Who then can be saved?

[fhansen]

One either believes Jesus or one doesn't.

Yes, it's not Him I have any problem with.

The Spirit himself testfies with our spirit that we are God's children."
And you say that you likewise have this testimony.
With the Spirit's testimony comes the power to believe it.

That's why I believe all that He says, including the warnings and admonishments, etc, including the fact that it's possible to walk away, to fail to remain in Him, born out by how we actually live our lives.

Any faith that one walks away from was counerfeit.
True faith transforms and keeps one from walking away, counterfeit faith does not.

Nope, faith is faith. And God will always seek to draw us to Himself, and keep us near. But your will remains involved from beginning to end, and, in the end, He'll tell you with final certainty, how you did with what you were given. And, again, if you've done well with it and He says "Well done my good and faithful servant", that means that you've loved well during your life, you've been sanctified with His grace and your participation in and with it, You've accepted and invested and expressed the gifts given you.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, it's not Him I have any problem with.

That's why I believe all that He says, including the warnings and admonishments, etc, including the fact that it's possible to walk away, to fail to remain in Him, born out by how we actually live our lives.

Nope, faith is faith.

The demons believe in God.

So we have the faith of demons, and the gift of faith (Php 1:29, 2 Pe 1;1, Ac 13:48, 18:27, Ro 12:3) from the Holy Spirit.

I'm thinkin' Paul doesn't agree with "faith is faith."

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

We sin because the earth is still fallen and we are still surrounded by sin. Justification only addresses the penalty of sin. Sanctification addresses the power of sin. That is what the Holy Spirit helps us with. Sanctification is when we become conformed to the image of Christ. It is a never-ending process because until we are no longer in the presence of sin, it still has power over us, but we are not slaves to it.

Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin." (Jn 8:34).​

You are re-defining slaves to suit the context, as I said before. You want slaves to mean that slaves of sin have no way to choose righteousness on one hand, but you do not want slaves to mean that slaves of righteousness have no way to choose sin or that "whoever sins is a slave of sin". You can't have it both ways. Ironically, your case would be stronger if you just let slave mean slave. But then you would have to give up on the idea of Progressive Sanctification...

Salvation is focused on sin. When the angel came to Mary he told her to “call [the baby’s] name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins”. And there are different parts of salvation to deal with the different aspects of sin.

Justification deals with the penalty of sin. When you are justified, the penalty of sin is wiped away.
Sanctification deals with the power of sin. The Holy Spirit helps conform you to the image of Christ, helping to mitigate the power sin holds over you.
Glorification deals with the presence of sin. Without the presence of sin, you will not be tempted to sin.

Hint:

...those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness." (Ro 8:8–10 NASB 1995)​

 

[A New Dawn]

Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin." (Jn 8:34).​

You are re-defining slaves to suit the context, as I said before. You want slaves to mean that slaves of sin have no way to choose righteousness on one hand, but you do not want slaves to mean that slaves of righteousness have no way to choose sin or that "whoever sins is a slave of sin". You can't have it both ways. Ironically, your case would be stronger if you just let slave mean slave. But then you would have to give up on the idea of Progressive Sanctification...

Hint:

...those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness." (Ro 8:8–10 NASB 1995)​

You do know that the Holy Spirit wasn’t given till after Pentecost, right? Jesus was talking in that verse (John 8:34) to people before He died, which was before the day of Pentecost. So, yes, at that time, people were slaves to sin because they had not received the gift and power of the Holy Spirit to guide and change us.

Thanks for the “hint”, but in Romans, we believers are not in the flesh because we have been redeemed and have the Holy Spirit to guide us and work on us to help us conform to the image of the Son. Also, I don’t know if you noticed that in the Romans 6 scripture I quoted in the my previous post, Paul was speaking in the past tense. Before they were saved/regenerated, they were slaves to sin.

Do you not understand the difference between unbelievers and believers? Or the difference between the pre-fallen world and the post-fallen world? Perhaps you should take a Bible study class and learn these things before posting here because you seem to not know anything about what the Bible teaches. It feels like you are making it up as you go.

