read the OT law and commandments as well. I agree that the law (in the OT) is given with conditional instructions... and blessing or curses were to be expected (during that time period) for obeying the law/disobeying the law.
I also note that the BLOOD is what covered the sins of those in the OT. They had strict rules about the types of animals sacrifices, etc.
No need to go into all that because (I think) we are likely in agreement over that.

You stated: "Never...ever...not one time, is spiritual salvation given as a result for obedience to the law...never."

Please notice I did not state "the law" in my previous posts, but in fact, I stated "works".

I will just give one example (no sense in me going over several, as I did with Peter... that will just take up a lot of space as I did previously, and quite frankly, I doubt it would be read by more than a couple people anyways).

**James 2:14 "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"
**James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

No, I didn't post all of the verses out of the chapter, only the few which show (to me) that James was teaching a faith PLUS works salvation.

I have heard/read the majority of sermons on this entire chapter of James which will generally go into detail regarding how we SHOULD do works after we are saved.
I agree, we SHOULD. The Holy Spirit will guide us into the desire to live lives pleasing to God after we have accepted Christ as our Lord and savior.

However, is that what the verses in James actually say? Do they say we SHOULD desire to do works after our salvation?
I do NOT believe our salvation is contingent upon works. I do not believe our justification is contingent upon works either.
And I (personally) do see where James WAS stating that works was a contingency for "justification".

***Paul taught that works do NOT justify us:
Romans 4:24 "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;"
25 "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

I (personally) see an obvious difference in doctrine between James and Paul.

In James 2 as well as in Romans 4, they also each speak of Abraham's faith/works.

James says:
21 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"
22 "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"
23 "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God."

Paul says:
1 "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?"
2 "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God."
3 "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."
4 "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."
5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

**There is only one agreement in their statements: 
"Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."
which is actually a quote/reference from the OT in Genesis 15:6 "And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness."

I note that James said:
    "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only"
But Paul said: 
    "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"

This is an obvious (to me) contradiction (if they were both applying it to this current age of grace).

I see minds have been "set" in believeing they were both teaching the same thing.
My mind has also become "set"in believing the differences are apparent (to me).
I could bring out many more seemingly contradictory statements (as I have with Peter).
But I see it is basically futile for me to do so. Many will try to explain away what the words actually say... and I'm not critisizing anyone for doing so, I (myself) just won't do that.
I do attempt my best to take the words literally... if I have trouble with a word meaning (for instance the word "replenish" meaning fill in Gen. 1:28) I go to (more than one) Hebrew or Greek lexicon.

The seemingly contradictory statements are no longer contradictory (to me) once I realize the different audience and to which audience I (myself) fall into the category of. 
As I stated previously... I didn't bring this forth to cause division or contention. I brought this forth because it has made an amazing difference in my own personal study and growth. There are a few others here which also use this study method. However, there are also many which hold to your position. 
I do respect your position, and I won't fault you (or any others) for using the study method you do.
However, I do respectfully disagree.

***Which should also answer Pastor Markle statement on the other thread I started (when having trouble uploading again):
I do believe I was led by the Holy Spirit in noting the differences (some of which I've brought forth). And so, with that said, I do truly respect your position but I also respectfully disagree.
You are as firmly convinced that your interpretation of scripture is correct and led of the Holy Spirit as I am in my own confidence that I am led in the Holy Spirit of my own understanding.
I realize it would likely be futile for either position to attempt to convince the other on these opposing methods of study.

So I will now attempt to digress on the matter of audiences and differences (***unless another post comes up hereafter on this thread or another where I feel compelled to answer).

Thanks again for the amiable discourse between us! 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ah...so in saying faith plus works, you're implying "faith plus actions" rather than "faith plus the works of the law" (as Paul puts it).

Such as, Noah was saved not only by faith, but he had to build the ark.

You pointed out that there is a contradiction between James and Paul since both are speaking of the same thing...the same thing. If I understand correctly, your answer for that contradiction is by dividing what they said into different dispensations and applying what they said to different people groups.

