Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thanks for your post!
As I understand it then Galatians isn't about justification by faith in the theological sense but a question of whether or not a Gentile had to become a Jew in order to become a member of the community (to stay saved?!?); it doesn't seem to make much sense for a Gentile to become a Jew just to enter into the community.
Good thing that Paul,confronted the one who walked physically with Jesus,to set him straight.The kingdom of God is revelation,not a carnal connection.Paul NEVER met Jesus. Paul never sat down and had a chat to Jesus. Paul never walked with Jesus. Paul never lived with Jesus.
But James, the brother of Jesus, did all of those things.
If anyone knew Jesus it would have been his family and James was the eldest.
Perhaps James knew better than Paul what Jesus was really on about.
Really should be easy.What are the improvements Wright seeks to make?I would think that a devoted person,to a teaching would be happy to elaborate a bit.Thank you.I would hope it blatantly obvious that the 'it' in my sentence meant 'Luther's definition', not Paul.
If this is the kind of game you are reduced to.... I'm forced into one of two conclusions, and neither of them are ones I wish to conclude about anybody. And neither of them are compatible with continuing a conversation.
Exactly.The whole idea was no circumcision,which meant obligation to Jewish law.That is what Paul was apposing.He had fought the circumcision party,not defend it.Thanks for your post!
As I understand it then Galatians isn't about justification by faith in the theological sense but a question of whether or not a Gentile had to become a Jew in order to become a member of the community (to stay saved?!?); it doesn't seem to make much sense for a Gentile to become a Jew just to enter into the community.
Paul may not have met Jesus according to the flesh but I can assure you Paul knew Jesus.Saul before he was Paul met Jesus on the road to Damacus.. To know Jesus is not to know Him according to the flesh. All though Paul states that he knew Jesus accoring to the flesh.
2Co 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
It's not that those things are left out, but they are packed into the statement that Jesus is Lord. If one says it that concisely it needs some serious unpacking to use. The primary point Wright is making is that the Gospel itself is a proclamation about an event, and that it is about Jesus.I never said one led to the other. I was explaining two things, one he said the other he believes. Yes Jesus is Lord, in that Wright is correct. It's the all that he leaves out about salvation and justification that is the trouble.
I do not agree that is a good summary of Tom Wright's position at all.For Wright and other NPP"s justification is about diversity, inclusiveness and social justice, more than it is about how we are jusrified by Christ's work and atonement.
That is certainly not a true representation of his position. Covenant community has to be about relationship with God and with each other.For Wright justification is more about inclusion in the covenant community and relationships with one another more than our relationship with God.
Well,interesting because Colossians seems to cover both,granted the Sabbath (ceremonial law)is mentioned a few verses down,but keep in mind,that prior to this..[/size][/font]
The "cheirographon" (handwriting) isn't the moral law. It is the record of our sins. The Moral Law remains to point out to us that we are sinners, in need of a saviour and to point us to Jesus Christ who will saves us if we confess our sins (transgressions of the law that is holy just and good (Rom. 7:12)).
? Lets see it,show the disconnect,post the scriptures please,show what you mean.That makes a ton of sense, I think.
Otherwise you get this strange disconnect between chaps. 1 and 2, and chaps. 3 to 6.
Hi.I do not agree that is a good summary of Tom Wright's position at all.
That is certainly not a true representation of his position. Covenant community has to be about relationship with God and with each other.
Nope,you are ducking.You never showed how the chronological order of reading the epistles,would affect ones views.Not on a substantial way
Your wrong,the law increased the sin,when Paul tried to be 'moral"
Romans 7:5
For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for deathIt is not a notion,it is scriptural,unless YOU CAN POST SCRIPTURE TO PROVE OTHERWISE.
Gal 2;16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
because...
Galatians 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” He said it himself..John 11:25
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,Sorry,you cant mix law and grace.
Romans 11: 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Unless you think you can use a little law,which means you think you are being perfected by the flesh!
Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected bythe flesh? What is so hard yo understand what the law is?? It was added to increase the sin! Romans 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
In fact,it is the power of sin,
1 Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
It was a tutor,which is no longer.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Incorrect.Paul said he would not know sin,right from wrong,apart from the law.
Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”Prove It. show me scripture.It us clearly telling the church not to walk under law,a false gospel.That is a bit more than you are implying.Like it was all about the "community".
Galtians 6:1I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel.Then show me scripture where Paul tells Christians to walk under law.In fact,he says the law is NOT FOR CHRISTIANS.
1 Tim 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers.The answer was not the law though was it? Paul always knew some would misunderstand grace.Ortwist it.He often would raise a question,then answer it,but unless you can show mw a change in the justification/grace message,then you still have not made much of a case.Paul knew what the carnal mind might perceive,so he asked this,then answered.
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
And notice how he said it did not come by law,the destroying of flesh.
Gal 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Which is confirmed here,Sin dominates under law,NOT GRACE.
Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.You will have to post scripture to show that it is not by faith alone.Show me where Paul said that please?
Romans 3:28
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Show the contradicitonsshow all this pleaseNo,your just "expounding" but not proving.
Stop getting personal,and post scripture.The Scriptures that you reference here prove two things: (1) we are saved by faith and (2) that we are not saved by the Law. I don't disagree with either of these things and neither of them supports the notion that salvation has nothing to do with our conduct. The Law that Paul refers to is the Mosaic law, and I agree that Scripture clearly teaches that we are not saved by it. Also, I have already posted several Scriptures that demonstrate that faith, as it is regarded as a means of salvation in Scripture, implies subsequent action. As James says, faith without works is dead. I would post more Scripture (such as Hebrews 11) but for the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the passages that I have already discussed.
Furthermore, your continued resistance to actually reading a brief article on the topic that you inquired about, written by the very person you inquired about, indicates to me that your question was asked disingenuously, and that there is no point in discussing this issue with you any further. It is clear to me that you have no desire to explore this issue. Rather, you only want to have people tell you why you are right in dismissing the opinions of someone whose writings you refuse to read.
Stop getting personal,and post scripture.
The Scriptures that you reference here prove two things: (1) we are saved by faith and (2) that we are not saved by the Law. ... The Law that Paul refers to is the Mosaic law, and I agree that Scripture clearly teaches that we are not saved by it.
Paul isn't talking about the Sabbath in Col. 2:16. Interestingly in order for the verses to make any sens ethe believers had to be keeping the ceremonial feast days, new moons and ceremonial sabbaths that were not feasts--otherwise, the ascetics who were judging them couldn't have done so. For more info see the study at A Study on Col. 2:16-17Well,interesting because Colossians seems to cover both,granted the Sabbath (ceremonial law)is mentioned a few verses down,but keep in mind,that prior to this..
Until you can show that the clear intent of Galatians is smoehow,not what Paul meant,you posting but not proving.God bless.I did; you chose to ignore it, which is why this discussion is getting frustrating.
For example:
From Post# 118 -- Or, do you mean that we have no obligation whatsoever to behave in a certain manner (i.e., as followers of Christ, who obey His command) and/or that there is no relationship whatsoever between our conduct and our salvation? If that is what you mean (as some evangelicals do), then I strongly disagree and submit to you that this viewpoint is clearly repudiated by Scripture (See, e.g., Matthew 6:15; Matthew 7:15-23; Matthew 25:31-46; Romans 6; 1 Cor. 5; James 2:14-26 (I could go on, but I think this is sufficient for now)).
From Post# 149 -- Although this point can be understood by a proper contextual reading of Galatians, the point is made much clearer in Romans, especially in Romans chs. 2 and 6. This idea was further clarified by James and John in their epistles (See e.g., James 2 and 1 John 3).
From Post #192 -- As James says, faith without works is dead. I would post more Scripture (such as Hebrews 11) but for the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the passages that I have already discussed.
Everything that is underlined and bolded are references that I have made to Scripture in this discussion, which I found during a very quick review of this thread. Please, read these passages. If you still disagree with me, that is your right. If you have questions that pertain to these Scriptures, and you sincerely want an answer, feel free to PM me. Either way, I am unsubcribing to this thread, as it is fruitless and an imprudent use of my time.
It says Sabbath.Paul isn't talking about the Sabbath in Col. 2:16. Interestingly in order for the verses to make any sens ethe believers had to be keeping the ceremonial feast days, new moons and ceremonial sabbaths that were not feasts--otherwise, the ascetics who were judging them couldn't have done so. For more info see the study at A Study on Col. 2:16-17
Paul may not have met Jesus according to the flesh but I can assure you Paul knew Jesus.Saul before he was Paul met Jesus on the road to Damacus.. To know Jesus is not to know Him according to the flesh. All though Paul states that he knew Jesus accoring to the flesh.
Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rockI will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
When you lay a foundation,that is for something new.
Jesus Peter Paul reasoned from the scriptures,so how about you.Anyone can come on a thread,and just proclaim higher knowledge.Lets see scripture
Here is clear obvious scripture,that Paul did not want a yoke of bondage(the law) put on the church.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?