 

[Dan1988]

Um ..yes, That's what it means to be connected to the Vine.

Luke 12:48 isn't the parable of the talents. That would be in Matt 25. Luke 12:48 just says that some are given more and some are given less and from those given more, more will be demanded. The parable of the talents follows along that same line, and demonstrates that those who bury or otherwise refuse to "invest" what they've been given will be booted from the kingdom.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion that someone can be "booted out of the kingdom", but I can assure you that it's not true. If it were true then God would be a liar.

You will not find a single verse in the Bible to support this notion that salvation can be lost. That idea was invented by Jacob Arminius, his version of the gospel is the man centred "saved by works", legalism. But, the God centred "saved by grace" gospel, is not dependant on your ability to keep the law.

So, you obviously believe that a saved person can lose his salvation and get booted out of the kingdom and that is true if you hold to the man centred gospel. Man is not infallible, so he is bound to fail.

 

[Dan1988]

You're being vague again, whole trying to sound profound apparently. It means nothing to say that Jesus is the truth unless one has some specifics about what that means, Who He is and what demands that places on us.

Jesus doesn't place any demands on anyone, He knows better than that. He knows that our hearts are wicked above all things, He knows that we can't stop sinning, He knows we will fail to meet "His demands" every single day.

So why would Jesus set Himself up to be disappointed every single day with every single believer. I haven't found a single verse in the Bible to support this notion that Jesus places demands on anyone.

I don't need to keep the law, because Jesus kept it on my behalf and He imputed His righteousness onto me. I don't need to be sinless, because Jesus became sin for me and all my sin was imputed to Him. I don't need to pay the penalty foe any of my past, present or future sins, because Jesus paid for all of my past, present and future sins.

We hold to radically opposed versions of the gospel, I haven't found a single verse in the Bible to support the "saved by works" version of the gospel.

 

[Dan1988]

Are you saying Jesus tells us to do things that can't be done? Is it impossible to remain in Him? And for what reason would He use the term "if" unless it were also possible for us to fail to remain in Him?

And all you're doing here is changing your tack anyway after obviously being wrong in the posts we're referencing.

Again, you fail to understand what the simple word "if" means. Again "if" is not a command. You keep confusing the covenant of grace, with the covenant of the law. Jesus never commanded, or demanded, or insisted, or set any conditions, or any laws, nor did He require anyone to do anything in order to be saved.

I have asked you many times o show me a single verse in the Bible, where Jesus did any of the above and all you could do is refer to the unrelated "if" verses. Why don't we find "if" in any of the commandments???...

According to your version of the gospel the 10 commandments should have been written in the following format. Can you see why your version of the gospel doesn't make any sense.

1. If I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods before me.
2. If You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
3. If You Remember to keep holy the LORD’s Day.
4. If You Honor your father and mother.
5. If You shall not kill.
6. If You shall not commit adultery.
7. If You shall not steal.
8. If You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. If You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10. If You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

 

[Dan1988]

You were not quoting Scripture. You said that if I didn't agree with your point of view it was because I have no ability to see the truth because I am lost.

I forgive you. It is easy to forgive this little thing because it is nothing compared to what I have been forgiven of. But I point out your judgementalism because I know from experience that we are measured by the same measure we use...

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." (Mt 7:1–2)​

That's not true, I never said you were lost if you don't agree with me. I may have said that, those who don't agree with what God has said are lost.
If I made a statement based on my feeling and private unbiblical view and you corrected me, I would be thankful to you.

God commands His children to judge each other, our goal is to help someone to stop sinful behaviour and grow in holiness, not to shame or expel them. from the Church.

Proverbs 9:9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

Matthew 7:24 tells us that Jesus’ words, “Judge not, that you be not judged,” cannot mean that all of our judgments are wrong. Instead, Jesus wants us not to make wrong judgments. Let us not apply standards to others that we do not apply to ourselves.

 

[Dan1988]

Arminius was just a guy who realized that the will of man plays some role in his salvation, and continues to do so throughout his life, and that what man does in his life matters, as James, for one, affirms in chapter 2 of his letter. And that realization is nothing more or less what Christians have always known and believed before Arminius.

He's simply giving us criteria for gaining eternal life. And that's pretty hard to do if we're not forgiven, for one thing. If you want to understand what these things mean, it all boils down to the same thing: you must love-the greatest commandments are still the rule, IOW.

Love obeys and love forgives and love does for "the least of these", etc. Love is what makes us holy as we're also commanded to be. And, again, that kind of love is impossible unless we're first engrafted into the Vine. Love is the primary "something" that we can't do apart from Him.

Arminius was just the guy who put the cart before the horse. Arminianism teaches that you are saved by works, but I don't find that taught anywhere in the Bible.

I don't do good works to be saved, because I'm already saved so I don't need to earn something I already have.

Gods Word confirms this truth in Philippians 2:13, which states: "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure".

According to Arminianism, the above verse is an error. If it is true that God both works in you to both will and do, then where does your effort to do good works, in order to win God's favour and cause Him to save you, fit into the narrative.

You won't find a single verse in the Bible to support this idea that God ever gave anyone "criteria for gaining eternal life". If He ever did such a thing, then it would destroy the entire gospel.

Why on earth would God ever give dead men, criteria for gaining life. It sounds silly to suggest that God asks dead men to make themselves alive. That's assuming you believe what God said about mankind, in

Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins". This was spoken to born again believers, but all of mankind, from Adam onward was born dead in sin.

I assume you know what 'dead in sin" means in the Bible. It's obviously not talking about bodily death, so it must be referring to spiritually dead people. Adam was not born spiritually dead but he did die (spiritually) on the day he sinned, and the rest of humanity inherited his dead sin nature.

If Arminius was right, then God is wrong to say we are born dead in sin. If a man who is born dead in sin, can chose to repent and fabricate faith within himself, and quicken himself to life and change his sin nature and give himself a holy nature.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

You do know that the Holy Spirit wasn’t given till after Pentecost, right? Jesus was talking in that verse (John 8:34) to people before He died, which was before the day of Pentecost. So, yes, at that time, people were slaves to sin because they had not received the gift and power of the Holy Spirit to guide and change us.

You have been dancing around the issue that I raised. You have a need to change the definition of slave depending on the circumstance. You like its meaning when it is applied to lost people. But you need to change its meaning when applying it to saved people. And here you are trying to create some kind of distinction between what makes a person a slave of sin based on whether he lived before or after pentecost. That distinction is invalid because sinning still makes people slaves to sin. Yet, even if you were right on that point, you would still have a problem with Romans 6:18 which says we have become "slaves of righteousness" and Romans 6:22 which says we have become "slaves of God". Your definition of slave changes in these verses because you allow for unrighteousness and ungodliness for slaves of righteousness who are also slaves of God. And I bring this up, not to criticise, but to get you to thinking about the inconsistency and what might clear it up.

Thanks for the “hint”, but in Romans, we believers are not in the flesh because we have been redeemed and have the Holy Spirit

so far, so good.

to guide us

While it is true that He guides us, what you have not stated is that the Holy Siprit coming into our hearts makes us a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). He separates us and removes us from the flesh (Ro 10:9), joins us with Christ (1 Cor 6:17), and makes us one Spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17). This new creature (the new man) is "created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:24).

and work on us to help us conform to the image of the Son.

The fact that we are a new creation, separated and removed from the flesh, joined with Christ, and are one spirit with Him is what makes us sanctified. We are have been culled out from among the lost, cleaned up, and set aside for His service. And this thing that He did for us happens in the heart. We are not in the flesh but in the Spirit because He He separated us from Sin and Joined us to Christ. That is our sanctification.