My answer to that contradiction is...there is no contradiction. You say that you take the scriptures as literal as possible in what they say...I do the same. What I see in James, and what I see James literally say is this...

James 2:14-26
14   What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15   If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16   And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17   Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18   Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19   Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20   But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21   Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22   Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23   And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24   Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25   Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26   For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

First, please note what I highlighted in yellow...that's the subject of what James is talking about in this portion of scripture. What does faith profit (gain) without works? How can faith alone save him? Please note that this isn't talking about spiritual salvation, but physical salvation. That's clear by verses 15 and 16 which follow James' question. What does faith profit if it doesn't have works? What gain is there to tell someone by faith to go and be warm and filled...but you don't give them what they physically need? What gain is that? How has your faith helped them? You may have the faith that God will supply their need, but your faith is empty if you don't help them yourself.

What is James literally saying here? He's saying that a man is justified in the sight of other men by their works. Man can't see another man's actual faith, but what a man can see is the works that are done because of his faith.

Look closely at the wording..."shew me", "I will shew thee", "thou know", "seest thou", "ye see"...this is directed at men and for men...not God.

How would YOU know Abraham had faith without the knowledge that he offered his son?

How would YOU know that Rahab had faith without the knowledge that she did what she did.

So...ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

There is no contradiction between James and Paul, and there is no need to divide them according to dispensations. They are in full agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sis. Ronda,

Also, if I may, I'd humbly like to give you a warning in regards to Les Feldick since you (as yet) haven't become too involved with watching him.

Mr. Feldick makes many good statements in regard to the importance of getting people to learn God's word, study God's word for themselves, and believe God's word. He places a high priority on such. He also uses the King James Bible. All very good things.

However...

When I watched Mr. Feldick, I had already realized that I didn't agree with much of his teaching. The straw that finally broke the camel's back was the episode that I watched; in which, he pointed out that there are mistakes in the King James Bible. He said that though he believes the King James is the best version to use, there are still mistakes in it. He also pointed out verses that "he said" shouldn't even be in the Bible.

So...here's a man who promotes (with utmost importance) that people must learn God's word, they must study God's word, and they must believe God's word...yet...in one fell swoop, he undermined the very thing he promotes. God's word has mistakes in it. Parts of it don't belong in the Bible. How can I believe something if there are mistakes in it? What are the mistakes in the Bible (Mr. Feldick didn't expound upon that)? What other parts don't belong in the Bible? Why should I learn something that can't be trusted? Why should I study something that has mistakes in it? How can I believe God's word if there are mistakes in it?

Rather than "Through the Bible with Les Feldick", a more fitting name would be "Don't Go Through with the Bible With Les Feldick".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother "NN" I would agree that there are no mistakes in the Bible... mistakes come when WE (humans) do not properly understand the wording. Let me use the example again of Gen. 1:28 again.

Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

If we read it as it is worded we would likely come to the erroneous conclusion (as Mr. Feldick did) that the word replenish means to "re-fill". But when the Holy Spirit guides us as believers, and we (or at least in my case) read something and a tugging on our heart starts that tells me "I need to dig deeper into this", I go to the Lord in prayer, seeking His guidance, then I re-read the verses in context, then I first look up the Hebrew (since it's OT) lexicons word meaning, and I find this: "Hebrew verb מלאו (mil’û) simply means fill. Not refill."  So still puzzled...why would the word be translated as "replenish" if the Hebrew lexicon tells me it means "fill" and not "re-fill"? So then I go to search out the old English meaning of the word "replenish", what did the word mean during the era wherein the King James Bible was translated? And I find that (and this does take some digging at times)  the Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary state "To fill; to stock with numbers or abundance. The magazines are replenished with corn. The springs are replenished with water." So again we see the word replenish DID mean FILL and not refill. So it's NOT the Bible which has a "faulty" word, it's our own current usage of the word which is faulty.

