Q
QuickCat
Guest
Grace and Peace to you, my friend.
QC
QC
- Status
S
SteveGC
Guest
As an observer of your dialogue with tib on this thread, I was hoping for a more elaborate response to her last post.
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
As was I… (though I’m a he.
My wife’s the one that’s preggers…)
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
So, QC, I just want to clarify, so I’m going to ask a couple of simple questions.
When we were talking past each other, clearly not understanding what the other person was saying, you were content to converse for days on end, making no headway whatsoever, yes? But, now that I’ve identified somewhere where we can both analyze our interpretation evenly and objectively, you say nothing but, “Grace and Peace to you, my friend”?
What do you gain by walking away? Nothing. What could you lose by staying? Nothing. You admit that you cannot be sure whether you or anyone you learn theology from has any assurance of Truth, so you already have no way of knowing whether you believe in God’s Truth a lot, a little, or even at all. If you engage in this conversation, you either stay where you are and continue to have no assurance of Truth, or… you might find that there is a way to have assurance of Truth. So, if you stop talking, you neither gain nor lose anything. But, if you keep talking, you still cannot lose anything, but you just might gain something. And that something is the very assurance of Truth that Christ Himself wants each of us to have…
When we were talking past each other, clearly not understanding what the other person was saying, you were content to converse for days on end, making no headway whatsoever, yes? But, now that I’ve identified somewhere where we can both analyze our interpretation evenly and objectively, you say nothing but, “Grace and Peace to you, my friend”?
What do you gain by walking away? Nothing. What could you lose by staying? Nothing. You admit that you cannot be sure whether you or anyone you learn theology from has any assurance of Truth, so you already have no way of knowing whether you believe in God’s Truth a lot, a little, or even at all. If you engage in this conversation, you either stay where you are and continue to have no assurance of Truth, or… you might find that there is a way to have assurance of Truth. So, if you stop talking, you neither gain nor lose anything. But, if you keep talking, you still cannot lose anything, but you just might gain something. And that something is the very assurance of Truth that Christ Himself wants each of us to have…
Q
QuickCat
Guest
I don’t recall EVER saying that I have “NO ASSURANCE” of truth. That is not the case at all. Note the following:
Dear Mr. Tib:
I know the following truths:
Dear Mr. Tib:
I know the following truths:
- I am saved by the gospel of the grace of God – 1 Cor. 15:1-4
- I am secure in the Lord Jesus Christ – Romans 8
- I know that I have eternal life – 1 John 5:13
- I know that I was sealed by God the Holy Spirit the moment I heard and believed the gospel of my salvation – Ephesians 1:13
- I know that my citizenship is in heaven – Phil. 3:20
- I am looking for the Lord Jesus Christ to “catch me up” at any moment – 1 Thess. 4:13-18
- I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him – 2 Tim. 1:12
- I know that the Lord Jesus Christ loves me and gave Himself for me – Gal. 2:20
- I know that God was in the Lord Jesus Christ reconciling the world [me] to Himself, not imputing their [my] trespasses until them [me] and has committed unto us [me] the Word of reconciliation – 2 Cor. 5:19
- I know that I am an ambassador for the Lord Jesus Christ, and as such, I urge [beg] you and others to be reconciled to God – 2 Cor. 5:20
- I know that God has made Him [the Lord Jesus Christ], who knew no sin, to be sin for us [me], that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him – 2 Cor. 5:21
- I know that I am a new creation in the Lord Jesus Christ – 2 Cor. 5:17
- I know that I am complete in the Lord Jesus Christ – Col. 2:10
- I know that nothing can separate me from the love of God – Romans 8:38,39
- I know that the Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God – Romans 8:16
- I know that I am saved by grace through faith and not by works – Ephesians 2:8
- I know that my salvation is a gift from God – Ephesians 2:8
- I know that I am saved unto good works – Ephesians 2:10
- I know that God has blessed us [me] with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in the Lord Jesus Christ – Ephesians 1:3
- I know that I am accepted in the beloved [the Lord Jesus Christ] – Ephesians 1:9
I pray that you can agree with every one of these Biblical truths.
