How can We Know if We Know Him?

[HARK!]

So to confirm your salvation doctrine, you believe that salvation now, is by faith and works, according to James 2?

Is that correct?

Yah shua!

I don't have a salvation doctrine. I go with what the Bible says.

How do we know if we know him?

This is an open book test.

Hint: The answer can be found on page 1.

Hint 2: It's not by dead faith.

 

[Guojing]

Yah shua!

I don't have a salvation doctrine. I go with what the Bible says.

How do we know if we know him?

This is an open book test.

Hint: The answer can be found on page 1.

Hint 2: It's not by dead faith.

thanks for confirming, I can understand better why we understand Paul differently then

 

[HARK!]

thanks for confirming, I can understand better why we understand Paul differently then

(CLV) Dt 8:3
So He made you humble and let you |hunger; then He fed you with the manna which neither you had known, nor had your fathers known, that He might make you realize that not on bread alone shall the human live, for by every utterance from the mouth of Yahweh shall the human live.

 

[Guojing]

(CLV) Dt 8:3
So He made you humble and let you |hunger; then He fed you with the manna which neither you had known, nor had your fathers known, that He might make you realize that not on bread alone shall the human live, for by every utterance from the mouth of Yahweh shall the human live.

True, but for all of us in the body of Christ, Paul is our apostle.

Just as Moses was God’s spokesman to Israel under law, Paul is God’s spokesman under grace.

 

[BobRyan]

Every time I bring in Galatians 2:7-9, people are always replying with Galatians 1:8-9, and whenever I point out what happened in Acts 21:20-25 in reply, they go silent.

Gal 1:6-9 says there is only one Gospel... not two. It flat out condemns the two-gospel model saying that if an Apostle or an Angel from heaven were to appear claiming to have another gospel "let him be accursed". A bible teaching about the clear Bible fact that there is only one gospel -- that most people would gladly embrace.

It forms "the context" for what comes next including Gal 2 and Gal 3 where we find Gal 3:8 that the one and only Gospel was preached to Abraham.

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised

Gal 2 is not claiming "two different Gospels" it is proclaiming the "one and only gospel" to two different groups.

 

[fhansen]

(CLV) 1Jn 3:4
Everyone who is doing sin is doing lawlessness also, and sin is lawlessness.

Sin is transgression of the Torah.

(CLV) 1Jn 3:5
And you are aware that He was manifested that He should be taking away our sins,

Covering them up by sweeping them under the carpet? NO! He takes them away!


and in Him is not sin.

So how can there be no sin in him; if there are sinners in him? John already covered that:

(CLV) 1Jn 2:5
Yet whoever may be keeping His word, truly in this one the love of God is perfected. In this we know that we are in Him:

(CLV) 1Jn 3:6
Everyone who is remaining in Him is not sinning. Everyone who is sinning sees Him not, neither knows Him.

All true. And if we do sin, especially some grave or serious sin in persistent manner, sin that constitutes a turning away from God and love, we also know that we can have a change of heart and return back to Him with renewed repentance, His forgiveness always available.

 

[GDL]

we also know that we can have a change of heart and return back to Him with renewed repentance, His forgiveness always available.

You sure there are no limits to this?

NKJ 2 Tim. 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

 

[fhansen]

You sure there are no limits to this?

NKJ 2 Tim. 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

God is patient and kind; He's on our side wanting all to turn to Him, wanting all to be saved. But He won't force the issue so, yes, there's a limit. That's why hell exists-for those who wish to continue to live and act in opposition to love, to Him.

 

[GDL]

for those who wish to continue to live and act in opposition to love, to Him.

The verse seems clearly to say God may or may not grant repentance to those in opposition.

 

[fhansen]

The verse seems clearly to say God may or may not grant repentance to those in opposition.

Yes, God can do whatever He wants of course, but He still judges by the heart and by His own criteria. And while even the movement back to Him would be prompted by grace, that grace is still resistible; we show rightness of heart by how we respond and that contributes a facet to His determination as I understand it.

 

[Gary K]

So to confirm your salvation doctrine, you believe that salvation now, is by faith and works, according to James 2?

Is that correct?

How is it that you can get James' writings so wrong? James is saying that we must have faith that works. If our faith doesn't change our lives it's not faith at all. It's presumption that desires to claim the blessings of God without having the love and respect for God that He being God is required of us.

As far as I'm concerned faith is a verb, not a noun, for it is a word that implies action. Read Hebrews 11 for verification of that.

 

[Gary K]

That verse is frequently used out of context.

God commanded physical circumcision in Genesis 17

God no longer required physical circumcision for us now (Galatians 5:2)

There was a time when we were not allowed to eat meat, followed by us being allowed to eat meat, after the flood, but no blood, and now all animal is clean for eating (Acts 10).

There are changes on how God deal with man, that you can find throughout the Bible,

I think what you meant is that God doesn't change in his character, he is always love, always good etc etc. That all of us can agree.

Sorry, but your answer amuses me with your circular reasoning.

You have a theology which must be read into scripture rather than being taken from scripture. Then you read your theology into everything rather than just taking the Bible as it reads and tell everyone who doesn't read your theology into scripture how wrong they are.

Holding groups of individuals to differing standards is a moral issue. It is completely unfair and unjust to tell one group one thing and another group another as to what is required of them to enter heaven. Thus, because your theology requires God to be unjust and unfair it is an attack on God's character, His morality. I can not accept what you preach because I love God. He is my friend, and has always treated me justly and mercifully. I resent attacks on my friends, and especially on God, after all He has done for me. And especially because He loved me while I was still His enemy.

 

[Gary K]

You sure there are no limits to this?

NKJ 2 Tim. 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

That's an interesting point. I like the reading of the KJV though better for it teaches us something regarding sin.

2Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Sin causes us to self-destruct. It is self-destructiveness for the devil is out to destroy us and teaches us to oppose our own best interests. Therefore we, under the influence of sin, oppose ourselves.

 

[GDL]

That's an interesting point. I like the reading of the KJV though better for it teaches us something regarding sin.

Sin causes us to self-destruct. It is self-destructiveness for the devil is out to destroy us and teaches us to oppose our own best interests. Therefore we, under the influence of sin, oppose ourselves.

Interesting catch.

I didn't notice the KJV when I posted as I usually work from the Greek and use an English translation to post.

Although I wouldn't translate as the KJV does, partly because of the controversies expressed in 2:23, and partly because in doing the will of satan they are opposing God, the grammar does allow for reflexive action - IOW these people are opposing (truth & God seems to be the context), but their opposition directly affects them in return.

This seems to be what the KJV may be trying to represent, but I and it seems translators of other English translations think the KJV is at minimum overstating what's said.

Nonetheless, I think what you concluded about sin is true and can be used as explanation re: the reflexive action.

 

[GDL]

Yes, God can do whatever He wants of course, but He still judges by the heart and by His own criteria.

No disagreement here.

This works well with what I think 2Tim says. We must know that God may or may not accept repentance - it's up to Him as the absolute & righteous judge - and we should not over-presume on His grace.

 

[Gary K]

Interesting catch.

I didn't notice the KJV when I posted as I usually work from the Greek and use an English translation to post.

Although I wouldn't translate as the KJV does, partly because of the controversies expressed in 2:23, and partly because in doing the will of satan they are opposing God, the grammar does allow for reflexive action - IOW these people are opposing (truth & God seems to be the context), but their opposition directly affects them in return.

This seems to be what the KJV may be trying to represent, but I and it seems translators of other English translations think the KJV is at minimum overstating what's said.

Nonetheless, I think what you concluded about sin is true and can be used as explanation re: the reflexive action.

I only caught it because of all the self-destructive things I have done when outside of a personal relationship with God. God is very good. His greatest motive, as I see scripture, is to heal us from everything sin and the devil have done to us.

 

[Gary K]

Interesting catch.

I didn't notice the KJV when I posted as I usually work from the Greek and use an English translation to post.

Although I wouldn't translate as the KJV does, partly because of the controversies expressed in 2:23, and partly because in doing the will of satan they are opposing God, the grammar does allow for reflexive action - IOW these people are opposing (truth & God seems to be the context), but their opposition directly affects them in return.

This seems to be what the KJV may be trying to represent, but I and it seems translators of other English translations think the KJV is at minimum overstating what's said.

Nonetheless, I think what you concluded about sin is true and can be used as explanation re: the reflexive action.

I see Paul's advice in the last part of verse 22 and verse 23 as being very good advice. It's like the guy who tries to break up a fight between a couple of drunks and both of them turn on him, walk away unharmed, and the guy trying to do something good ends up in the hospital for his good deed.

 

[safswan]

That Acts 21 passage has the answers you are looking for, for some reason, you refuse to consider that passage

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

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:

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.

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.

And if that is not enough, here is what Paul stated of the reputation of Ananias in Acts 22, which is already so many years after the cross

12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

You are still unwilling to accept that Jews who believed in Christ as their Messiah during the time in Acts, still needed to follow the Law of Moses?

Romans 2:28
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Romans 2:29
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Galalatians 5:1
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Galatians 5:2
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Galatians 5:3
For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Galatians 5:4
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:5
For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Paul’s stance on circumcision is clear from the passages above.Also Peter is aware from the incident with Cornelius that circumcision is not a requirement for salvation.(Acts 11:1-8)

Paul also received confirmation that he received the same message as those who were apostles before him.(Galatians 2:1-10)Notice that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.The charge was to go to different groups not with a different message.This was confirmed by the actions of Paul who preached to both Jews and Gentiles as he brought the message of salvation.(Acts 20:18-21;13:39-46;14:1-4;18:1-6)

In contrast to how Paul treated with Titus we see Paul having Timothy being circumcised while preaching the gospel message.


Acts 16:1
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
Acts16:2
Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
Acts 16:3
Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Acts 16:4
And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
Acts 16:5
And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Is Paul going back to the requirements of the law?No.He is practicing the principle he expounded in the following passage:

1Corinthians 9:19
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1Corinthians 9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Corinthians 9:21
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1Corinthians 9:22
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1Corinthians 9:23
And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Hence the actions of the Acts 21 passage you quote.Paul could not condemn those he wanted to preach to before he even got an opportunity to do so.They,for the most part,rejected the message he brought and he eventually made his way to Rome.(Acts 22-27)

There was in fact a transition but not one of two different gospels,it was that of the understanding of the people of God as to the requirements of salvation.Many still were not understanding the changes Jesus' death brought as was predicted by the prophets and expounded by Paul in Hebrews 7-10.

 

[Guojing]

Hence the actions of the Acts 21 passage you quote.Paul could not condemn those he wanted to preach to before he even got an opportunity to do so.They,for the most part,rejected the message he brought and he eventually made his way to Rome.(Acts 22-27)

There was in fact a transition but not one of two different gospels,it was that of the understanding of the people of God as to the requirements of salvation.Many still were not understanding the changes Jesus' death brought as was predicted by the prophets and expounded by Paul in Hebrews 7-10.

The simple point I was making, with Acts 21:20-25, is that Peter, James and John continued to preach physical circumcision and the necessity of keeping the Law to the Jews who believed.

While they allow Paul to preach to the gentiles that they could believe the gospel without having to keep the Law.

That is in line with what Galatians 2:7-9 established. Paul did not go around and preach to the 3 pillars that they are "cursed" for preaching another gospel.

 

[Guojing]

Sorry, but your answer amuses me with your circular reasoning.

You have a theology which must be read into scripture rather than being taken from scripture. Then you read your theology into everything rather than just taking the Bible as it reads and tell everyone who doesn't read your theology into scripture how wrong they are.

Holding groups of individuals to differing standards is a moral issue. It is completely unfair and unjust to tell one group one thing and another group another as to what is required of them to enter heaven. Thus, because your theology requires God to be unjust and unfair it is an attack on God's character, His morality. I can not accept what you preach because I love God. He is my friend, and has always treated me justly and mercifully. I resent attacks on my friends, and especially on God, after all He has done for me. And especially because He loved me while I was still His enemy.

My question is simple, do you agree that God did change in what he required of man across time?

Was there a time he required physical circumcision? (Genesis 17:14)

Is physical circumcision not required now? (Galatians 5:2)

That is not circular reasoning, and I am not reading into scripture there.