I have no doubt that the devil has a huge part in twisting word meanings.  Just take a few words today which have drastically changed in meaning over the last half a century... "cool" no longer means slightly cold and "gay" no longer means happy.  They start out as "slang" terms and end up being common usage. I remember in grade school having an elderly English teacher who had a "big thing" about what she considered to be slang words. If someone said "ain't" in her classroom she would have a near conniption fit! She would yell loudly: "Do NOT use slang.. it's the devil's vehicle"! While I thought she was just being extreme, years later I understand, she was really right! The father of lies would love nothing more than to confuse mankind, and he's (sadly) doing a splendid job. I haven't watched the movies, but have heard that movies containing the words "Apocalypse" have a totally different meaning than they originally did. It meant a disclosure of something hidden, and in reference to (Greek: Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου, Apokalypsis Ioannou– literally), John's Revelation.  Yet Hollywood is truly the devil's playground... he loves nothing more than to twist every bit of scripture (especially prophecy) to mislead the unknowing/unsaved world. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Indeed, it is especially a problem when an individual disregards the actual wording of a passage altogether.

Romans 4 is a chapter that deals with the relationship between justification and faith.  That chapter begins with Romans 4:1-5 as follows, "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?  For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.  For what saith the scripture?  Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.  Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."  This passage begins with an indication that it speaking about the relationship of justification and faith "BEFORE GOD."  Indeed, it teaches the doctrine of eternal justification through faith before God.

James 2:14-26 is also a passage that deals with the relationship between justification and faith.  That passage begins with James 2:14-18 as follows, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works?  Can faith save him?  If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?  Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.  Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."  This passage begins with an indication that is speaking about the claim of faith before other people, that is -- the matter of "saying faith" versus "shewing faith."  Indeed, it teaches the doctrine of a justified testimony of faith before man.

Handling the actual terminology of the passage precisely is important for the process of "rightly dividing" in Bible study.

_________________________________________

By the way, Sister Ronda, on a number of occasions you have mentioned that you did not present your position on this matter in order to stir up controversy; however, I wish to respectfully submit unto that such an avoidance of controversy was not actually possible.  The reason that it was not possible is because you are "messing" with the doctrine of the gospel.  We all recognize the declaration of the apostle Paul in Galatians 1:6-9 -- that those who bring forth "another gospel," which is not truly "another gospel," are to be viewed as "accursed."  So then, if your position on "two different gospels" is the Biblical truth, then those who hold to "only one gospel" are to be viewed as "accursed."  On the other hand, if the position of "only one gospel" is the Biblical truth, then your position on "two different gospels" . . . .   You see, the doctrine of the gospel is a very, very serious matter, about which there cannot be a great deal of "agree-to-disagree" room.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
26 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

you are "messing" with the doctrine of the gospel.

James: 2:24   "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
(Paul) Romans 4:25 "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

 "Messing with" the doctrine of the gospel?" I noted the obvious (to me) differences, and I am accused of "messing with the doctrine of the gospel?"

Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)"

Galatians 1:8 "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."
    9 "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."

WHAT GOSPEL was Paul referring to? He answers this very question himself. The very gospel he (Paul) received not of man (not even of Peter, James, nor the others), but by direct revelation of Jesus Himself!!!


Galatians 1:11 "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man."
    12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Galatians 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter"
 

I quote the actual Bible verses and am then told I am "messing with the gospel"??? 

On ONE thing I see we agree... "the doctrine of the gospel is a very, very serious matter"  Paul was himself given the gospel by the "revelation of Jesus Christ". Paul commands us (saved by grace in Jesus Christ in this dispensation) to follow his teachings in many many verses: 1 Cor. 4:16, Phil 3:17, 2 Thes. 3:7-9, Gal. 4:12, 1 Cor. 11:1, 1 Thes. 1:6, are just a few of those verses. Am I to disregard that??? Paul explains he was given the gospel which was preached of him, that is is NOT after man, he hasn't been taught it from mankind, but has received it by the revelation of Jesus Christ, he then tells us that the  gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto him... I bring these Bible passages out, and I am "messing with the gospel"????

Either Paul's words meant what they said and said what they meant or they didn't. You may very well believe he meant something other than what he said, but I do not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...