Grace and Peace,
QC
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
It’s not a question of whether the Bible teaches Truth, Cat. That is a fact that we all take for granted because we believe that the Holy Spirit inspired its authors and thus protected it from containing any error. But that’s not the same as saying we have assurance of Truth.
It is a question of whether you can be sure that you personally are interpreting the Bible correctly according to the perfect will of God. If you truly believed that you had assurance that everything you believe based on the Bible is 100% God’s Truth on God’s terms, then you would claim that you, or the person/organization that taught you those interpreted beliefs, were infallible. I have assurance of Truth because I know and believe that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible. You absolutely have said that you believe no human being on earth to be infallible. In post #19 on this thread, you stated, and I quote, “no man, woman or child is infallible.” Unless you recant this statement, you have no assurance of Truth. That is a logical fact. But, since you clearly do not see the logical connection between this statement of belief regarding the absolute fallibility of every “man, woman [and] child” on the planet and your inability to have any assurance of Truth, let’s take an example from your list of certainties:
You quoted Paul, believing him to be saying something clear and incontrovertible - I dare say infallible - but, did you read it in Greek? Do you even read Greek? You’ve quoted Strong’s concordance and put Strong’s numbers in among your quotation of various verses, but this one, in particular, is actually quite fascinating if you look at the Greek itself. The translation given here, while a good, plausible one, is not actually the most accurate. If you look, word by word, at what Paul actually says here, it comes out to “I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which has been committed to her against that day.” Now, given the fact that Paul doesn’t mention any women in the immediate context, this is a very perplexing statement. So, most Bible translators (especially Protestant ones) render it as you have, assuming that Paul is the one who’s committed “that” (whatever “that” is) to someone, and that God (“Him”) is the one to whom it has been entrusted. But, even that act of translation is an act of interpretation, and that interpretation is based on personal assumptions based on theological constructs.
But, since you don’t believe that anyone is infallible, you cannot trust these people to interpret any of the Words of God 100% correctly, thus you cannot trust their translation, thus you obviously cannot trust your own interpretation which is based on their fallible translation which is in turn based on their fallible interpretation of the Greek, which is based on the Greek itself. So, in the end, your “known Truth” is at least four layers of uncertainty away from the inspired Word of God! (And we haven’t even touched the question of how incredibly far removed you are from the original manuscripts of the Bible yet, nor the question of on whose authority you base your assumption of what the Bible is and how you know it to be the very Word of God.) You live by faith that what you believe is worth believing, but you have no idea where that faith ultimately comes from.
If you need further proof that the translators of your Bible have committed an act of interpretation, and not merely an act of scribal copying, consider this: it is equally plausible to render the Greek exactly as Paul intended it and, from there, to suppose that there is a “her” about whom Paul has been writing to Timothy: the Church, the governance of which Paul has been instructing Timothy on throughout this and his previous epistle. After all, Paul previously stated that the Church, and not the Bible, is “the pillar and bulwark of Truth” (I Tim 3:15), so it would stand to reason that Paul would put his faith in God’s ability to protect the Truth entrusted to that “pillar and bulwark of Truth.” But, again, that is an interpretation based on the theology of the Catholic Church, which you do not trust. I’m fallible, and your translator, who changed the literal meaning of the Greek to make it more “understandable,” is fallible. Which can you trust? Or do you trust yourself? Your pastor? Your seminary teachers, perhaps? All these are fallible! So, this verse which you claim is one of your incontrovertible Truths, can be nothing other than an utterly confusing enigma of fallible conjectures to you.
I agree with absolutely everything the Bible says… I just don’t necessarily agree with how you interpret it.
Q
QuickCat
Guest
If you need further proof that the translators of your Bible have committed an act of interpretation, and not merely an act of scribal copying, consider this: it is equally plausible to render the Greek exactly as Paul intended it and, from there, to suppose that there is a “her” about whom Paul has been writing to Timothy: the Church, the governance of which Paul has been instructing Timothy on throughout this and his previous epistle. After all, Paul previously stated that the Church, and not the Bible, is “the pillar and bulwark of Truth” (I Tim 3:15), so it would stand to reason that Paul would put his faith in God’s ability to protect the Truth entrusted to that “pillar and bulwark of Truth.” But, again, that is an interpretation based on the theology of the Catholic Church, which you do not trust. I’m fallible, and your translator, who changed the literal meaning of the Greek to make it more “understandable,” is fallible. Which can you trust? Or do you trust yourself? Your pastor? Your seminary teachers, perhaps? All these are fallible! So, this verse which you claim is one of your incontrovertible Truths, can be nothing other than an utterly confusing enigma of fallible conjectures to you.
