Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Was Paul a false prophet?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Well said Randy the person I am debating with about Paul thinks that we still need to live in the law
    I don't hold the view Paul was a false prophet, however most Christians don't really understand the Law, partly because it is used in various ways meaning all sorts of differing things.

    The Foundational point you need to start with is that EVERYTHING Jesus stated is entirely consistent with the Law.
    Paul actually said the SAME thing - the Law is holy, righteous and good - in fact it comes from God, for it speaks of how we are to be.

    The CONFUSION comes over what aspect of the Law is actually in view.
    The Mosaic Law is based upon God's Law, but also contains various commands for how to live as a society and is therefore an expression of God's Law for a specific people.

    A SECOND issue is that those who clamour for the law, think somehow the law brought life! Yet it never could and that was never its purpose. It was SPECIFICALLY these that Paul had an issue with. They were teaching that the Law brings righteousness, and this is what you may find in your discussion the other person is claiming. This is the origin of the issue of good works and salvation. We DO good works BECAUSE we are saved, and God has called us to do them. We do NOT do good works in order to be saved.

    The reality is that most Christians realise that there are clear commands to obey God, and they will say they hold to the Ten Commandments or the Golden Law of Jesus, which are BOTH simply ways of encapsulating the spirit of the Mosaic Law. In other words the Mosaic Law has its origin from the command to Love God and love your neighbour, which is then expounded as 10 commands, which then is gone into in even more detail as to how it works in a society of the time of Moses.

    Separate to this is the question of being children of Abraham, and thus inheritors of the promise given to him. Yet BOTH Jesus and Paul highlighted that this is not a question simply of birth but of faith.
    As to your point about there being a temple when Jesus returns, this is 100% a FACT according to BOTH OT and NT scripture.
    The prophets highlight this is what will happen, and John notes seeing it. However that is a side issue.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I don't hold the view Paul was a false prophet, however most Christians don't really understand the Law, partly because it is used in various ways meaning all sorts of differing things.

    The Foundational point you need to start with is that EVERYTHING Jesus stated is entirely consistent with the Law.
    Paul actually said the SAME thing - the Law is holy, righteous and good - in fact it comes from God, for it speaks of how we are to be.

    The CONFUSION comes over what aspect of the Law is actually in view.
    The Mosaic Law is based upon God's Law, but also contains various commands for how to live as a society and is therefore an expression of God's Law for a specific people.

    A SECOND issue is that those who clamour for the law, think somehow the law brought life! Yet it never could and that was never its purpose. It was SPECIFICALLY these that Paul had an issue with. They were teaching that the Law brings righteousness, and this is what you may find in your discussion the other person is claiming. This is the origin of the issue of good works and salvation. We DO good works BECAUSE we are saved, and God has called us to do them. We do NOT do good works in order to be saved.

    The reality is that most Christians realise that there are clear commands to obey God, and they will say they hold to the Ten Commandments or the Golden Law of Jesus, which are BOTH simply ways of encapsulating the spirit of the Mosaic Law. In other words the Mosaic Law has its origin from the command to Love God and love your neighbour, which is then expounded as 10 commands, which then is gone into in even more detail as to how it works in a society of the time of Moses.

    Separate to this is the question of being children of Abraham, and thus inheritors of the promise given to him. Yet BOTH Jesus and Paul highlighted that this is not a question simply of birth but of faith.
    As to your point about there being a temple when Jesus returns, this is 100% a FACT according to BOTH OT and NT scripture.
    The prophets highlight this is what will happen, and John notes seeing it. However that is a side issue.
    We agree in part and disagree in part. I can only put things in my own words.

    Yes, there are different aspects of the Law of God, because there is the universal, eternal Law of God, in which God always requires that Man conform to the image and likeness of God, and there is the Law of Moses, which specifically applied to the nation Israel prior to the cross of Christ. They overlapped in the OT era, but the Law of Moses ceased to exist when it was fulfilled in the cross of Christ.

    I don't agree that the Law was never meant to bring life. Clearly, the Law of Moses was said to bring the nation Israel either life or death, depending on obedience or disobedience.

    On the same hand it is true that the Law of Moses failed to bring about the ultimate salvation of national Israel, but only brought about temporary forms of national salvation, always falling short of the promised Age to Come. It required, on the other hand, the work of Christ to both remove the wicked from Israel and to restore God's elite in Israel, who will reconstitute the nation with the faithful. And this national salvation will be, as promised, final.