Also, I don’t know if you noticed that in the Romans 6 scripture I quoted in the my previous post, Paul was speaking in the past tense. Before they were saved/regenerated, they were slaves to sin.

Please address why you need the definition of slave to change when we talk about being slaves of God (see comments above).

Do you not understand the difference between unbelievers and believers? Or the difference between the pre-fallen world and the post-fallen world? Perhaps you should take a Bible study class and learn these things before posting here because you seem to not know anything about what the Bible teaches. It feels like you are making it up as you go.

I'm trying to help you understand that the flesh is corrupt and cannot be reformed but the redeemed spirit is "truly righteous and holy" and connot be corrupted. Not knowing these things is why you change the definition of slave to fit the context and is a big reason why you think sanctification is progressive. I know this is a big bite of spiritual food to offer you. Maybe you could just start by investigating why you need to run away from Jesus' statement that whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

 

[A New Dawn]

You have been dancing around the issue that I raised. You have a need to change the definition of slave depending on the circumstance. You like its meaning when it is applied to lost people. But you need to change its meaning when applying it to saved people. And here you are trying to create some kind of distinction between what makes a person a slave of sin based on whether he lived before or after pentecost. That distinction is invalid because sinning still makes people slaves to sin. Yet, even if you were right on that point, you would still have a problem with Romans 6:18 which says we have become "slaves of righteousness" and Romans 6:22 which says we have become "slaves of God". Your definition of slave changes in these verses because you allow for unrighteousness and ungodliness for slaves of righteousness who are also slaves of God. And I bring this up, not to criticise, but to get you to thinking about the inconsistency and what might clear it up.

so far, so good.

While it is true that He guides us, what you have not stated is that the Holy Siprit coming into our hearts makes us a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). He separates us and removes us from the flesh (Ro 10:9), joins us with Christ (1 Cor 6:17), and makes us one Spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17). This new creature (the new man) is "created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:24).

The fact that we are a new creation, separated and removed from the flesh, joined with Christ, and are one spirit with Him is what makes us sanctified. We are have been culled out from among the lost, cleaned up, and set aside for His service. And this thing that He did for us happens in the heart. We are not in the flesh but in the Spirit because He He separated us from Sin and Joined us to Christ. That is our sanctification.

Please address why you need the definition of slave to change when we talk about being slaves of God (see comments above).

I'm trying to help you understand that the flesh is corrupt and cannot be reformed but the redeemed spirit is "truly righteous and holy" and connot be corrupted. Not knowing these things is why you change the definition of slave to fit the context and is a big reason why you think sanctification is progressive. I know this is a big bite of spiritual food to offer you. Maybe you could just start by investigating why you need to run away from Jesus' statement that whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

No, it is your error. It is Christ who makes us new creatures (that’s called regeneration) and then He gives us the gift of the Holy Spirit to work in us to help confirm us to the image of Christ.

And you are only partially correct later on, also. The flesh IS corrupt, and that is why sin still has power over us even after we are regenerated. But you are splitting non-existent hairs. Whether or not we have been regenerated, as long as we are surrounded by sin, it has power over us. But the gift of the Holy Spirit helps mitigate that power so we can respond to its guidance. We are NOT slaves to it after we have been redeemed.

And don’t flatter yourself that you think you have some secret knowledge that is not revealed in the Bible. I understand the Bible by looking at the context of the spoken and written word. That’s not “running away” from anything. You cannot take something that was said in one context and simply transpose it to a different, unrelated situation and make a coherent theology around it.

 

[fhansen]

You will not find a single verse in the Bible to support this notion that salvation can be lost. That idea was invented by Jacob Arminius, his version of the gospel is the man centred "saved by works", legalism. But, the God centred "saved by grace" gospel, is not dependant on your ability to keep the law.