I agree with absolutely everything the Bible says… I just don’t necessarily agree with how you interpret it.
A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures
2 Timothy 1:12
These things (tauta). His imprisonment in Rome. Yet I am not ashamed (all’ ouk epaischunomai). Plain reference to the exhortation to Timothy in verse 2Ti 1:8. Him whom I have believed (hôi pepisteuka). Dative case of the relative (hôi) with the perfect active of pisteuô, the antecedent to the relative not expressed. It is not an indirect question. Paul knows Jesus Christ whom he has trusted. I am persuaded (pepeismai). See verse 2Ti 1:5. To guard (phulaxai). First aorist active infinitive of phulassô, the very word used in 1Ti 6:20 with parathêkên as here, to guard against robbery or any loss. That which I have committed unto him (tên parathêkên mou). Literally, “my deposit,” as in a bank, the bank of heaven which no burglar can break (Mt 6:19). See this word also in verse 2Ti 1:14. Some MSS. have the more common parakatathêkê (a sort of double deposit, para, beside, down, kata). Against that day (eis ekeinên tên hêmeran). The day of Christ’s second coming. See also 2Ti 1:18; 4:8; 2Th 1:10, and often in the Gospels. Elsewhere, the day of the Lord (1Th 5:2; 2Th 2:2; 1Co 1:8; 2Co 1:14), the day of Christ or Jesus Christ (Php 1:6,10; 2:16), the day (1Th 5:4; 1Co 3:13; Ro 13:12), the day of redemption (Eph 4:20), the day of judgment (Ro 2:5,16).
I agree with absolutely everything the Bible says… I just don’t necessarily agree with how you interpret it.
A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures
2 Timothy 1:12
These things (tauta). His imprisonment in Rome. Yet I am not ashamed (all’ ouk epaischunomai). Plain reference to the exhortation to Timothy in verse 2Ti 1:8. Him whom I have believed (hôi pepisteuka). Dative case of the relative (hôi) with the perfect active of pisteuô, the antecedent to the relative not expressed. It is not an indirect question. Paul knows Jesus Christ whom he has trusted. I am persuaded (pepeismai). See verse 2Ti 1:5. To guard (phulaxai). First aorist active infinitive of phulassô, the very word used in 1Ti 6:20 with parathêkên as here, to guard against robbery or any loss. That which I have committed unto him (tên parathêkên mou). Literally, “my deposit,” as in a bank, the bank of heaven which no burglar can break (Mt 6:19). See this word also in verse 2Ti 1:14. Some MSS. have the more common parakatathêkê (a sort of double deposit, para, beside, down, kata). Against that day (eis ekeinên tên hêmeran). The day of Christ’s second coming. See also 2Ti 1:18; 4:8; 2Th 1:10, and often in the Gospels. Elsewhere, the day of the Lord (1Th 5:2; 2Th 2:2; 1Co 1:8; 2Co 1:14), the day of Christ or Jesus Christ (Php 1:6,10; 2:16), the day (1Th 5:4; 1Co 3:13; Ro 13:12), the day of redemption (Eph 4:20), the day of judgment (Ro 2:5,16).
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
So… you refute my claim that you’re trusting in fallible interpretation piled atop of fallible interpretation piled upon fallible interetation by presenting me with… A. T. Robertson’s studied, yet, nonetheless equally fallible interpretation? What’s your point, Cat? I wasn’t saying, “My interpretation is better than yours.” I was saying that, according to your belief in universal fallibility, we both have rational ways of looking at the Bible, but you have no way of knowing which, if any, is God’s Truth on God’s terms! No amount of explanation of why you believe in yours can ever change that… unless you give up your belief in the universal fallibility of every human being.