    As I've been saying on another thread, there are good works that we do by the Law of God which, however, do not obtain our own redemption. We qualify for that redemption, which is only accomplished by Christ, simply by doing what Christ says we must do to qualify for it. That involves acceptance and repentance. And after receiving that redemption we of course follow up by showing the good works that come from that redemption.

    All this indicates that Man really can do good in obedience to the Law of God. We just cannot obtain our own redemption, and can only accept it and meet the conditions for accepting it.

    At any rate, whether we're talking about Israel under the Law of Moses or Man generally under the eternal, universal Law of God, Man really can do good and obtains life by obedience to God's Law. It may only be a temporary achievement of virtue, but it is, truly, virtue. Whether it attains to the value of eternal life depends on whether Man embraces the redemption that Christ won and offers to us.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't agree that the Law was never meant to bring life. Clearly, the Law of Moses was said to bring the nation Israel either life or death, depending on obedience or disobedience.
    And here we have the essence of your confusion.

    Then you disagree with Paul. Paul states:
    Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

    Further you misunderstand Moses:
    Deu 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.

    Moses here is highlighting that God has chosen to bless the Israelites, and IF they keep God's commands then the blessings promised will be given, but IF they do not then those blessings are removed. IOW the Israelites are in a state like those AFTER they are saved, and so called to live accordingly. Moses is NOT saying that by keeping these commands so you earn or can somehow receive the blessings and especially that of life. You ignore the CONTEXT in which what Moses is stating these things.

    BOTH Paul and Moses are confirming the SAME thing, namely that it is FAITH by which we are saved, and that works and keeping the Law is what keeps us right with God.
    So NO you are wrong to assert that "clearly" the Law of Moses was said to bring life. However it is on such assertions that errors are introduced.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    And here we have the essence of your confusion.

    Then you disagree with Paul. Paul states:
    Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

    Further you misunderstand Moses:
    Deu 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.

    Moses here is highlighting that God has chosen to bless the Israelites, and IF they keep God's commands then the blessings promised will be given, but IF they do not then those blessings are removed. IOW the Israelites are in a state like those AFTER they are saved, and so called to live accordingly. Moses is NOT saying that by keeping these commands so you earn or can somehow receive the blessings and especially that of life. You ignore the CONTEXT in which what Moses is stating these things.

    BOTH Paul and Moses are confirming the SAME thing, namely that it is FAITH by which we are saved, and that works and keeping the Law is what keeps us right with God.
    So NO you are wrong to assert that "clearly" the Law of Moses was said to bring life. However it is on such assertions that errors are introduced.
    I have no confusion about it, and what I stated is exactly true, as indicated in the Scriptures. Obedience under the Law brought "life."

    Deut 30.19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

    The matter of obeying God's word does qualify them for life. It doesn't earn Salvation, which is a matter of Eternal Redemption, but it did qualify them to receive both spirituality and blessings in their land. Since they were given deliverance from their enemies, and immunity from certain diseases, this enabled them to *live.* Obeying the Law brought them righteousness, which in turn brought them "life."

    Yes, this is like Salvation in the NT era because they were entering into a covenant relationship with God, involving spiritual communion between the people and their God. They were meeting His demands, and thus qualifying for both His virtues and His blessings. They qualified for both his spiritual righteousness and his material blessings. They qualified for "life."

    In Rom 4, Paul was talking about *legalism,* which is the pursuit of God's blessings apart from a believer's spirituality. True adherence to the Law was designed to produce spiritual righteousness, and in turn spiritual blessings. And this spiritual righteousness was designed, ultimately, to achieve something beyond human righteousness alone. It was designed to achieve Christ's own righteousness, and with it eternal redemption.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I have no confusion about it, and what I stated is exactly true, as indicated in the Scriptures. Obedience under the Law brought "life."
    Nope. You are confused about it, as obedience does NOT BRING life. The ACTIVE verb is BRING. Life is what is BROUGHT. Yet obeying the Law does NOT BRING life in this verse as you claim.

    Deut 30.19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

    The matter of obeying God's word does qualify them for life. It doesn't earn Salvation, which is a matter of Eternal Redemption, but it did qualify them to receive both spirituality and blessings in their land. Since they were given deliverance from their enemies, and immunity from certain diseases, this enabled them to *live.* Obeying the Law brought them righteousness, which in turn brought them "life."
    No, the matter of obeying life does NOT qualify them for life. Instead it stops them being disqualified.
    They receive life NOT because they keep the Law, but because God has offered it to them. The choice is about whether they walk WITH God and so receive what is offered - the blessings, or disobey God and so receive the curses.
    So it is NOT actually bringing them life, but rather allowing them to enjoy the life He is already giving.