No one is saved by works of the Law, by, IOW, believing they are righteous, holy, on their own, by their own efforts, with their own "holiness" as if merely obeying externally, by the Letter, could actually make one holy. That's legalism. Life in the Spirit is the dividing line between the old and new covenants. It means that we depend on Him for true holiness "Apart from Me you can do nothing", John 15:5 But "With God all things are possible", Matt19:26, including simply becoming who we were created to be-and that's a not a sinner. We mock God and the work of His Son if we think otherwise, Gal 6:7. Righteousness is still required under the new covenant, but it comes only from Him, as we humble ourselves and turn to Him in faith, no longer relying on ourselves in our pride. Then:

"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” 2 Pet 2:20-22

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. " Heb 6:4-6

"And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:9-14

If we're walking humbly with God, being just and living accordingly, loving mercy, then we're almost undoubtedly His children. Micah 6:8 And that requires grace, a life lived in the Spirit. Anything else is just talk.

 

[A New Dawn]

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. " Heb 6:4-6

I’m not going to take the time to speak to the other verses you quoted, but this verse was spoken to Jewish believers about a situation that is unreplicatable to gentiles believers, so probably won’t work with whatever point you are trying to make.

It was spoken to/about those Jewish believers who, for whatever reason (but generally related to being shunned by their families and cast out of their homes and towns) because of their belief in Christ, who turned from the practice of their belief (not necessarily their belief) in Christ to return to their families and recommence the Jewish custom of animal sacrifice. The reason this is so bad, even if they really retained their belief in Christ, is because Christ had come to be the ultimate sacrifice, and instead of persevering with the saints, they returned to a practice that held no power. They knew the truth but returned to a practice that couldn’t save them because of pressure from family.

We could never be in that situation.

 

[fhansen]

I assume you know what 'dead in sin" means in the Bible. It's obviously not talking about bodily death, so it must be referring to spiritually dead people. Adam was not born spiritually dead but he did die (spiritually) on the day he sinned, and the rest of humanity inherited his dead sin nature.

If Arminius was right, then God is wrong to say we are born dead in sin. If a man who is born dead in sin, can chose to repent and fabricate faith within himself, and quicken himself to life and change his sin nature and give himself a holy nature.

Fallen man is also referred to as lost/astray, in need of being found, sick, in need of being healed, asleep, in need of being awoken. They're all metaphors, as is "dead in our sins". Man requires grace, man requires the intiative of God to awaken, to find, to raise, to heal, to prompt and call and move him from the unjust state of alienation from Him that Adam intitiated. While dimmed, obscured, corrupted, overidden, God's imasge still remains in man such that he isn't so depraved that he cant muster a "no" to being awakened, found, raised, healed, prompted, called and moved by grace, or that he can't return to the flesh, to his pigsty, after leaving it and turning to God, that he can't turn out to be poor soil, that he can't fail to persevere. That's why we're warned and admonished about those very things.

 

[A New Dawn]

Fallen man is also referred to as lost/astray, in need of being found, sick, in need of being healed, asleep, in need of being awoken. They're all metaphors, as is "dead in our sins". Man requires grace, man requires the intiative of God to awaken, to find, to raise, to heal, to prompt and call and move him from the unjust state of alienation from Him that Adam intitiated. While dimmed, obscured, corrupted, overidden, God's imasge still remains in man such that he isn't so depraved that he cant muster a "no" to being awakened, found, raised, healed, prompted, called and moved by grace, or that he can't return to the flesh, to his pigsty, after leaving it and turning to God, that he can't turn out to be poor soil, that he can't fail to persevere. That's why we're warned and admonished about those very things.

There is no scripture to support the prevenient grace theory.

 

[fhansen]

I’m not going to take the time to speak to the other verses you quoted, but this verse was spoken to Jewish believers about a situation that is unreplicatable to gentiles believers, so probably won’t work with whatever point you are trying to make.

It was spoken to/about those Jewish believers who, for whatever reason (but generally related to being shunned by their families and cast out of their homes and towns) because of their belief in Christ, who turned from the practice of their belief (not necessarily their belief) in Christ to return to their families and recommence the Jewish custom of animal sacrifice. The reason this is so bad, even if they really retained their belief in Christ, is because Christ had come to be the ultimate sacrifice, and instead of persevering with the saints, they returned to a practice that held no power. They knew the truth but returned to a practice that couldn’t save them because of pressure from family.