Q
QuickCat
Guest
Infallible truths? You want infallible truths? I have given you so many - here are a few more:
ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
There is none righteous, NO NOT ONE!
The [human] heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.
We ALL need a Savior!
Our Lord Jesus Christ is THE ONE and ONLY SAVIOR!
Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
The gospel by which YOU and I are saved is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
Our LORD Jesus Christ is the ONE mediator between man and God. He [the LORD Jesus Christ] gave Himself a “Ransom for ALL, TO BE TESTIFIED IN DUE TIME.”
ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
There is none righteous, NO NOT ONE!
The [human] heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.
We ALL need a Savior!
Our Lord Jesus Christ is THE ONE and ONLY SAVIOR!
Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
The gospel by which YOU and I are saved is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
Our LORD Jesus Christ is the ONE mediator between man and God. He [the LORD Jesus Christ] gave Himself a “Ransom for ALL, TO BE TESTIFIED IN DUE TIME.”
S
SteveGC
Guest
Those quotations do not refute infallibility. They refute impeccability. Quite a difference. God has been using sinners all throughout salvation history to infallibly transmit His message to all peoples. The leaders of the Catholic Church are no different than the sinful prophets in that regard.
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
Yes, QC, is seems, as SteveGC pointed out, that we’re again seeing the disparity between the incontrovertible Truth of the Word of God and the profound fallibility of, well, you. You read, “all have sinned,” and, instead of understanding that it means people have done wrong, believe it to mean, “all believed false things,” which is not the same thing at all!
Once again, I’m not disagreeing with the Bible here, and, in fact, I haven’t even challenged you to prove your assertion that “no man, woman, or child is infallible.” I’ve merely shown you what that assertion means for you or anyone who holds it. If you believe it, then you cannot trust anything at all that comes from human reason. It’s that simple. I’ve never challenged the perfect sufficiency of Scripture, nor the inspiration of Scripture, nor any other established characteristic or fact about Scripture. I love, cherish, honor, and cling to Scripture just as much as you do… I’ve only challenged you to be consistent in what you believe. If you will not admit the infallibility of any human interpretter, even yourself, then every single tenet of every single faith is equally as valid as any other, and, at the same time, equally as likely to be absolutely 100% completely wrong. Without any infallible interpretive authority, you must, and in fact do, believe in complete theological relativism, whether you’re willing to admit it or not. If you deny that, then you absolutely must deny one of two other things: either A.) the universality of your entire belief system as a whole, or B.) the absolute fallibility of every human being on this planet. Personally, I find it much easier, and much more internally consistent to accept that someone, somewhere might be infallible about some things, than to deny that my entire belief system about the entire universe can be applied to the entire universe. I mean, if it’s about the whole universe, then… shouldn’t it have some affect on that universe?? But, hey… that’s just me. Maybe you’d rather simply hold that hyperdispensationalism is only true for you and your fellow believers but not for me or anyone who doesn’t like it?
Once again, I’m not disagreeing with the Bible here, and, in fact, I haven’t even challenged you to prove your assertion that “no man, woman, or child is infallible.” I’ve merely shown you what that assertion means for you or anyone who holds it. If you believe it, then you cannot trust anything at all that comes from human reason. It’s that simple. I’ve never challenged the perfect sufficiency of Scripture, nor the inspiration of Scripture, nor any other established characteristic or fact about Scripture. I love, cherish, honor, and cling to Scripture just as much as you do… I’ve only challenged you to be consistent in what you believe. If you will not admit the infallibility of any human interpretter, even yourself, then every single tenet of every single faith is equally as valid as any other, and, at the same time, equally as likely to be absolutely 100% completely wrong. Without any infallible interpretive authority, you must, and in fact do, believe in complete theological relativism, whether you’re willing to admit it or not. If you deny that, then you absolutely must deny one of two other things: either A.) the universality of your entire belief system as a whole, or B.) the absolute fallibility of every human being on this planet. Personally, I find it much easier, and much more internally consistent to accept that someone, somewhere might be infallible about some things, than to deny that my entire belief system about the entire universe can be applied to the entire universe. I mean, if it’s about the whole universe, then… shouldn’t it have some affect on that universe?? But, hey… that’s just me. Maybe you’d rather simply hold that hyperdispensationalism is only true for you and your fellow believers but not for me or anyone who doesn’t like it?
Q
QuickCat
Guest
Q
QuickCat
Guest
. The leaders of the Catholic Church are no different than the sinful prophets in that regard.
You, of course are right on that. History records that some of those dudes were real rascals. And this confirms that all of us are sinners and need a Savior.
You, of course are right on that. History records that some of those dudes were real rascals. And this confirms that all of us are sinners and need a Savior.
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
QC, I’m profoundly sorry and hope you’ll forgive me for assuming that you were attempting to say something relevant to my challenge to face the logical reality of your own belief in universal fallibility. Clearly, I was wildly mistaken. I said that, if we have any hope of actually knowing the complete Truth as God clearly wants us to, then we must have some trustworthy infallible interpreting authority, and in response you cited Paul quoting a Psalm that says, “all have sinned.” I wholeheartedly apologize for presuming that your thought that verse was relevant to the discussion when in fact it was entirely non-sequitur. My mistake. Just to clarify, so I don’t make this mistake again, please tell me whether your next remarks are to be taken as relevant to the discussion or not…
I’m aware that “all have sinned,” but, as I asked yesterday, what’s your point? The pope sins - that’s why he regularly goes to Confession - but what does that have to do with his infallibility or lackthereof? I could kill a dozen people and still tell you the truth about something. Jesus Himself tells you that the Pharisees sinned, yet their word was true and was worthy of obedience (Matt 23:1-3). If you want your beliefs to matter to anyone other than you, either prove my logic wrong, or claim that someone who taught you hyperdispensationalism is infallible. Those are the only two options that will give you any respite from my challenge to face the fact that universal fallibility equals universal uncertainty of Truth.
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
Now, Cat, if you’ll excuse the sarcasm of the previous post, maybe I can help you consider the folly of sticking to your universal-fallibility guns by looking at the topic from another angle.
We know that universal interpretive fallibility (or U.I.F.) means than no proposed interpretation of the Bible can be completely trusted, right? (If that statement is logically incorrect, I’m still waiting for you to show me how.) If so, then, as we’ve stated before, U.I.F. = universal uncertainty regarding God’s Truth on God’s terms (G.T.o.G.t.). Unfortunately, since God’s will is obviously that we have salvation by believing and living according to G.T.o.G.t., if we accept U.I.F., then no one can ever know G.T.o.G.t., thus no one can ever believe or live according to G.T.o.G.t.
So, based on the assumption that U.I.F. is true, God has placed before us an utterly unreachable goal. The question then becomes, “What does this say about God?” If “no man, woman, or child is infallible,” as you’ve clearly asserted, Cat, then God either a) does not want anyone to be saved (He merely likes to watch us grope around in the dark, arguing with each other), or b) is incompetant and just couldn’t manage to give us any trustworthy method of learning His Truth on His terms.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m guessing that you would reject both of those assertions about God, right? You would never call Our Lord and Savior “incompetant,” would you? And you would likewise never call Him “capricious,” would you? Unfortunately, your belief in universal interpretive fallibility is completely at odds with belief in God as a Trinity of Persons who loves us, wants us to come to know Him, and wants us to be with Him in heaven. Therefore, if you answer those questions as I hope you will, you must be wildly wrong about something. Either the conclusion (i.e. that God is incompetent or capricious) is illogical, or the assumption upon which that conclusion is based (U.I.F.) is illogical. So, as I keep saying (forgive me for sounding like a broken record; it’s just that your eternal salvation is kind of at stake here), if you ever hope to be internally consistent in your beliefs, you have a choice to make: you can either reject Christianity as you know it, clinging instead to your unfaltering belief in U.I.F., or you can reject U.I.F and cling to our Savior Who loves to save. What’s it going to be, Cat? Reject the fallible (and ludicrous) assumption that everyone is fallible? Or reject absolutely everything you hold dear along with the Immortal, Invisible, Omnipotent God who made absolutely everything you hold dear?
We know that universal interpretive fallibility (or U.I.F.) means than no proposed interpretation of the Bible can be completely trusted, right? (If that statement is logically incorrect, I’m still waiting for you to show me how.) If so, then, as we’ve stated before, U.I.F. = universal uncertainty regarding God’s Truth on God’s terms (G.T.o.G.t.). Unfortunately, since God’s will is obviously that we have salvation by believing and living according to G.T.o.G.t., if we accept U.I.F., then no one can ever know G.T.o.G.t., thus no one can ever believe or live according to G.T.o.G.t.
So, based on the assumption that U.I.F. is true, God has placed before us an utterly unreachable goal. The question then becomes, “What does this say about God?” If “no man, woman, or child is infallible,” as you’ve clearly asserted, Cat, then God either a) does not want anyone to be saved (He merely likes to watch us grope around in the dark, arguing with each other), or b) is incompetant and just couldn’t manage to give us any trustworthy method of learning His Truth on His terms.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m guessing that you would reject both of those assertions about God, right? You would never call Our Lord and Savior “incompetant,” would you? And you would likewise never call Him “capricious,” would you? Unfortunately, your belief in universal interpretive fallibility is completely at odds with belief in God as a Trinity of Persons who loves us, wants us to come to know Him, and wants us to be with Him in heaven. Therefore, if you answer those questions as I hope you will, you must be wildly wrong about something. Either the conclusion (i.e. that God is incompetent or capricious) is illogical, or the assumption upon which that conclusion is based (U.I.F.) is illogical. So, as I keep saying (forgive me for sounding like a broken record; it’s just that your eternal salvation is kind of at stake here), if you ever hope to be internally consistent in your beliefs, you have a choice to make: you can either reject Christianity as you know it, clinging instead to your unfaltering belief in U.I.F., or you can reject U.I.F and cling to our Savior Who loves to save. What’s it going to be, Cat? Reject the fallible (and ludicrous) assumption that everyone is fallible? Or reject absolutely everything you hold dear along with the Immortal, Invisible, Omnipotent God who made absolutely everything you hold dear?
J
John7
Guest
Hi, you said this also in post #27,
Where can I find your statement (the underlined) in the Bible?
Where does scripture explicitly say everything in it must be translated literally?
As a dispensationalist you believe that the book of Revelation is literal right?
Like Rev 20:3? 1000 years is 1000 earth years 24/365, 1000 earth revolutions around the
sun? or no? just wondering, thanks.
F
fred_stoutland
Guest
F
fred_stoutland
Guest
I love your witness as to your personal relationship with Christ. but I question your understanding of the teaching of Jesus and Paul.
Jesus proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom. He announced the arrival of the reign of God, calling for repentance and the renewal of corporate behaviors. Paul, on the other hand, seems to emphasize that God is saving individuals, taking up residence in their hearts, and giving them a heavenly destiny. His vision of the Christian life is one in which believers cultivate inner piety and practice private devotion.
While this view is biblically correct, never did Paul exclude the imporatnce of the primacy of the church and her related corporate practices. As a Protestant, I disagree with some of the emphases of Catholicism, but it is right on in teaching the primacy of the church - the importance of Christians living in commune with each other.
New Testament scholars say there is a great continuity between the preaching of Jesus and that of Paul. Far from focusing on privatized piety, the apostle’s conception of salvation concerns the arrival of the kingdom of God—a fundamentally communal reality.
According to Luke, God’s reign was the dominant subject of Paul’s preaching. He ends Acts with these words: “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!” (Acts 28:30-31). Referring to everyone in Christ, Paul says that God has “rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col. 1:13).
In his highly influential work on Ephesians, “God’s New Society,” the late Anglican pastor and author John Stott (he died last week) sums up Paul’s community-oriented gospel:
"One of our chief evangelical blind spots has been to overlook the central importance of the church. We tend to proclaim individual salvation without moving on to the saved community. We emphasize that Christ died for us “to redeem us from all iniquity” rather than “to purify for himself a people of his own.” We think of ourselves more as “Christians” than as “churchmen,” and our message is more good news of a new life than of a new society. Nobody can emerge from a careful reading of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians with a privatized gospel.
"Paul does not, then, view salvation in individualistic terms apart from the arrival of God’s kingdom in the church. As individuals, we have been saved for life-giving relationships within kingdom of God communities, not merely for privatized walks with Jesus. We become our true selves only in community, exercising our gifts and learning to receive the gifts of others. Paul’s vision for the church includes the renewed social practices of forgiving and being forgiven, reconciling formerly alienated individuals and communities, learning to speak words of grace and kindness, practicing justice, and absorbing loss rather than taking vengeance for wrongs suffered. Social practices such as these suffer from neglect in our culture, especially when we orient ourselves by individualized and internalized conceptions of being Christian.
“…but we must take care to regard discipleship as the practice of transformative habits set within communities of renewal empowered by God’s Spirit. Central to Paul’s conception of salvation is “the church of God, which he bought with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).”
I pray that you would see the need to be part of the assembly of God. You call it religion; I call it church, the body of Christ that He himself established for all time - until he returns and sets up the new heavens and the new earth for all eternity.
Jesus proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom. He announced the arrival of the reign of God, calling for repentance and the renewal of corporate behaviors. Paul, on the other hand, seems to emphasize that God is saving individuals, taking up residence in their hearts, and giving them a heavenly destiny. His vision of the Christian life is one in which believers cultivate inner piety and practice private devotion.
While this view is biblically correct, never did Paul exclude the imporatnce of the primacy of the church and her related corporate practices. As a Protestant, I disagree with some of the emphases of Catholicism, but it is right on in teaching the primacy of the church - the importance of Christians living in commune with each other.
New Testament scholars say there is a great continuity between the preaching of Jesus and that of Paul. Far from focusing on privatized piety, the apostle’s conception of salvation concerns the arrival of the kingdom of God—a fundamentally communal reality.
According to Luke, God’s reign was the dominant subject of Paul’s preaching. He ends Acts with these words: “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!” (Acts 28:30-31). Referring to everyone in Christ, Paul says that God has “rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col. 1:13).
In his highly influential work on Ephesians, “God’s New Society,” the late Anglican pastor and author John Stott (he died last week) sums up Paul’s community-oriented gospel:
"One of our chief evangelical blind spots has been to overlook the central importance of the church. We tend to proclaim individual salvation without moving on to the saved community. We emphasize that Christ died for us “to redeem us from all iniquity” rather than “to purify for himself a people of his own.” We think of ourselves more as “Christians” than as “churchmen,” and our message is more good news of a new life than of a new society. Nobody can emerge from a careful reading of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians with a privatized gospel.
"Paul does not, then, view salvation in individualistic terms apart from the arrival of God’s kingdom in the church. As individuals, we have been saved for life-giving relationships within kingdom of God communities, not merely for privatized walks with Jesus. We become our true selves only in community, exercising our gifts and learning to receive the gifts of others. Paul’s vision for the church includes the renewed social practices of forgiving and being forgiven, reconciling formerly alienated individuals and communities, learning to speak words of grace and kindness, practicing justice, and absorbing loss rather than taking vengeance for wrongs suffered. Social practices such as these suffer from neglect in our culture, especially when we orient ourselves by individualized and internalized conceptions of being Christian.
“…but we must take care to regard discipleship as the practice of transformative habits set within communities of renewal empowered by God’s Spirit. Central to Paul’s conception of salvation is “the church of God, which he bought with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).”
I pray that you would see the need to be part of the assembly of God. You call it religion; I call it church, the body of Christ that He himself established for all time - until he returns and sets up the new heavens and the new earth for all eternity.
Q
QuickCat
Guest
Mt 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Mt 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Mr 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
What is the gospel of the kingdom? What is the content of this gospel?
This gospel proclaimed the good news that Israel’s long foretold kingdom was near; “the kingdom at hand.” It included healing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing of the lepers, casting out demons, and the promise that the earthly kingdom for Israel was near at hand contingent up Israel’s repentance. The LORD Jesus Christ sent the 12 apostles of the circumcision to preach this gospel to the “lost sheep” of the house of Israel – Mt. 10:5-9. Notice that they were not to go to the Gentiles with this gospel [vs5].
He taught them to pray “Thy kingdom come……” in Mt. 6:10.
Our LORD Jesus Christ gave these apostles of the circumcision great authority to perform miracles. These were authenticating “signs” to the “sign people” Israel [The Jews require a sign – 1 Cor. 1:22]. By way of contrast, the dispensation of the grace of God [Eph. 3:2] is a sign-less age. In this dispensation we, “Walk by faith, not by sight” [2 Cor. 5:7].
The gospel of the kingdom did not proclaim our Lord’s death, burial and resurrection [1 Cor. 15:1-4]. The 12 apostles of the circumcision did not know this – Luke 18:31-34. Even after our LORD was resurrected the 12 were still ignorant of this fact – John 20:9.
Our LORD’S death, burial and resurrection are at the very heart of the gospel of the grace of God revealed to Paul by the resurrected LORD Jesus Christ.
Mt 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Mr 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
What is the gospel of the kingdom? What is the content of this gospel?
This gospel proclaimed the good news that Israel’s long foretold kingdom was near; “the kingdom at hand.” It included healing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing of the lepers, casting out demons, and the promise that the earthly kingdom for Israel was near at hand contingent up Israel’s repentance. The LORD Jesus Christ sent the 12 apostles of the circumcision to preach this gospel to the “lost sheep” of the house of Israel – Mt. 10:5-9. Notice that they were not to go to the Gentiles with this gospel [vs5].
He taught them to pray “Thy kingdom come……” in Mt. 6:10.
Our LORD Jesus Christ gave these apostles of the circumcision great authority to perform miracles. These were authenticating “signs” to the “sign people” Israel [The Jews require a sign – 1 Cor. 1:22]. By way of contrast, the dispensation of the grace of God [Eph. 3:2] is a sign-less age. In this dispensation we, “Walk by faith, not by sight” [2 Cor. 5:7].
The gospel of the kingdom did not proclaim our Lord’s death, burial and resurrection [1 Cor. 15:1-4]. The 12 apostles of the circumcision did not know this – Luke 18:31-34. Even after our LORD was resurrected the 12 were still ignorant of this fact – John 20:9.
Our LORD’S death, burial and resurrection are at the very heart of the gospel of the grace of God revealed to Paul by the resurrected LORD Jesus Christ.
N
nordskoven
Guest
The New and Eternal Covenant, prophesied in the Old Covenant, is the salvation that came through the Jews to the whole world. Jews aren’t any more happy about this than you are, presuming you are a pork-eating, unwashed Gentile. But you can’t make up covenant rules. You have to be a member of the family, and that’s baptism. Catholics are ingrafted, adopted Jews. God veiled the hearts of unbelieving Hebrews and the rest He sent on to us Gentiles to give us a head-start. And the message is forgiveness of sins, and that through the crucifixion of the Lamb of God in the unbloody sacrifice of the altar. And all power and authority God gave to Jesus is given by Jesus to His apostles and their successors. That includes the power to forgive sins…or retain them.
This Gnostic special insight that took hundreds of years to cook up means that these people are testifying of themselves, claiming inspiration by the Holy Spirit but contradicting all other “spirit-filled” disagreers. Their beef isn’t with the Church but with all other “Christians.” But no matter, like foaming waves, they beat upon the Rock. Because if there is no infallible, sure guide–Peter and the Apostles and their successors led by the Holy Spirit–but only a milieu of disagreers, they self-eliminate as having no claim of power and authority, and the rotten fruits of division show this. They will heal and cast out devils in Christ’s name and be told, “Depart from Me, I never knew you.”
This Gnostic special insight that took hundreds of years to cook up means that these people are testifying of themselves, claiming inspiration by the Holy Spirit but contradicting all other “spirit-filled” disagreers. Their beef isn’t with the Church but with all other “Christians.” But no matter, like foaming waves, they beat upon the Rock. Because if there is no infallible, sure guide–Peter and the Apostles and their successors led by the Holy Spirit–but only a milieu of disagreers, they self-eliminate as having no claim of power and authority, and the rotten fruits of division show this. They will heal and cast out devils in Christ’s name and be told, “Depart from Me, I never knew you.”
- Status