    Yes, this is like Salvation in the NT era because they were entering into a covenant relationship with God, involving spiritual communion between the people and their God. They were meeting His demands, and thus qualifying for both His virtues and His blessings. They qualified for both his spiritual righteousness and his material blessings. They qualified for "life."

    In Rom 4, Paul was talking about *legalism,* which is the pursuit of God's blessings apart from a believer's spirituality. True adherence to the Law was designed to produce spiritual righteousness, and in turn spiritual blessings. And this spiritual righteousness was designed, ultimately, to achieve something beyond human righteousness alone. It was designed to achieve Christ's own righteousness, and with it eternal redemption.
    They were ALREADY in a relationship through Abraham and already had been given the Law. This statement is 40 years later, when they were about to enter the Promised Land and receive the blessings of God.
    So this is a statement regarding WALKING in the light with God, and so remaining IN His will and way, and so continuing in His blessing. It was NOT a statement as to HOW to gain the blessing in the first place.
    Paul notes the SAME thing, that the promise is NOT given through the Law, but rather ONCE we have the blessing we need to remain keeping His Law. This is why Christians are taught to Love God and Love their neighbour as this sums up the entire Law:
    Matt 22:37 And he (Jesus) said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”.

    Adherence to the Law does NOT produce spiritual righteousness. Instead it allows God's Spirit to move in us and transform us IF we have repented and allowed Him into our lives.
    Paul highlights therefore in Romans 4 HOW the blessing comes, and it is NOT EVER through adherence to the Law. The Law NEVER brings life, and NOT a SINGLE scripture states otherwise.

    When you recognise this FACT of scripture THEN it allows a correct appreciation of the Law and its role and means the confusion is lifted.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope. You are confused about it, as obedience does NOT BRING life. The ACTIVE verb is BRING. Life is what is BROUGHT. Yet obeying the Law does NOT BRING life in this verse as you claim.
    Sorry, brother--no confusion. It says what it says. Obedience brought life. And the life that is brought is defined in the context. It brought immunity from various diseases, enemy desolations, and all kinds of natural disasters. These things brought death. Immunity from them brought *life,* as easily understood in the text. One doesn't need to parse Hebrew in order to understand what is being said.

    I suggest that if you think this is not clear, you are "over-reading" it.

    The design is also plain, from one covenant to another. Under the Law, God chose a single nation to demonstrate the possible connection between men and His word, resulting in a spiritual relationship leading to blessings. This blessing consisted of both interpersonal relationship with God, as well as material blessings. And even better, it landed them hope in a future age of blessing called "Eternal Life."

    In the New Covenant, this hope is sealed by an act of redemption that made this spiritual covenant permanent--the work of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No, the matter of obeying life does NOT qualify them for life. Instead it stops them being disqualified.
    What a strange statement? How does one "obey life?" Or, is this a typo?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    They receive life NOT because they keep the Law, but because God has offered it to them. The choice is about whether they walk WITH God and so receive what is offered - the blessings, or disobey God and so receive the curses.
    So it is NOT actually bringing them life, but rather allowing them to enjoy the life He is already giving.
    That sounds like a distinction without differences? They had life because they were living in covenant relationship with God. Elemental, or superficial, forms of redemption, such as animal sacrifices and ritual baths, gave them a secure position in the providence of God. And remaining in compliance with their Law they retained that privileged position, having life and being blessed.

    But I absolutely cannot agree that the passage indicates obedience to the Law had nothing to do with their having spiritual life, inherent in their obedience, along with material reward. And it certainly was God's means of keeping them connected to their hope for the Age to Come.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    They were ALREADY in a relationship through Abraham and already had been given the Law. This statement is 40 years later, when they were about to enter the Promised Land and receive the blessings of God.
    So this is a statement regarding WALKING in the light with God, and so remaining IN His will and way, and so continuing in His blessing. It was NOT a statement as to HOW to gain the blessing in the first place.
    Again, this is a distinction without a difference. And it certainly fails to refute the main point, that continuing in obedience to the Law ensured them "life," both spiritual and material.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Paul notes the SAME thing, that the promise is NOT given through the Law, but rather ONCE we have the blessing we need to remain keeping His Law. This is why Christians are taught to Love God and Love their neighbour as this sums up the entire Law:
    Matt 22:37 And he (Jesus) said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”.
    No doubt. It is the same thing in Christianity as under the Law. We don't just accept Christ's redemption and accept his example. We must actually begin to live for Christ and remain there forever.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Adherence to the Law does NOT produce spiritual righteousness. Instead it allows God's Spirit to move in us and transform us IF we have repented and allowed Him into our lives.
    Adherence to the Law *is* repentance and allowing God into our lives! As such, following the Law does indeed produce spiritual righteousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Paul highlights therefore in Romans 4 HOW the blessing comes, and it is NOT EVER through adherence to the Law. The Law NEVER brings life, and NOT a SINGLE scripture states otherwise.