We could never be in that situation.

And I'm not going to bother either; this has already been addressed and refuted well by myself and others. But it makes no sense for a principle that any Christian can identify with, that obviously relates to one -anyone- who's drawn near to God by the power given them in and through Christ, which is the whole point of our faith, to need to be relegated to any one people. That's just a contrivance intended to support a novel theology.

 

[A New Dawn]

And I'm not going to bother either; this has already been addressed and refuted well by myself and others. But it makes no sense for a principle that any Christian can identify with, that obviously relates to one -anyone- who's drawn near to God by the power given them in and through Christ, which is the whole point of our faith, to need to be relegated to any one people. That's just a contrivance intended to support a novel theology.

You aren’t going to refute it because you can’t. I’m sure you can find some way to insinuate yourself into part of the passage, but the entire passage has a meaning you cannot comprehend because you have never been in a religion that sacrifices animals to cover your sins and then hear about Jesus and truly believe that He is the ultimate sacrifice, and then, for whatever reason turn back to the practice that has been deemed null and void in the light of who Jesus was.

You seem to not remember that a significant part of the early church was comprised of believing Jews, so there is no reason to suggest that they don’t need spoken to by the apostles when situations come up. AND they will return in the future to become part of the kingdom, so the presence of Hebrews in the Bible will still have application, even if all of it isn’t for us gentiles.

 

[fhansen]

You aren’t going to refute it because you can’t. I’m sure you can find some way to insinuate yourself into part of the passage, but the entire passage has a meaning you cannot comprehend because you have never been in a religion that sacrifices animals to cover your sins and then hear about Jesus and truly believe that He is the ultimate sacrifice, and then, for whatever reason turn back to the practice that has been deemed null and void in the light of who Jesus was.

You seem to not remember that a significant part of the early church was comprised of believing Jews, so there is no reason to suggest that they don’t need spoken to by the apostles when situations come up. AND they will return in the future to become part of the kingdom, so the presence of Hebrews in the Bible will still have application, even if all of it isn’t for us gentiles.

There's no reason to believe that the gospel had to be preached in any different way to them, as if it was a different gospel. It wasn't just hearing the word, it was being changed by it

 

[A New Dawn]

There's no reason to believe that the gospel had to be preached in any different way to them, as if it was a different gospel. It wasn't just hearing the word, it was being changed by it

Suppose YOU were following the laws given by God to your people as they had been following them for thousands of years, when a new person came along who claimed he was the god you had been following but said things that sounded waaay different. He used scripture to convince you that he was, indeed, that god. Some people believed him but most did not because the religious leaders of the time rejected that person who called himself god. Surely they would know.

And then the message that he taught started getting taught to the gentiles, who didn’t have the baggage of the law that you had to overcome in order to believe in him.

You tell me again that the message didn’t need to be presented in a different way to those two different groups of people.

 

[fhansen]

Suppose YOU were following the laws given by God to your people as they had been following them for thousands of years, when a new person came along who claimed he was the god you had been following but said things that sounded waaay different. He used scripture to convince you that he was, indeed, that god. Some people believed him but most did not because the religious leaders of the time rejected that person who called himself god. Surely they would know.

And then the message that he taught started getting taught to the gentiles, who didn’t have the baggage of the law that you had to overcome in order to believe in him.

You tell me again that the message didn’t need to be presented in a different way to those two different groups of people.

That's not what this is about though. Of course, the message can be adopted to varying conditions and cultures. But not changed, the gospel is the same. They shared in the Holy Spirit, and that's a Christian concept and experience made possible because of Christs revelation and sacrifice. That's the new covenant, spoken of in Jer 31 regarding this new intimate relationship. "I will be their God and they will be My people." "I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts"