If I believe that Jesus died for my sins and rose again am I permanently saved?

[ToBeLoved]

Are you going to bury your head in the sand and pretend when Paul said 'my lie', it wasn't anything?

Verse please.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Here is what they told Paul to tell the Gentiles -

Acts 15
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Here is what Paul said they told him to tell the Gentiles -

Galatians 2
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

To remember the poor wasn't even mentioned by Peter, James, and John. Paul didn't even mention what they told him. Paul said they desired only that we should remember the poor, leaving out abstaining from idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.

Peter was corrected by God in visions about what is wrong to eat and what is not. God says if He calls it good, it is good.

So is your problem really with God?

Did you read the rest of the New Testament after Acts? Could it be Luke that is lying here? Luke wrote Acts.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"For heaven's sake! We're ALL sinners. That's who God uses to further His plan.

Are you actually suggesting that true writers of Scripture were perfect and sinless?"

Why do you say all sinners?

Because ALL of us humans are sinners. Or do you have another opinion?

Paul himself said specifically, 'my lie'. He didn't say sin.

All lies are sin.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why can't I trust the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

By the way, did Jesus tell Paul what He wanted Paul to do in the vision, or did He tell Paul to go to the city and he would be told what to do?

This is a silly question. By telling Paul to go into the city and he would be told what to do, after Jesus explained who He was, it is clear to all reasonable people that Paul was being told by Jesus what Jesus wanted him to do.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Why can't I trust the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

By the way, did Jesus tell Paul what He wanted Paul to do in the vision, or did He tell Paul to go to the city and he would be told what to do?

How can you trust Jesus if He made Paul an apostle and Paul is false? That means that Jesus chose an imposter to start the Christian church and that Jesus chose someone who was false. So does that make Jesus imperfect? Because if he chose a false apostle and then let all the other apostles get corrupted by the false apostle, then did Peter even have enough guidance from Jesus to be the rock upon which Jesus built the church?

Peter was much more scandelous than Paul was. Peter didn't want the gentiles in the church, Peter believed that the old food laws were still in effect under the New Covenant. Peter ate with the Jews and disregarded the gentiles for which Paul corrected him.

So then let's look at them all. All the apostles. Because I think Peter would be found more in error and less reliable than Paul.

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

One is saved by grace alone through faith alone, completely apart from works, yet genuine faith will produce obedience (James 2:14 ff.). This salvation is eternal, because no one can snatch us from Christ's hand (John 10:28), and all those who are predestined, called, and justified will be glorified without fail (Romans 8:30).

Baam! I 100% agree

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

How can you trust Jesus if He made Paul an apostle and Paul is false? That means that Jesus chose an imposter to start the Christian church and that Jesus chose someone who was false. So does that make Jesus imperfect? Because if he chose a false apostle and then let all the other apostles get corrupted by the false apostle, then did Peter even have enough guidance from Jesus to be the rock upon which Jesus built the church?

Peter was much more scandelous than Paul was. Peter didn't want the gentiles in the church, Peter believed that the old food laws were still in effect under the New Covenant. Peter ate with the Jews and disregarded the gentiles for which Paul corrected him.

So then let's look at them all. All the apostles. Because I think Peter would be found more in error and less reliable than Paul.

James and Paul were not very fond of each other as well.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Does that mean that James and Paul absolutely contradicted each other? No. It just means that God doesn't reveal to some as much as He does to others. James could only grasp as much as The Spirit of God gave him to grasp in that moment of time. Though both be true. James was given by God the revelation of justification from man's point of view. As Paul was given the Revelation of Justification from God's Point oF View.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Possibly James viewed it that in order to get some Jews to accept the message he should avoid stressing they could eat with gentiles. He may have known that could be an issue that might initially put them off accepting the message. He may well have viewed it, better to let them eat seperately than put an obstacle to them accepting the Christian faith. It doesn't make Paul wrong because he was correct according to the christian faith. It doesn't make James wrong because his motives were pure in wanting to win the Jews without putting a possible barrier up for their acceptance of the message.
I guess the problem for peter was, he might offend the gentiles present. Either way he offends one group or the other!
Of course Paul did not view it James or peters way, though he did state in 1corch9:

To the Jews I become like a Jew to win the Jews. To those under the law I become like one under the law( though I myself am not under the law) so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I become like one not having the law( though I am not free from Gods law but am under Christs law) so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I become weak to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
1cor9:20-22.

 

[Haramis]

James and Paul were not very fond of each other as well.

Paul didn't get along with almost anybody. He was good at setting up church organization, but terrible at evangelism, and persuasion. Paul gets into conflict with literally every disciple he comes across.

Of course I imagine James was particularly not a fan of Paul's, considering Saul killed a lot of his friends, and broke both of his legs in a murder attempt before his conversion.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Paul didn't get along with almost anybody. He was good at setting up church organization, but terrible at evangelism, and persuasion. Paul gets into conflict with literally every disciple he comes across.

Of course I imagine James was particularly not a fan of Paul's, considering Saul killed a lot of his friends, and broke both of his legs in a murder attempt before his conversion.

Most of that is because Paul was the only apostle sent to the gentiles. All the other ones remained within the Israelite/Hebrew communities. Meanwhile Paul was out working with all these different peoples and cultures and going on his missionary journey's.

Paul had to always convince them of things when it came to gentiles, they were still very much in the Jewish community and Jewish customs. Even God had to convince them of changes.

I do here what your saying about James though. It must have been a hard transition.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Paul didn't get along with almost anybody. He was good at setting up church organization, but terrible at evangelism, and persuasion. Paul gets into conflict with literally every disciple he comes accross.

Speaking for myself. Without the evangelism of Paul, I would come under the statistic of the 85% of people who go to church, make a commitment to Christ, and subsequently walk away from the Christian faith

 

[FreeGrace2]

Paul didn't get along with almost anybody. He was good at setting up church organization, but terrible at evangelism

It was Paul who evangelized the Gentile world. How is that "terrible"?

Do you disagree with his answer to a jailer who asked him what he must do to be saved?

Paul gets into conflict with literally every disciple he comes across.

What documentation is there for this cheap shot?

 

[ToBeLoved]

James and Paul were not very fond of each other as well.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Does that mean that James and Paul absolutely contradicted each other? No. It just means that God doesn't reveal to some as much as He does to others. James could only grasp as much as The Spirit of God gave him to grasp in that moment of time. Though both be true. James was given by God the revelation of justification from man's point of view. As Paul was given the Revelation of Justification from God's Point oF View.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

But the above passages were not Paul condemning James, but Paul condemning Peter because even though God had shown Peter through visions that all meat had been declared clean and good by God, Peter would still not eat with the gentiles and was eating with the Jews only as before the vision.

Yes, it's very interesting how even the apostles disagreed and then God brought them together to where they all accepted one another.

I've always really liked that because even the apostles were not perfect people, they were being molded by Christ and the Holy Spirit like we are.

 

[Haramis]

Speaking for myself. Without the evangelism of Paul, I would come under the statistic of the 85% of people who go to church, make a commitment to Christ, and subsequently walk away from the Christian faith

You have only read Paul's writings. You have never seen Paul's evangelism.

Where ever Barnabas and the other evangelists went, he'd rack up massive flocks of converts. Where ever Paul showed up, he'd convert almost no one, and very often be driven out of town by a mob.
I get the sense you haven't read Acts in a while?

It was Paul who evangelized the Gentile world. How is that "terrible"?

No he didn't. His personal appeals converted virtually no one. During his lifetime, his influence was mostly in church building and crafting doctrine, and the authority that came from doing that. After his lifetime, his influence came from his writings. Paul was the most important figure in Christianity outside of Christ. He was however, a terrible evangelist. Every other major figure in the early church was much better at appealing to the masses. Paul was never good at that.

What documentation is there for this cheap shot?

The entire book of Acts, and Paul's own accounts. Show me one disciple that Paul met with, where there was no quarrel between them. Paul fought with James, John Mark, Peter, and Barnabas. The only disciples that he is ever stated to have met.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Where ever Barnabas and the other evangelists went, he'd rack up massive flocks of converts. Where ever Paul showed up, he'd convert almost no one, and very often be driven out of town by a mob.
I get the sense you haven't read Acts in a while?

No he didn't. His personal appeals converted virtually no one. During his lifetime, his influence was mostly in church building and crafting doctrine, and the authority that came from doing that. After his lifetime, his influence came from his writings. Paul was the most important figure in Christianity outside of Christ. He was however, a terrible evangelist. Every other major figure in the early church was much better at appealing to the masses. Paul was never good at that.

So Jesus messed up by choosing Paul as an apostle and not Barnabas or Timothy?

Because Jesus chose Paul as the apostle to the gentiles. Paul never said he was good at appealing to anyone, what Paul asked was that God give him words that would bring and give God glory.

What more can any of us do but our personal best?

Also, if Paul had not been effective there would have been no churches to write to and very little in the New Testament for us to read and understand.

 

[stuart lawrence]

You have only read Paul's writings. You have never seen Paul's evangelism.

Where ever Barnabas and the other evangelists went, he'd rack up massive flocks of converts. Where ever Paul showed up, he'd convert almost no one, and very often be driven out of town by a mob.
I get the sense you haven't read Acts in a while?

No he didn't. His personal appeals converted virtually no one. During his lifetime, his influence was mostly in church building and crafting doctrine, and the authority that came from doing that. After his lifetime, his influence came from his writings. Paul was the most important figure in Christianity outside of Christ. He was however, a terrible evangelist. Every other major figure in the early church was much better at appealing to the masses. Paul was never good at that.

The entire book of Acts, and Paul's own accounts. Show me one disciple that Paul met with, where there was no quarrel between them. Paul fought with James, John Mark, Peter, and Barnabas. The only disciples that he is ever stated to have met.

I wouldn't view Paul's writings and his evangelism as two different things. Have you evidence they were?
Have you evidence almost no one was converted by the message Paul preached? I cant find that in scripture.
Of course people rose against what Paul preached, the religious especially as they opposed Christ also.
They wanted a law of righteousness, so naturally they would attack paul

 

[stuart lawrence]

I'm sure the people who attack Paul simply dont understand his message
People will always seek to attack what they don't understand, much simpler that way

 

[FreeGrace2]

You said: "Paul gets into conflict with literally every disciple he comes across."

I responded with:
"What documentation is there for this cheap shot?"

You have only read Paul's writings. You have never seen Paul's evangelism.

This is no answer.

Where ever Barnabas and the other evangelists went, he'd rack up massive flocks of converts. Where ever Paul showed up, he'd convert almost no one, and very often be driven out of town by a mob.
I get the sense you haven't read Acts in a while?

I read it every month, along with the rest of the NT.

Again, it was Paul's missionary journeys that evangelized the Gentile world. Maybe you haven't been reading Acts.

No he didn't. His personal appeals converted virtually no one.

Right. So don't read Acts 17:3-4
"3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said.
4Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women."

Or Act 17:10-12
10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

Or Acts 17:32-34
"32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.”
33At that, Paul left the Council.
34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others."

Or Acts 19:8-10
8 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.
9 But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.
10 This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.

Or Acts 26:17-18
17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them
18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Or, Acts 28:24 - Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe.

During his lifetime, his influence was mostly in church building and crafting doctrine, and the authority that came from doing that.

Not according to Scripture. It seems your opinions about Paul are clearly NOT based on any facts.

The entire book of Acts, and Paul's own accounts. Show me one disciple that Paul met with, where there was no quarrel between them.

How about showing this thread ANY verse where Paul quarreled with any disciple, other than the TWO account of his bracing Peter and arguing with Barnabas.

Paul fought with James, John Mark, Peter, and Barnabas. The only disciples that he is ever stated to have met.

Nonsense. Again, read Acts and the true picture of the evangelist emerges. Not your fake news account.

Acts 20:32-38
32 “Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
33 I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing.
34You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions.
35 In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ”
36 When Paul had finished speaking, he knelt down with all of them and prayed.
37 They all wept as they embraced him and kissed him.
38 What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again. Then they accompanied him to the ship.

So, why were they ALL weeping, embracing and kissing him, if your claims are accurate?

 

[Haramis]

So Jesus messed up by choosing Paul as an apostle and not Barnabas or Timothy?

You're free to hold that opinion and promote it if you like.

I said Paul was a terrible evangelist - he was. Paul was chosen for entirely different reasons.

Also, if Paul had not been effective there would have been no churches to write to and very little in the New Testament for us to read and understand.

Paul was an effective church builder, and effective at crafting doctrine. That is what made him great. Not his evangelism.

I wouldn't view Paul's writings and his evangelism as two different things

I would.

I'm sure the people who attack Paul simply dont understand his message
People will always seek to attack what they don't understand, much simpler that way

I think I understand Paul's accomplishments quite well. What his actual strengths and weaknesses were. Not a perspective of a 12 year old girl with a crush, gushing that he's just the most amazing at literally everything.

Paul was a bad evangelist. I didn't even think this statement was controversial. I suspect it has something to do with the weird anti-Paul cult I've seen on this forum(and literally nowhere else). I'm not one of them and recognize Paul's scriptural authority. I was simply making a rather banal comment, and then see a whole host of people wigging out over it.

I suppose it's only natural that when you have some oddballs saying things like "Paul was the chief agent of Satan", you'll have some people who get pushed to the other side and turn him into a faultless man who is excellent at everything.

So, why were they ALL weeping, embracing and kissing him, if your claims are accurate?

Probably because you're having an argument with a strawman. Paul was a difficult person who often got into fights. People also respected him, and appreciated the things he did. So long as they didn't have to spend a lot of time with him.

And I note that out of the verses you choose, Paul has success with converting a large number of people exactly once(17:10). In over two decades of ministry. All of your other examples consist of "A few listened, most didn't". Which is exactly what I said. The verses you chose, are many of the ones I would have selected to make my point. Thank you for tracking them down for me.

Every other prominent figure shows up, preaches, and has flocks of converts. Paul shows up, gets a handful, and has a good shot of riling up a mob. Paul was good at creating doctrine, and setting up churches. He was not as effective a preacher as any of the other leaders. Acts bears this out repeatedly.

 

[stuart lawrence]

You're free to hold that opinion and promote it if you like.

I said Paul was a terrible evangelist - he was. Paul was chosen for entirely different reasons.

Paul was an effective church builder, and effective at crafting doctrine. That is what made him great. Not his evangelism.

I would.

I think I understand Paul's accomplishments quite well. What his actual strengths and weaknesses were. Not a perspective of a 12 year old girl with a crush, gushing that he's just the most amazing at literally everything.

Paul was a bad evangelist. I didn't even think this statement was controversial. I suspect it has something to do with the weird anti-Paul cult I've seen on this forum(and literally nowhere else). I'm not one of them and recognize Paul's scriptural authority. I was simply making a rather banal comment, and then see a whole host of people wigging out over it.

I suppose it's only natural that when you have some oddballs saying things like "Paul was the chief agent of Satan", you'll have some people who get pushed to the other side and turn him into a faultless man who is excellent at everything.

Probably because you're having an argument with a strawman. Paul was a difficult person who often got into fights. People also respected him, and appreciated the things he did. So long as they didn't have to spend a lot of time with him.

And I note that out of the verses you choose, Paul has success with converting a large number of people exactly once(17:10). In over two decades of ministry. All of your other examples consist of "A few listened, most didn't". Which is exactly what I said. The verses you chose, are many of the ones I would have selected to make my point. Thank you for tracking them down for me.

Every other prominent figure shows up, preaches, and has flocks of converts. Paul shows up, gets a handful, and has a good shot of riling up a mob. Paul was good at creating doctrine, and setting up churches. He was not as effective a preacher as any of the other leaders. Acts bears this out repeatedly.

Do you understand Paul's core message?
It is easily proven one way or the other

Why will sin not be your master for you are not under law but under grace rom6:14

Why are sinful passions aroused in people by the law if they live under it?
Rom7:5