WHAT IS GOD'S GRACE FOR?

genez said:

Is that your argument??????

In other words? If you are not a Jew, the apostles are not for you?

If Paul was not an apostle? Yet, God had him write about 80% of what we find in the NT? Oye vey! Such a wonderful man that Paul was! Not even an apostle, yet God had him write more than all the apostles combined...

Peter the apostle saw Paul as superior to himself. Yet? Not as an apostle?

Click to expand...

I didn't say Paul was not an apostle.

I said he is not part of the 12 apostles. Matthias is the legitimate apostle to replace Judas in the 12.

Guojing said:

I didn't say Paul was not an apostle.

I said he is not part of the 12 apostles. Matthias is the legitimate apostle to replace Judas in the 12.

Click to expand...

So, you believe that man can vote in a gift from God....

Lets take a look and see what took place, please.

“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:
“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.’


Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been
with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning
from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For
one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”


So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known
as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s
heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic
ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and
the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles." Act 1:20-26

Peter was always the impulsive one.

When they voted they had no idea what an apostle should actually be doing yet.

Peter used Scripture to make his case.

But never once did Peter say that the Lord showed him to get them to vote.

There is a big lesson to be learned from this. For its a pattern followed by many Christians who pray in Jesus name while not knowing the will of God. Most likely, they will readily identify with Peter's impulsiveness, since they do the same.

Besides. Judas will be in Heaven. For it says in Luke 6:12-16 he was a chosen apostle by Jesus...


I will play your game too. Watch...

King Saul was also a traitor and he died the sin onto death, but today is in heaven.

Judas was the twelfth apostle. The likes of Matthias and Paul were only filling in because of the absence of Judas. Judas will be one of the twelve apostles in heaven who were chosen directly by Jesus. Matthias and Paul were not chosen directly by Jesus. But, Judas was. Does Jesus make mistakes?

See how screwy it can get with that kind of logic? Go argue against it. You can not.

genez said:

So, you believe that man can vote in a gift from God....

Lets take a look and see what took place, please.

“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:
“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.’


Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been
with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning
from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For
one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”


So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known
as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s
heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic
ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and
the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles." Act 1:20-26

Peter was always the impulsive one.

When they voted they had no idea what an apostle should actually be doing yet.

Peter used Scripture to make his case.

But never once did Peter say that the Lord showed him to get them to vote.

There is a big lesson to be learned from this. For its a pattern followed by many Christians who pray in Jesus name while not knowing the will of God. Most likely, they will readily identify with Peter's impulsiveness, since they do the same.

Besides. Judas will be in Heaven. For it says in Luke 6:12-16 he was a chosen apostle by Jesus...

One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the
night praying to God. When morning came, he called his disciples to him and
chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom
he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew,
Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot,
Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

​

I will play your game too. Watch...

King Saul was also a traitor and he died the sin onto death, but today is in heaven.

Judas was the twelfth apostle. The likes of Matthias and Paul were only filling in because of the absence of Judas. Judas will be one of the twelve apostles in heaven who were chosen directly by Jesus. Matthias and Paul were not chosen directly by Jesus. But, Judas was. Does Jesus make mistakes?

See how screwy it can get with that kind of logic? Go argue against it. You can not.

Click to expand...

No one is playing games with you, I have already given to you the OT precedent previously.

Casting lots was a common practice in the OT. The practice of casting lots occurs most often in connection with the division of the land under Joshua (Joshua chapters 14-21), a procedure that God instructed the Israelites on several times in the book of Numbers (Numbers 26:55; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2).

God allowed the Israelites to cast lots in order to determine His will for a given situation (Joshua 18:6-10; 1 Chronicles 24:5,31).

Various offices and functions in the temple were also determined by lot (1 Chronicles 24:5, 31; 25:8-9; 26:13-14).

The sailors on Jonah’s ship (Jonah 1:7) also cast lots to determine who had brought God’s wrath upon their ship.

Guojing said:

No one is playing games with you, I have already given to you the OT precedent previously.

Casting lots was a common practice in the OT. .

Click to expand...

Of course it was. So? How does that make it right?

They were given one command by the Lord in Act 1:4-5.


They were not told to find a Judas substitute while waiting. Were they? They were told to WAIT for the gift promised.

Like I said. Peter was shown to be highly impulsive by nature. Peter even at one point became a mouthpiece for Satan and Jesus needed to rebuke him for it.

All those who voted did not even have the indwelling Holy Spirit they were told to wait for. They voted like men. Religious, yet dumb men just the same. It happens all the time wherever we find presumptuous believers being led by their emotions. Its even worse when they have lots of Scripture memorized without understanding.

genez said:

Of course it was. So? How does that make it right?

They were given one command by the Lord in Act 1:4-5.

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this
command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father
promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized
with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

​

They were not told to find a Judas substitute while waiting. Were they? They were told to WAIT for the gift promised.

Like I said. Peter was shown to be highly impulsive by nature. Peter even at one point became a mouthpiece for Satan and Jesus needed to rebuke him for it.

All those who voted did not even have the indwelling Holy Spirit they were told to wait for. They voted like men. Religious, yet dumb men just the same. It happens all the time wherever we find presumptuous believers being led by their emotions. Its even worse when they have lots of Scripture memorized without understanding.

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this
command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father
promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized
with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

​

Click to expand...

As I said, there are many who don't believe Matthias was suppose to be the 12th apostle, and instead think of Paul as also one of the 12 who will judging the 12 tribes of Israel during the millennial reign of Christ (Matthew 19:28).

I am fine with those who want to hold that doctrine. If they want to read into the early Acts account to claim that they were not supposed to pick a replacement for Judas, that is their choice.

You should think of the urgency to find a replacement for Judas as tied in to the final question that the 11 asked Jesus in Acts 1:6.

So if they were expecting the kingdom to be restored at any time, they needed to have 12 to fulfill the promise given to them in Matthew 19:28

Guojing said:

I am fine with those who want to hold that doctrine. If they want to read into the early Acts account to claim that they were not supposed to pick a replacement for Judas, that is their choice.

Click to expand...

To interpret a passage one must understand the historical context in which it took place.

When they voted for "Matty boy" no one was yet a new creation in Christ.

The new creation did not begin until the day of Pentecost. That was the day the Church was born. We are not simply enabled by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is not leaving home no matter how shabbily a Christian may treat God's will for their lives. We are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. When Peter and Co. voted the Temple in Jerusalem was still the means for God's indwelling.

In other words? Peter did not know what the heck he was doing!

Just like when he told Jesus to wash him all over, when Jesus was just supposed to only wash Peter's feet. Remember? Peter was comical in a way. He also tried to act "humanly" noble towards the Lord after Jesus told them how he was to be abused, and got himself called "Satan" by Jesus in anger. Remember that "Peter?" The screw up.

It took years for Peter to finally come around by grace. He kept screwing up. He stopped eating with the Gentile believers out of fear of the Judaizers. Remember? Which Paul needed to chew him out for screwing up.

Peter? Was a screw up. A brave lovable screw up, who went on to become great after God finally got done with him.

So, infallible Peter decided to pick Judas replacement by drawing straws? God did not tell him to do it.

Peter was an impulsive lovable guy. Gives us hope to know what a mess we are as well. God can make each and everyone of us here into great believers. It only takes dropping the ego games and competitive spirit to win for winning sake... To be able to admit error when caught. Imagine Jesus looking you in the eyes and calling you "Satan?" Peter had what it takes to let God correct him. Pride would have stubbornly tried to justify self.

OK... everyone back into the boat ...... (I am just a tour guide)

sawdust said:

It appears sound because it is sound.

Jesus wasn't dying all through His ministry, paying the price of our sins. That only occurred on the Cross. His death was for our reconciliation as per the verse you quote because it is our spiritual death that cuts us off from God, not our physical death. It doesn't say we were reconciled through His earthly ministry.

And I apologise for the delay in responding. The forum doesn't seem to be alerting me to new posts very reliably of late or I'm missing it somehow.

Click to expand...

I like someone that stays firm, unless is convinced otherwise to his own satisfaction.

But, I'm not sure where a disagreement is. Jesus said His ministry on earth as a man was finished, and then immediately gave up the Ghost, which was necessary for reconciliation.

I suppose a good discussion could be about the importance of His ministerial time on earth and that of His moment of death, pertaining to reconciliation with God.

In any case, my point still remains that everything changed in heaven and earth at the point of His death, not at the point of His last words, which were part of His ministry while alive on the cross.

Guojing said:

As I said, there are many who don't believe Matthias was suppose to be the 12th apostle, and instead think of Paul as also one of the 12 who will judging the 12 tribes of Israel during the millennial reign of Christ (Matthew 19:28).

I am fine with those who want to hold that doctrine. If they want to read into the early Acts account to claim that they were not supposed to pick a replacement for Judas, that is their choice.

You should think of the urgency to find a replacement for Judas as tied in to the final question that the 11 asked Jesus in Acts 1:6.

So if they were expecting the kingdom to be restored at any time, they needed to have 12 to fulfill the promise given to them in Matthew 19:28

Click to expand...

I agree with your reasoning about their reasoning; however, it a sense of urgency doesn't make it good reasoning. It almost goes into the territory of Saul anxiously doing the sacrifice himself.

And I don't find fault. They were just doing what they believed right, and Scripture recorded it as such and I believe it is intended as a good lesson of ministry: Man doesn't make God's things happen with man's devices, even when they think God fill back it up, because they think they see Scriptural record for it.

genez said:

Is that your argument??????

In other words? If you are not a Jew, the apostles are not for you?

If Paul was not an apostle? Yet, God had him write about 80% of what we find in the NT? Oye vey! Such a wonderful man that Paul was! Not even an apostle, yet God had him write more than all the apostles combined...

Peter the apostle saw Paul as superior to himself. Yet? Not as an apostle?

Click to expand...

I agree with your point about Paul the 12th apostle, but not sure why the vehemence.

Paul was chosen and called to by the 12 apostles: the apostle to the uncircumcision by Jesus personally in Acts 9.

Peter confirmed Paul's apostleship and writing as Scripture, not necessarily thinking him superior. (2 Peter 3)

Also, was Luke an apostle? Not one of the 12, but we do know Scripture referred to Barnabas as an apostle. (Acts 14:14)

I believe the 12 are distinct in that they were chosen by Jesus Himself personally, and were personally given the commandments and law of the New Covenant, called the apostles' doctrine and doctrine of Christ.

sawdust said:

Your post reminded me of the verse:

James 4:6
But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble".

Salvation is freely given but grace is conditional.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Never heard it put that way before. And with some Christians, putting any kind of 'restraining condition' on grace is heresy.

To me the main difference between the Old and New Covenants is that the Old was entirely dependent: conditional: on man's participation, with faith as the foundation stone by Abraham. Therefore it was meant to be everlasting, but was not, due to man's rejection of Jesus.

But the New Covenant is not dependent upon any other man than the man Christ Jesus, so far as remaining everlasting, and the Gospel is called the everlasting Gospel. (Rev 14) It is based upon a better oath and promise, one between the Father and the Son Himself.

However, God's Covenant of grace remains conditional on man to be effective for salvation. And that salvation by grace can cease to exist, if a believer falls ways from the faith of Jesus, falls from grace, falls from their heavenly seat in Christ.

Jesus did all the hard work we couldn't do, but faith is necessary for deliverance and staying delivered. Grace does not cover sin, but the blood washes us clean of sin by grace.

Justification and eternal life are the free gifts that come by receiving the faith necessary to be saved by grace.

I look at it this way: Grace saves the faith of Jesus in the inner man of the heart, not the person of the body, and if faith dies by iniquity and coldness of love, then no more inner man saved by grace.

No faith in the heart, no salvation by grace, whether faith was once in the heart or not.

Guojing said:

I see.

Yep there are many who don't believe Matthias was suppose to be the 12th apostle, and instead think of Paul as also one of the 12 who will judging the 12 tribes of Israel during the millennial reign of Christ (Matthew 19:28).

This is despite the fact that Paul was not sent to the circumcised nor was he to preach the gospel of the circumcision, a decision made in Galatians 2:7-9.

Click to expand...

Matthew was sent to the uncircumcised as well as Thomas... and others.

The reason they had to make that decision about Paul was because he was in his previous life the leader of Jews and felt it was his place. Far superior to Peter in knowing the Torah. But, it was determined that Paul was needed elsewhere because his knowledge made him too antagonistic to the religious Jews. Look what it id did to Stephen. It got him martyred by the hard headed Jews.

Thuycidides said:

I agree with your point about Paul the 12th apostle, but not sure why the vehemence.

Paul was chosen and called to by the 12 apostles: the apostle to the uncircumcision by Jesus personally in Acts 9.

Peter confirmed Paul's apostleship and writing as Scripture, not necessarily thinking him superior. (2 Peter 3)

Also, was Luke an apostle? Not one of the 12, but we do know Scripture referred to Barnabas as an apostle. (Acts 14:14)

I believe the 12 are distinct in that they were chosen by Jesus Himself personally, and were personally given the commandments and law of the New Covenant, called the apostles' doctrine and doctrine of Christ.

Click to expand...

Vehemence manifests when demons capture the thinking of believers. Any truth that may lead to greater understanding will be resisted for that reason. That is why its essential to search for, find, and have sound doctrine. Otherwise, one can not test the spirits...

Its predictable after a while.

Thuycidides said:

I like someone that stays firm, unless is convinced otherwise to his own satisfaction.

But, I'm not sure where a disagreement is. Jesus said His ministry on earth as a man was finished, and then immediately gave up the Ghost, which was necessary for reconciliation.

I suppose a good discussion could be about the importance of His ministerial time on earth and that of His moment of death, pertaining to reconciliation with God.

In any case, my point still remains that everything changed in heaven and earth at the point of His death, not at the point of His last words, which were part of His ministry while alive on the cross.

Click to expand...

The disagreement was because you said this:

That change had to have taken place at Jesus' exact moment of death on the cross, when the full price for sin was paid.

Click to expand...

The full price of sin was not paid at the point of His physical death, it was paid when He said "it is finished" after His spiritual death just prior to His physical death.

As to whether everything changed at the point of His death? Not sure if that is true. He still had to be justified ie. rise form the dead, still had to be glorified, ie. acsend. I can certainly agree that the Cross stands as the pivot to which all (past, present and future) hang on. Maybe I should say the pivot to all eternity, but I can't get my head around eternity so I'll play if safe.

Thuycidides said:

Interesting. Never heard it put that way before. And with some Christians, putting any kind of 'restraining condition' on grace is heresy.

To me the main difference between the Old and New Covenants is that the Old was entirely dependent: conditional: on man's participation, with faith as the foundation stone by Abraham. Therefore it was meant to be everlasting, but was not, due to man's rejection of Jesus.

But the New Covenant is not dependent upon any other man than the man Christ Jesus, so far as remaining everlasting, and the Gospel is called the everlasting Gospel. (Rev 14) It is based upon a better oath and promise, one between the Father and the Son Himself.

However, God's Covenant of grace remains conditional on man to be effective for salvation. And that salvation by grace can cease to exist, if a believer falls ways from the faith of Jesus, falls from grace, falls from their heavenly seat in Christ.

Jesus did all the hard work we couldn't do, but faith is necessary for deliverance and staying delivered. Grace does not cover sin, but the blood washes us clean of sin by grace.

Justification and eternal life are the free gifts that come by receiving the faith necessary to be saved by grace.

I look at it this way: Grace saves the faith of Jesus in the inner man of the heart, not the person of the body, and if faith dies by iniquity and coldness of love, then no more inner man saved by grace.

No faith in the heart, no salvation by grace, whether faith was once in the heart or not.

Click to expand...

I don't agree one can lose eternal life so we are going to be at logger heads coming from different angles if we get too far away from the simple question of "what is the purpose of grace?"

The essence of grace is power.

2Cor.12:9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.

When we receive grace we are receiving God's power to do His will and as Paul points out in the above verse, God's power is most noticeable when we are seen in our weakness for then there can be no doubt it is God at work and not us.

Just as you don't give a box of matches to a 2yo, you don't give power to arrogant people because their pride will abuse it. Hence, God gives grace to the humble but resists the proud.

LoveGodsWord said:

Sometimes looking at the scriptures is helpful here...

Click to expand...

Understanding them is even more useful.

The sin problem caused all of us to be born without a spirit ie. spiritually dead. It's why Jesus said you had to be born anew. It's a second birth. The first birth is physical, the second is spiritual. (John 3)

The wages of sin is spiritual death. Physical death is the outward manifestation of an inner reality. It is why God would not allow Adam to eat from the tree of life for doing so would not restore his human spirit yet he would have remained physically alive for ever in a sinful state. There would have been no end to the Cross for Christ. He would have been perpetually dying over and over again for unending sins.

LoveGodsWord said:

There was no time and nothing for Jesus to do between when he said "it is finished" and when he died.

Click to expand...

"no time"? As another poster pointed out, Jesus died in His time. Unlike us, he got to choose the exact moment of His death. If he had wanted He could have hung there another hour but who in their right mind would want to do that? There was no reason to hang around. He had completed what He set out to do. The sins of the world had been paid for and the sin barrier was removed. So He let out His last breath and died physically because the job was done not to finish the job.

Hope this was helpful.

LoveGodsWord said:

We should be careful here not to read into the scriptures what the scriptures do not say and do not teach. "He said it finished and he bowed His head and gave up the ghost (died)."

Click to expand...

I'm not reading anything in that is not there. Jesus said His mission was finished before He died physically. He gave up His spirit because he had finished mission, not to complete it. If His physical death was necessary to His mission then he would not have said "it is finished".

If you want to believe that Jesus had not finished His mission before He died physically as He said he had? That is between you and God.

sawdust said:

The full price of sin was not paid at the point of His physical death, it was paid when He said "it is finished" after His spiritual death just prior to His physical death.

Click to expand...

If Jesus had to die physically to save us? He would have had to wait until after the resurrection before he could declare.."Tetelestai!" (It is finished!)

How many ever note that when Jesus said? "It is Finished!"

He said it before he died physically!

His physical death is not what saved us from sins. His physical death was so that he could take us into the next phase of rendering for us His glorious heavenly body to be the model for the new kind of body we are all to receive in the Resurrection.





It says in Jn 19:28-30 that He first saw all was completed before he would utter those words that all was finished. The catch? He was not physically dead yet! His death was spiritual while he hung on the Cross that saved us!

His deaths were from billions of mankind's sins piercing him, those "deaths" were what saved us on the Cross. Deaths which took place spiritually while he was being pierced and forsaken by the Father for our transgressions.

grace and peace ........

Thuycidides said:

I agree with your reasoning about their reasoning; however, it a sense of urgency doesn't make it good reasoning. It almost goes into the territory of Saul anxiously doing the sacrifice himself.

And I don't find fault. They were just doing what they believed right, and Scripture recorded it as such and I believe it is intended as a good lesson of ministry: Man doesn't make God's things happen with man's devices, even when they think God fill back it up, because they think they see Scriptural record for it.

Click to expand...

Well the Holy Spirit was speaking thru Peter in Acts 2 and 3, when he declared that Joel's prophecy about the last day is happening now, particularly this verse

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

So I would say Peter was correct because the Holy Spirit must be correct, the day of the Lord, which Jews recognized as Jacob's trouble, is coming anytime after Pentecost.