Posted on 11/30/2006 6:10:14 AM PST by cowboyfan88
FACT NO. 1—That the Bible MUST be rightly divided in order for it to make sense. Notice what it says: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING the Word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15). This is one of the cardinal rules for interpreting the whole Bible. Neglect of this rule or a faulty use of it will lead to only one result, CONFUSION, since our God is not the author of confusion.
The reason for a right division of the Bible is because of God's two distinct purposes: (1) His purpose concerning Israel and the world according to PROPHECY, and (2) His purpose concerning the Gentiles in this present age according to the MYSTERY revealed to Paul. God doesn't want us to confuse the teaching of these two purposes. He has very graciously given us the key for a proper understanding of this.
FACT NO. 2—That the DISTINCTIVENESS of Pauline truth is a most important doctrine of the Bible. The risen Lord Jesus Christ revealed His heart and His mind to the Apostle Paul: "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it but by THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST" (Gal. 1:11,12). "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward; how that BY REVELATION He made known unto me the MYSTERY..." (Eph. 3:2,3).
This proves conclusively that Paul did not preach what the 12 Apostles preached. Rather he went up to Jerusalem to TELL THEM of the special gospel of grace that Christ gave to him (Gal. 2:2). He preached Jesus Christ according to the REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY which was kept secret, hid in God (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:9). He was the Apostle to the Gentiles and magnified his office (Rom. 11:13).
FACT NO. 3—That the gospel we are to preach is called the Gospel of the grace of God. "But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD" (Acts 20:24). This is God's only message for the lost in this present age. We are to follow Paul as he followed Christ (I Cor. 11:1). In his writings ALONE do we find the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny of the Christian.
Some other important aspects of grace are:
1. We are saved by GRACE—Eph. 2:8,9.
2. We are justified freely by His GRACE—Rom. 3:24; Titus 3:7.
3. His GRACE is sufficient for us—II Cor. 12:9.
4. We are not under Law but under GRACE—Rom. 6:14,15.
5. This age is the age of GRACE —Eph. 3:2.
6. We are to approach the throne of GRACE in prayer—Heb. 4:16.
FACT NO. 4—That the Bible definitely teaches that water baptism was and is a part of Israel's religion (Heb. 6:1,2; 9:10). It was for the remission of sins and was by sprinkling (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; Ezek. 36:25).
In this age there is only ONE baptism, not two: "One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM" (Eph. 4:5). This baptism is the placing of the Christian into the Church, the Body of Christ, by the Holy Spirit: "For by one SPIRIT are we all BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (I Cor. 12:13). This baptism takes place once for all at the time of salvation.
The Apostle Paul was not sent to baptize with water: "For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE but to preach the gospel..." (I Cor. 1:17). Only a change in God's purpose would necessitate a statement like this. There is no importance attached to water baptism, today. It is not a part of Christianity and only causes confusion.
FACT NO. 5—That we must understand the two-fold ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. During His earthly ministry He ministered exclusively to Israel: "But He answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL" (Matt. 15:24). His whole ministry to the Nation was under the Law of Moses (Matt. 5:17; Gal. 4:4,5). Christians are not under the Law so we are not to live according to Israel's teachings.
During His present ministry in Heaven, He is ministering according to what He revealed to the Apostle Paul. He is saving men according to His gospel of Grace. He is at the throne of grace making intercession for us (Rom. 8:34). We are to live in Paul's epistles where pure Christianity is found. This is not to say we should neglect the rest of the Bible. It is ALL for us but not all TO us (I Cor. 10:6,11).
FACT NO. 6—That SIGNS belong to the Nation of Israel and its religion: "For the JEWS REQUIRE A SIGN, and the Gentiles seek after wisdom" (I Cor. 1:22). Speaking in tongues is a SIGN: "Wherefore TONGUES are for a SIGN, not to them that believe but to them that believe not..." (I Cor. 14:22).
In Jesus' day, those who sought after signs were called an evil and adulterous generation (Matt. 12:39). The eight miracles of the Gospel of John are properly called SIGNS, which included the rising of Lazarus from the dead; and in the commission of Mark 16:15-18, water baptism is associated with SIGNS. This is proved in the book of Acts because everywhere water baptism is mentioned a SIGN is mentioned in the immediate context.
This present age is a signless age. We have been blessed with all SPIRITUAL blessings in the heavenlies in Christ (Eph. 1:3). This is where the emphasis lies for the Christian.
FACT NO. 7—That the COMMISSION the Church, the Body of Christ, is to work under, is found in II Corinthians 5:14-21 and Ephesians 3:9. The Kingdom commission of Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-18 does not belong to God's present grace purpose. The message of reconciliation has been committed to US, the Body of Christ.
RESULTS:
1. The Christian would begin to perceive and grasp the deep things of God (I Cor. 2:10-12).
2. There would be a wonderful growth into spiritual maturity and adulthood (Eph. 4:12-15).
3. He would become a faithful steward of the mysteries of God (I Cor. 2:7; 4:1,2).
4. He would possess the Biblical answer to Satan's false cults like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Unitarians, Modernists, etc. They all borrow some aspects of Israel's religion.
5. A mighty revival would take place if Christians would get back to Pauline truth.
My friend, if you are not saved, the grace of God invites you to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour. You are a sinner and need to be saved (Rom. 3:23). "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..." (Acts 16:31). "...now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation" (II Cor. 6:2). It is infinitely better to receive Him and spend eternity in Heaven than to reject Him and spend eternity in the Lake of Fire!
So many errors, so little time.
29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.
Acts 16
I don't trust any exegesis that features words in all-caps.
While that does lead me to view this suspiciously, what really bothers me is plain old twisting of Scripture.
ALLCAP LOL!
Evidently, the word "fact" has been redefined to mean "theological hypothesis". ;)
It's been my experience that twisting of scripture isn't always accompanied by all-cap text, all-cap text is almost always a sign that twisted scripture is somewhere nearby.
It's been my experience that twisting of scripture isn't always accompanied by all-cap text, all-cap text is almost always a sign that twisted scripture is somewhere nearby.
Already those who cannot see the distinction between the "Gospel of Circumcision" and the "Gospel of Uncircumcision" are crawling out of the woodwork to attack you.
But that is what we have to deal with here on FR.
No one is looking to attack the person, at least not those I have seen so far. If there are two gospels, as you are claiming, then God is the author of confusion, since the Apostles clearly state that God is no respecter of persons regarding salvation.
Well, here it is.
Gal 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;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal 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.
And lets not forget that James and the Jerusalem church were still offering sacrifices in the temple and requiring circumcision when Paul made his last trip there.
James himself talked Paul into going to the temple to offr sacrifices for men with vows on their heads.
So did you just miss verses 14-16?
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
There is no indication that the entire Jerusalem church was offering sacrifices in the temple or requiring circumcision. There were some who were pushing these things, but it was not all of the church in Jerusalem.
Also, Paul does not say there are two gospels here in Galatians. He is saying that taking the Gospel to the uncircumcised was committed to him, and that taking the Gospel to the circumcised was committed to Peter.
***There is no indication that the entire Jerusalem church was offering sacrifices in the temple or requiring circumcision.***
Act 21:18 And the [day] following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
......
Act 21:20 And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs.
Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
So, who gave these orders? James and the elders of the Jerusalem church.
***COLORED font is also RECOMMENDED.***
It works but then you have to deal with all that HTML crap or it all runs together. Caps are easier for me.
Well, that was interesting...and WRONG!
and a bit unorthodox...
I am not denying that James and the leaders of the church in Jerusalem told Paul to do that. My point is that not everyone in the church in Jerusalem believed that the law was binding, and even if they did, it was shown to not be the case.
*** My point is that not everyone in the church in Jerusalem believed that the law was binding,***
Where is that in scripture that some from Jerusalem did not do these things? If they were Jewish they had to do them. Remember, this order came from JAMES and the ELDERS, the rulers of the Jerusalem church.
Paul even circumcised Timmothy (1/2 Jew) and Peter, at Antioch, in fear separated himself from the Gentile believers when Jewish Christians came from James.
Examine Scripture and you will see that the church was not monolithic in what they did.
***I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,***
Some here insist baptism saves. Is Paul saying that he thanks God he saved none except Crispus and Gaius?
***and a bit unorthodox...***
Where? they are Trinitarian in doctrine.
Why don't you ask them?
Because he doesn't like the answer.
I didn't bother reading it. Is believing the earth was created in six days approximately six thousand years ago one of the "truths"?
***Because he doesn't like the answer.***
If this is in reference to post #24, then I will ask the question I always ask.
If Baptism saves, are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses saved as they believe THE SAME DOCTRINE on baptism as you do.
If not, why not.
From a Catholic POV, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe the same doctrine we do; for starters, I think they both deny original sin. The Mormons certainly do.
But an even bigger catch is that they both deny the Trinity, so as far as we're concerned, what they do isn't Christian baptism at all.
You seem to be trying to start an argument about a position I don't hold. Fortunately, a Catholic's taken issue with what you've said, so now you can have your fun.
I have answered this before, and you keep bringing it up. You are not interested in having a genuine discussion. You only wish to keep throwing out accusations and seeing what sticks.
***You seem to be trying to start an argument about a position I don't hold. Fortunately, a Catholic's taken issue with what you've said, so now you can have your fun.***
I find it interesting you are on my case. My Geneva bible makes it clear we are not saved by water baptism. It even has a prayer in the back "against the papists and anabaptists.
So-was Calvin wrong in these notes?
***From a Catholic POV, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe the same doctrine we do;***
I agree with you on all this. I know that the when a protestant converts to the Catholic faith their baptism in that protestant faith, such as Baptist, or Methodist and Presbyterian is accepted by the Catholic church. Mormon and JW baptism is not.
What I am trying to show is ther are certain church groups that will not accept any protestant or Catholic baptism but you must be re-baptized in their own particular church with the proper mindset, by immersion only after you have run down the proper checklist of things you have to do. The followers of the doctrine of Alexander Campbell come immediatly to mind, although there are some others.
Once again, you are misrepresenting the beliefs of members of churches of Christ. We do not follow Alexander Campbell, we follow Christ. And I know of no member of the church of Christ that claims a church of Christ member has to baptize someone for it to be valid.
***How so?***
Calvin and Beza's notes.
Isn't it interesting that all those who translated the KJV used the geneva Bible and were believers in sprinkling, not immersion.( I can't think of any anabaptists on the translating committie but I might be wrong.)
The KJV is the bible of Alex Campbell used.
Would you say that he used a bible translated by what you would term UNSAVED men?
*** And I know of no member of the church of Christ that claims a church of Christ member has to baptize someone for it to be valid.***
Then is Baptist immersion valid for one to be a menber of the C of C?
Baptist baptism is not Biblical baptism. The baptism is done for the wrong purpose. The person who does the baptizing does not matter. However, the reasons for being baptized are important, since they are specified in Scripture.
***Once again, you are misrepresenting the beliefs of members of churches of Christ. We do not follow Alexander Campbell, we follow Christ. ***
Then from the time of the Apostles, was there anyone saved before Campbell, Stone and Walter Scott came along? About the only people immersing were Baptists and it was "to follow Christ". Every one else sprinkled.
Those who follow the teachings of Scripture and believed the Word of God, repented of their sins, confessed that Christ was the Son of God, and were baptized for the remission of their sins are saved.
Also, since you have no way of knowing how everyone in history has believed, then you have no way of knowing who did and did not immerse throughout history.
***Baptist baptism is not Biblical baptism. The baptism is done for the wrong purpose.****
And how do you know the mindset of the person getting wet? Can it change from moment to moment? Do you have some type of litmus test to see if they are saved or not?
***The person who does the baptizing does not matter.***
It does to the person doing the baptizing. If a person doing the baptizing is a Mormon he will list the person baptized as a Mormon. Same for Baptist and Pentecostals. Would you want your name on a "cult" church's membership role if you were baptized by such a person?
Was ANYONE in the New Testament ever baptized by and unbeliever?
***I have answered this before, and you keep bringing it up.***
I keep bringing it up because you keep insisting it must be done your way.
Here are your words.
***Baptist baptism is not Biblical baptism. The baptism is done for the wrong purpose.***
I am not insisting on my way. I am insisting on the Bible way.
***I am not insisting on my way. I am insisting on the Bible way.***
And which Bible way is correct? We have four C of C churches here and they don't associate with each other very much.
The Christian Church has instrumental music.
The Cof C #1 has a Sunday school.
C of C #2 demands no Sunday School.
C of C #3 has one cup communion and will not meet with the others.
And of course, and they all refuse to meet with the non CofC churches. Guess which church refrains from being a part of the local ministerial alliance?
Oh I haven't mentioned the Diciples of Christ yet have I. But it is in another town.
But that is just C of C churches. I could point out a few other non C of C churches that do the same, just so you won't think I am picking on you.
Each church of Christ is autonomous, as in the New Testament. I am not a member of any group you are labeling as C of C.
*** I am not a member of any group you are labeling as C of C.***
You ain't one of them snake handlers is you!:-0
Just joking.
My point was that you are grouping together denominations with the church of Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.