    When you recognise this FACT of scripture THEN it allows a correct appreciation of the Law and its role and means the confusion is lifted.
    I think you're working off a different definition of the "Law" than what Paul is using in this context. Paul is, I suggested earlier, referring to those who by the Law are seeking to produce Eternal Life apart from embracing Christ's eternal redemption.

    That is never the way the Law was designed to work, and yet the way the Jews approached it in the time of Christ. They continued to pursue adherence to the Law without embracing Christ himself, and so rejected his future redemption and the means of Eternal Life. They destroyed the ability contained within the Law to obtain spiritual righteousness and life from God.

    Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

    Paul is contrasting adherents of the Law *without faith* and adherents of the Law *with faith.* The adherents of the Law without faith depend on the Law alone, rendering faith null and void.

    Paul was talking about the futile attempt to *earn* redemption through obedience to the Law, as opposed to what the Law actually intended, which was to obey the Law in trust that *God Himself* would provide redemption. Indulging in rituals of redemption were never designed to provide that redemption itself, but rather, an act of faith that God would somehow fulfill that redemption in the future, through Messiah.

    I don't think any Jew of faith was under the illusion that keeping Passover and Atonement brought them Eternal Life. They all knew the Messianic Age was in the future, and that sins had to go on being forgiven, and that somehow death had to be ended.

    No, they knew final redemption would be a future event. Indulgence in temporal acts indicating redemption was meant to be an act of faith that God Himself had to be the source of mercy, and not strictly human adherence. Forgiveness was not embedded in acts of obedience under the Law, even if virtue and faith could be. The choice to enter faith into the acts of ritual redemption was an expression of confidence that God was the source of forgiveness, and not their obedience alone.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    [QUOTE=randyk;3530261]Sorry, brother--no confusion. It says what it says. Obedience brought life. And the life that is brought is defined in the context. It brought immunity from various diseases, enemy desolations, and all kinds of natural disasters. These things brought death. Immunity from them brought *life,* as easily understood in the text. One doesn't need to parse Hebrew in order to understand what is being said.[/QUIOTE]
    It does indeed say what IT says and NOT what you are mistakenly claiming it says.
    It does NOT say that keeping the Law brings life. It is about making a choice.
    If you chose life then this REQUIRES you to keep the Law. That is what it is saying. It does NOT say, by keeping the Law you will GAIN life.
    Life is ALREADY promised, they are ALREADY going into the Promised Land, they ALREADY have the PROMISE of life and so Moses is saying do NOT lose what you ALREADY have by choosing to disobey the Law and so bring death into the situation.
    Note they were NOT in a statement of death or about to move out of death. It was about HOW they would LIVE the life they had been given IN the Promised Land.
    So your ENTIRE claim about Law ever bringing life is a false claim.
    This then totally destroys your claim about what the purpose of the Law was or what it could ever do. It could NEVER bring life, and this was NEVER its purpose.

    To simplify, the Law is about HOW to live, but the gift of God is the life itself.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    It does indeed say what IT says and NOT what you are mistakenly claiming it says.
    It does NOT say that keeping the Law brings life. It is about making a choice.
    If you chose life then this REQUIRES you to keep the Law. That is what it is saying. It does NOT say, by keeping the Law you will GAIN life.
    Life is ALREADY promised, they are ALREADY going into the Promised Land, they ALREADY have the PROMISE of life and so Moses is saying do NOT lose what you ALREADY have by choosing to disobey the Law and so bring death into the situation.
    Note they were NOT in a statement of death or about to move out of death. It was about HOW they would LIVE the life they had been given IN the Promised Land.
    So your ENTIRE claim about Law ever bringing life is a false claim.
    This then totally destroys your claim about what the purpose of the Law was or what it could ever do. It could NEVER bring life, and this was NEVER its purpose.

    To simplify, the Law is about HOW to live, but the gift of God is the life itself.
    I think you're completely confused, or at the very least, retaining a confusing theology. But I do think a lot of Christians hold to this, attempting to insert NT theology into a false construct of the Law.

    I do sympathize with your position because I've held to it myself, and have been taught that forever. However, I have a different, more sensible view now, and hope you will consider it?

    Paul is talking about how the Jews viewed the Law *wrongly!* He sort of abbreviates the terms, in order to make the argument without too much definition of terms. So when he speaks of the Law, he is speaking of a *false system* currently in use in his time.

    Yes, the Jews were to keep the Law and to so obtain life, not just in eternity but also spiritually, in their own time. And they did, as I said, succeed in getting that spiritual life and hope, as long as they faithfully kept the Law internally, and not just externally.

    The problem was, the Jews were *not* keeping the Law faithfully and internally, or from the heart. They were only *outwardly* keeping the Law, and so trying to obtain life by a false methodology, which we call "legalism." It is following rules externally, without the necessary internal intention.

    God gave His Law to Israel because they could keep it. And though the thought never was for them to keep it perfectly, or even to obtain final redemption on their own, the idea that they could faithfully keep the Law and obtain life through it was clear. The whole system of the Law was, in this respect, redemptive, and provide its own means of covering Israel's failures as they faithfully kept the Law. They thus obtained life through keeping the Law.

    You are speaking of Paul's notion that keeping the Law *externally* could not obtain either life or hope for the Age to Come. And this is absolutely right. Following rules without a heart change defeated the whole purpose of the Law, which was to convert the wayward heart of Man to the word of God. In following God's word Man's heart was supposed to be changed spiritually. And so, those who followed the Law's rules without any spiritual change were involved in "external worship," which Paul correctly said was insufficient and false.

    I would reiterate that this is all about how Israel was to get and to keep life holistically under the Law. This was "life" in every sense of the word, as spiritual life, and as material blessing, as well as hope in the Life to Come. Israel could have life immediately and intimately, as long as they held to the Law--not superficially, but faithfully. As long as they rrelied on obedience to God's word, God's virtue remained in them, and their heart was changed spiritually. They retained both spiritual life and a material existence that we call "life," as opposed to "death."

    Having this life and keeping it should not be confused with "earning their own Salvation." Redemption was embedded in the Law, but could not obtain *eternal* life. Keeping the Law could obtain immediately forgiveness and a reprieve from judgment, but it could not obtain Eternal Redemption, which awaited the work of Christ.

    This life was from God, but was preliminary, awaiting fulfillment at the cross of Christ. In the meantime, obedience under the Law did obtain a temporary form of redemption, allowing them to live in covenant with God despite their imperfections and sin. As long as they remained faithful to God's word, confessing and repenting of their sins, they could remain in covenant relationship with God and experience *life.* However, having this life *forever* required the historical events associated with the life of Christ. The Law was meant to lead to and await that.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I think you're completely confused, or at the very least, retaining a confusing theology. But I do think a lot of Christians hold to this, attempting to insert NT theology into a false construct of the Law.
    You said "It says what it says". However you then IGNORE what it says and instead are the one who INSERTS your own view of theology.
    It is VERY SIMPLE - Moses requests the Israelites 40 years AFTER they were given the Law, and when they are about to enter the Promised Land and to enjoy the blessings of entering in to make a SIMPLE decision.
    Choose life through keeping the Law and so RETAINING the blessings promised and now being given OR choose death by not keeping the Law and so being cursed instead of blessed.
    The CHOICE is NOT a choice to GAIN life, which was missing or which they did not have, which is what your CONFUSED claim about what this passage CLEARLY states in CONTEXT.
    I don't need any reference to the New Testament or NT theology to note that this is what the OT is stating, even though Paul does indeed reiterate this point that the Law did NOT bring life, and in fact was POWERLESS to do so - perhaps you should read Romans 8 again for the NT view of Paul - which is what his thread is about.

    My theology isn't even slightly confusing.
    It notes that blessing is a gift of God and which is received by faith, but that there is then a requirement to live according to the Law of God - which BOTH Jesus and Paul teach.
    There is NO OTHER WAY EVER in the entirety of scripture to receive LIFE except through the gift of God, and paid for through the blood of Jesus. The LAW could NEVER give life and to claim otherwise is to DENY the central statements of Christian faith and to nullify the need for His atoning sacrifice.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    You said "It says what it says". However you then IGNORE what it says and instead are the one who INSERTS your own view of theology.
    It is VERY SIMPLE - Moses requests the Israelites 40 years AFTER they were given the Law, and when they are about to enter the Promised Land and to enjoy the blessings of entering in to make a SIMPLE decision.
    Choose life through keeping the Law and so RETAINING the blessings promised and now being given OR choose death by not keeping the Law and so being cursed instead of blessed.
    The CHOICE is NOT a choice to GAIN life, which was missing or which they did not have, which is what your CONFUSED claim about what this passage CLEARLY states in CONTEXT.
    I don't need any reference to the New Testament or NT theology to note that this is what the OT is stating, even though Paul does indeed reiterate this point that the Law did NOT bring life, and in fact was POWERLESS to do so - perhaps you should read Romans 8 again for the NT view of Paul - which is what his thread is about.
    You tell me that you don't need Paul or the NT to make your point, and then you proceed to reference Paul and the NT? You are not accurately portraying my view, as I stated. It is, at least, misleading. I'm not sure what you mean when you say I believe Israel was to "gain life?"

    And you say that Israel, at the end of their wilderness journey, are invited to make a decision? I'm not sure you realize they had been making that same decision all along the way?

    At any rate, I will again state my position myself, so that you don't confuse it. I believe that Israel was placed under the Law of Moses as a way to remain in covenant relationship with God.

    The observance required was not just external observance of the Law, but more, internal, spiritual observance of the Law. True fidelity to the Law, from the heart, brought about a spiritual relationship between God and the worshiper, since observing God's word accessed the spiritual virtue within it.

    Thus, from the very start of keeping the Law, Israel was making a decision either for or against the Law. They could reject the Law either by disobeying it or by keeping the Law externally, but not from the heart. In both cases, spiritual life would not result.

    This "life" I speak of consisted of spiritual virtue, as well as God's blessings upon Israel's material existence. As well, such a relationship provided material assurance of the hope for eternal life.

    Whatever you think Israel was to "gain" in the future from this adherence to the Law, I never said it was strictly something to be gained in the future. On the contrary, God's virtue was in His word, which was immediately available to those who chose to obey His commandments from the heart.

    Not only did this spiritual virtue enable a spiritual relationship between God and the worshiper, but there was also assurance that material blessings would follow, along with ultimate physical redemption.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    My theology isn't even slightly confusing.
    It notes that blessing is a gift of God and which is received by faith, but that there is then a requirement to live according to the Law of God - which BOTH Jesus and Paul teach.
    There is NO OTHER WAY EVER in the entirety of scripture to receive LIFE except through the gift of God, and paid for through the blood of Jesus. The LAW could NEVER give life and to claim otherwise is to DENY the central statements of Christian faith and to nullify the need for His atoning sacrifice.
    Then you don't believe the Scriptures.

    Psalm 119.1 Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord. 2 Blessed are those who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart....


    In other words, Israel was blessed immediately upon keeping the Law from the heart. They were blessed with the virtue to keep the Law. And they were blessed with the spirituality in which that virtue resided.

    And so, Israel was blessed *spiritually* in their covenant relationship with God, as they were faithful to keep His word. This spiritual blessing resulted in material blessings, as well as give substantial evidence of the hope for Eternal Life.

    When you say that obedience to the Law did not bring "life," you are referring, apparently, to something other than what the Scriptures explicitly say about adherence to the Law. It did, in fact, give life. Saying otherwise is contrary to the Scriptures.

    It's due to this conflict in your reasoning that I believe you enter into the argument snippets from Paul's NT theology, which you misrepresent in the context of the Law and its obedience. I've tried to explain, but you're apparently not interested. We agree to disagree.

  11. #26

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    One thing that really doesn't help the Apostle Paul is the Church quoting of him. I remember listening to Doctor David Jeremiah speaking of Ephesians 2:8-9, asking why do Christian stop there; cause leaving out verse 10, does make it sound like Paul is speaking of just sinning willfully because we are saved by grace, which he never once taught.
    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.
    10) For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
    Ephesians 2:8-10
    Yes Paul does state their is no good work we can produce of ourselves for our salvation. But because we are saved by the Blood of Jesus, the Holy Spirit will produce His works/fruit(s) in the true Believer, this is why we are told that a true Christian will be know by their fruit, Matthew 7:16-20; Hebrews 6:7-8.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1023EJS View Post
    One thing that really doesn't help the Apostle Paul is the Church quoting of him. I remember listening to Doctor David Jeremiah speaking of Ephesians 2:8-9, asking why do Christian stop there; cause leaving out verse 10, does make it sound like Paul is speaking of just sinning willfully because we are saved by grace, which he never once taught.
    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.
    10) For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
    Ephesians 2:8-10
    Yes Paul does state their is no good work we can produce of ourselves for our salvation. But because we are saved by the Blood of Jesus, the Holy Spirit will produce His works/fruit(s) in the true Believer, this is why we are told that a true Christian will be know by their fruit, Matthew 7:16-20; Hebrews 6:7-8.
    Yes brother, that is my whole point. We are to *do good works.* We are to choose to obey God's word, or law, in order to receive His life.

    This was true in both the OT and the NT. The only difference was that in the OT Christ had yet to provide eternal redemption. At that time, Israel could only engage in redemption rituals, which God accepted for the meantime until Christ actually came and completed the work.

    The work men have been invited to participate in is God's Law--not speaking of the Law of Moses, but rather, of the universal, eternal Law of God for man. The Law of Moses was only a temporary form of this Law.

    And so, in committing to the Law of God Man could participate in the Word of God, which contains God's virtue. As such, we choose to participate in God's Spirit and in His virtue when we choose to obey God's Law. We become partners with God in obeying His Word so that we choose to engage in virtue which belongs to God. We only obtain that virtue by choosing to participate in it through obedience.

    The concern some Christians have is that in saying we can obey God's Law and do good works we steal God's virtue from Him and claim to be able to do it by ourselves, without the help of God. But God's Law never aimed to enable men to do good apart from God.

    Rather, it was the way in which men could access His virtue, by choosing to participate in His word. God's virtue was in His word, accessible by man's choice to obey it from the heart.

    In choosing to obey it the hearts of men were changed, and became spiritual. They could not redeem themselves, but they could actively receive that redemption after Christ had come and provided forgiveness for sin.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,209
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1023EJS View Post
    One thing that really doesn't help the Apostle Paul is the Church quoting of him. I remember listening to Doctor David Jeremiah speaking of Ephesians 2:8-9, asking why do Christian stop there; cause leaving out verse 10, does make it sound like Paul is speaking of just sinning willfully because we are saved by grace, which he never once taught.
    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.
    10) For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
    Ephesians 2:8-10
    Yes Paul does state their is no good work we can produce of ourselves for our salvation. But because we are saved by the Blood of Jesus, the Holy Spirit will produce His works/fruit(s) in the true Believer, this is why we are told that a true Christian will be know by their fruit, Matthew 7:16-20; Hebrews 6:7-8.
    How very true thanks

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You tell me that you don't need Paul or the NT to make your point, and then you proceed to reference Paul and the NT? You are not accurately portraying my view, as I stated. It is, at least, misleading. I'm not sure what you mean when you say I believe Israel was to "gain life?"
    Actually I made my point based solely on the OT, and then noted that Paul also states the same thing.

    And you say that Israel, at the end of their wilderness journey, are invited to make a decision? I'm not sure you realize they had been making that same decision all along the way?
    At any rate, I will again state my position myself, so that you don't confuse it. I believe that Israel was placed under the Law of Moses as a way to remain in covenant relationship with God.
    The observance required was not just external observance of the Law, but more, internal, spiritual observance of the Law. True fidelity to the Law, from the heart, brought about a spiritual relationship between God and the worshiper, since observing God's word accessed the spiritual virtue within it.
    Thus, from the very start of keeping the Law, Israel was making a decision either for or against the Law. They could reject the Law either by disobeying it or by keeping the Law externally, but not from the heart. In both cases, spiritual life would not result.
    This "life" I speak of consisted of spiritual virtue, as well as God's blessings upon Israel's material existence. As well, such a relationship provided material assurance of the hope for eternal life.
    Whatever you think Israel was to "gain" in the future from this adherence to the Law, I never said it was strictly something to be gained in the future. On the contrary, God's virtue was in His word, which was immediately available to those who chose to obey His commandments from the heart.
    Not only did this spiritual virtue enable a spiritual relationship between God and the worshiper, but there was also assurance that material blessings would follow, along with ultimate physical redemption.
    RETAINING life, that is remaining in the covenant for blessing is NOT the SAME as GAINING life.
    You had earlier argued that the Law GIVES life, that by keeping it one can GAIN life. Now you are arguing something more akin to what I stated, and yet to which you had objected.

    Let me put it again in simple terms -
    The Law NEVER could give life.
    The Law TELLS us HOW to live life.

    This is a simple TRUTH and not a single scripture says otherwise.

    When you accept that Law does NOT GIVE life, but only is about LIVING the life we are given, THEN you can move on from the OT expression of the Law as given through Moses, to the NT expression as given through Jesus, which is at heart the SAME, for Jesus quoted the OT Law - Love God and love your neighbour being the summation of the OT Law, as accepted by the Teacher's of the Law in the time of Jesus, and which you express as the Law of Christ.
    This means the Law remains, and Paul also supports this TRUTH that the Law remains. Moreover that the Law is good and holy and righteous.
    Where people err is in first claiming that by keeping the Law you can GAIN life, and that this was the mechanism before Jesus. Secondly by claiming that the Law is no longer operating or of value.
    It is against the Law that we are judged, and it is through the sacrifice of Jesus that our obligations according to the Law are met - hallelujah!

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Was Paul a false prophet?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually I made my point based solely on the OT, and then noted that Paul also states the same thing.


    RETAINING life, that is remaining in the covenant for blessing is NOT the SAME as GAINING life.
    You had earlier argued that the Law GIVES life, that by keeping it one can GAIN life. Now you are arguing something more akin to what I stated, and yet to which you had objected.

    Let me put it again in simple terms -
    The Law NEVER could give life.
    The Law TELLS us HOW to live life.

    This is a simple TRUTH and not a single scripture says otherwise.

    When you accept that Law does NOT GIVE life, but only is about LIVING the life we are given, THEN you can move on from the OT expression of the Law as given through Moses, to the NT expression as given through Jesus, which is at heart the SAME, for Jesus quoted the OT Law - Love God and love your neighbour being the summation of the OT Law, as accepted by the Teacher's of the Law in the time of Jesus, and which you express as the Law of Christ.
    This means the Law remains, and Paul also supports this TRUTH that the Law remains. Moreover that the Law is good and holy and righteous.
    Where people err is in first claiming that by keeping the Law you can GAIN life, and that this was the mechanism before Jesus. Secondly by claiming that the Law is no longer operating or of value.
    It is against the Law that we are judged, and it is through the sacrifice of Jesus that our obligations according to the Law are met - hallelujah!
    This is a bit convoluted, because we seem to be partly battling over semantics, but let me see if I can unravel it.

    1) I do *not* accept that Jesus' statements about loving God and loving our neighbor is the "Law of Christ" in the NT sense. He was still speaking under the Law. Rather, for me the "Law of Christ" is the NT principle of living by Christ alone, by Faith alone, instead of by outdated rituals of the Law, now completed in Christ.

    When he summarized the Law in two commandments he was not yet, at that time, removing the obligation of keeping the *entire Law!* Rather, he was only *summarizing* the entire Law, not yet revoking all 613 requirements.

    2) I do see a uniformity in the eternal Law of God for Man in the sense that the OT Law was purely a transitory form of that Law. The Law of Moses was a temporal form of the eternal Law of God, only dealing with the need for Israel's forgiveness in a somewhat superficial way.

    The Law of Moses added to the eternal Law of God certain requirements in order to preserve Israel in a covenant relationship with Himself until Christ came and won eternal redemption for them. At that point there was no longer any need for temporary rituals of redemption. All that remained was the eternal Law of God.

    The purpose of this covenant of Law was to show the world a necessary connection between doing good works and repentance from evil works. Sins that are not repented of break a relationship between God and Man. And God wanted to show the world the undesirability of this. The temporary rituals of the Law showed this until Christ came.

    3) It isn't accurate to make the distinctions you claim about my position on the matter of the Law "giving life." I've been completely consistent on the point that obeying the Law gave Israel life, both in the present and in the future sense. It also gave to Israel the hope of Eternal Life.

    It seems we agree on at least some of this, that the Law of God in some sense is eternally valid, and that doing that Law imparts present virtues. But in my view, you conflate the Law of Moses with the eternal Law of God.

    And I simply have to separate these two clearly, to avoid their being conflated. The Law of Moses consisted of burdensome laws that were temporary, intended to relieve Israel of guilt only on a temporary basis. But the Law of Christ has been intended to permanently lift those burdensome laws by completely eliminating them.

    Certainly there are laws in common between the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses. But in my view these are two distinct covenants, and should not be confused.

    4) Your distinction between "retaining life" and "gaining life" is and has not been a part of my argument. This is a distinction in your mind.

    In my view, the life God gives in response to Israel's obedience is both immediate and ongoing. What exist immediately are the spiritual life and material blessing God gives in the present in response to Israel's obedience. What God gives in the future is a continuation of the same, along with the hope of Eternal Life. I have not changed my position on this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. False Christ or false prophet?
    By Old man in forum Test Posts
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Jul 22nd 2014, 12:50 AM
  2. False Christ or false prophet?
    By Old man in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Jul 10th 2014, 04:04 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •