What is the Gospel?

[justbyfaith]

That's funny. Facts don't change. You can still check if Erasmus made a mistake. His translation hasn't been lost. The original Greek hasn't been lost. You decide if the work of men has gone wrong.

It boils down to whether we can trust the Bible that we have in our hands or not. If we must be Greek and Hebrew scholars in order to get the unadulterated message of God's word, then the educated have an advantage and are more likely to believe in Jesus for that they alone would know what His message truly is. But in the scriptures we see something different. The common people heard Jesus gladly; while the educated scribes and Pharisees rejected Him.

Also, when we say that only the educated Greek and Hebrew scholars know the true message, it provides for a cult mentality; because now those who do not have an education in languages are dependent on those who do, to tell them what the Bible really means.

I don't buy it. I believe that God preserved the true message of His word in translations that we can understand in our own languages; in primarily one inerrant translation per language that the Bible has been translated into. In the English, I believe that it is the kjv and that the nkjv and others are also helpful if you don't understand what the kjv is saying; but that the kjv is superior to all others in that it is the only translation that is based entirely on the Textus Receptus and translated with much prayer and without pressures from copyright laws to translate a word differently because it was already used in another translation in any given verse. When there is a discrepancy between the kjv and any other translation, I believe that the kjv should hold precedence for that reason; while I also believe that we are capable of receiving insight by looking at how other translations translate the Greek or Hebrew words.

 

[justbyfaith]

And I'm sorry, I misunderstood your point, that God desired people to believe in Jesus.

Belief is mistranslated today as agreed with, mentally assented with, the teaching that Jesus is the Messiah.

In the ancient near east, ANE, believing in a Patron meant following him, being loyal to him, doing things that would please him, for which he would be gracious...

Faith is something that, when it is true, it happens in the heart and is unto righteousness (Romans 10:10). If you believe with your heart that God has forgiven you of much iniquity, you will love Him much (Luke 7:36-50, 1 John 4:19).

If you are still striving to earn this forgiveness by virtue of what you can do for God, you cannot believe with your heart that you are forgiven in this way. There will always be one more thing that you have to do before forgiveness truly belongs to you; or there will always be the chance of losing that forgiveness through committing one single sin against the Lord. But if through believing in what Jesus did for you you can be forgiven completely of past, present, and future sin, then you can rest in the finished work of the Cross and the pressure is off of you to perform well enough to be accepted before the Lord.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes but not all were clean even though they drank of the same Spirit from the same Rock.

John 13
11For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

The son of perdition was the only one out of all that Jesus chose or ever will choose that was ever lost or that will ever be lost. John 17:12. This was for the purpose of fulfilling scripture.

The principle applies (verily, verily) that if anyone hears Jesus' word and believes on Him who sent Him, they have everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but have passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

Jesus' sheep hear His voice; and He knows us, and we follow Him. And He gives unto us eternal life; and we shall never perish; neither can anyone pluck us out of God's hand. (John 10:27-30)

(verily, verily) If we believe on Jesus Christ we have everlasting life. (John 6:47).

The son of perdition was a singular exception to this rule of scripture that is set forth in the scriptures above.

 

[justbyfaith]

In Romans 4:3, Paul uses the word logizomai, reckoned, credited.

I'll go with how Paul said it.

Righteousness is reckoned or credited to the one who has faith; faith is accounted as righteousness.

In other words, when God looks at a man and sees faith in his heart, He says, "That is righteousness."

This is true whether or not the man's life is impeccably righteous in the practical sense or not.

(while if anyone is putting their trust in their own righteousness/works/law-keeping to save them, they are required to keep the whole law perfectly/impeccably from conception into eternity, Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48, Isaiah 57:12, Isaiah 64:6).

 

[Wordkeeper]

It boils down to whether we can trust the Bible that we have in our hands or not. If we must be Greek and Hebrew scholars in order to get the unadulterated message of God's word, then the educated have an advantage and are more likely to believe in Jesus for that they alone would know what His message truly is. But in the scriptures we see something different. The common people heard Jesus gladly; while the educated scribes and Pharisees rejected Him.

Also, when we say that only the educated Greek and Hebrew scholars know the true message, it provides for a cult mentality; because now those who do not have an education in languages are dependent on those who do, to tell them what the Bible really means.

I don't buy it. I believe that God preserved the true message of His word in translations that we can understand in our own languages; in primarily one inerrant translation per language that the Bible has been translated into. In the English, I believe that it is the kjv and that the nkjv and others are also helpful if you don't understand what the kjv is saying; but that the kjv is superior to all others in that it is the only translation that is based entirely on the Textus Receptus and translated with much prayer and without pressures from copyright laws to translate a word differently because it was already used in another translation in any given verse. When there is a discrepancy between the kjv and any other translation, I believe that the kjv should hold precedence for that reason; while I also believe that we are capable of receiving insight by looking at how other translations translate the Greek or Hebrew words.

The original is repute. A message , an announcement , an advertisement conveys truth, reputation, otherwise it is false advertisement, disinformation.

In the Hebrew and the Greek, God reputes Abram's act as righteous.

The translation of men mistakenly used "impute", borrow.

It says Abram's act had no reputation, attribute for righteousness, it borrowed righteousness from God. Are you happy with your KJV which uses this error? The KJV is not the original. It is a work of men, a TRANSLATION. Will you keep supporting your understanding with an error of men?

 

[Wordkeeper]

Faith is something that, when it is true, it happens in the heart and is unto righteousness (Romans 10:10). If you believe with your heart that God has forgiven you of much iniquity, you will love Him much (Luke 7:36-50, 1 John 4:19).

If you are still striving to earn this forgiveness by virtue of what you can do for God, you cannot believe with your heart that you are forgiven in this way. There will always be one more thing that you have to do before forgiveness truly belongs to you; or there will always be the chance of losing that forgiveness through committing one single sin against the Lord. But if through believing in what Jesus did for you you can be forgiven completely of past, present, and future sin, then you can rest in the finished work of the Cross and the pressure is off of you to perform well enough to be accepted before the Lord.

You didn't get it.

In the time the incidents recorded in the Bible happened, belief was understood as loyalty, not just agreement.

Today having belief means agreeing with what Jesus said.

In those days, belief meant obeying what Jesus said.

Quote
In the Gospel of John, Jesus says "Believe in me" often. In the other gospels he doesn't do this. What's going on?

Firstly, I wish to make the point once again that pistis "believe" ought to be rendered "faithful" or similar, and has notions of allegiance and faithfulness rather than intellectual belief. Further evidence on this subject has recently come to my attention: The second century AD writer Arrian of Nicomedia, twice writes in his biography of Alexander the Great that certain people remained "pistis" to Darius (Darius was their king), and the Loeb English translation renders this "loyal to Darius", which is clearly what is meant in the context. (Anabasis III.21.4 & III.23.7)

How are we to make sense of "be loyal to me" in the mouth of Jesus? Why is it in John and not the other gospels? The answer I think, is that it is in the other gospels, it's simply worded slightly differently: as "follow me".

One of the things I think Jesus was intentionally doing during his ministry was forming a movement/group/sect/cult around himself. He and his disciples recruited followers into this movement and we see in the gospels in the form of Jesus asking people to "follow me".

So why does John have "be loyal to me" rather than "follow me"? Part of the answer is probably that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the gospels are written in Greek, and the gospel authors used slightly different Greek words in their translation.

However, I would go further and suggest that here the Gospel of John is being anachronistic. ("Anachronistic" means not keeping proper account of time differences, eg reading an ancient text with modern assumptions, importing your own meanings into an ancient writing etc) Jesus in his own day would have want people to physically follow him around and/or actually join a movement physically led by him. For later Christians this would obviously be impossible. Their equivalent of "following" Jesus was to be loyal to his name and cause. They could not physically follow him, but they could be loyal, committed and faithful to him. And so, the writer of John, understanding this as what Jesus would have said to the Christians of the writer's time, records Jesus as saying "be loyal to me" rather than "follow me" to those around him. This is a fairly basic anachronism, which the Gospel of John is recognised to be particularly prone to.

http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2005/07/

 

[Wordkeeper]

I'll go with how Paul said it.

Righteousness is reckoned or credited to the one who has faith; faith is accounted as righteousness.

In other words, when God looks at a man and sees faith in his heart, He says, "That is righteousness."

This is true whether or not the man's life is impeccably righteous in the practical sense or not.

(while if anyone is putting their trust in their own righteousness/works/law-keeping to save them, they are required to keep the whole law perfectly/impeccably from conception into eternity, Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48, Isaiah 57:12, Isaiah 64:6).

when God looks at a man and sees faith in his heart, He says, "That is righteousness."

IOW, Paul said:
And therefore it was reputed to him as righteous.

But that is not what the KJV says.

Romans 4:22
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

IOW, the KJV says God's righteousness was lent to Abraham's act.

 

[Bible2+]

Wordkeeper said in post #145:

[Re: Paul in Romans 4]

He was teaching a person doesn´t have to become a Jew to be saved.

No, he means that no works of any kind are required for initial salvation, as he also says in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Also, a person does have to become a Jew to be saved, because salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22b).

That's also why Jesus Christ's Gospel of salvation goes to Jews first (Romans 1:16, Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24, Acts 3:26).

For salvation is of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), which God has made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Christian Gentiles are grafted into Israel so that they can partake of the salvation offered by God to Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, John 10:16). And all Christians, whether Jews (Acts 22:3) or Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).

Wordkeeper said in post #145:

[Re: Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:2b-3]

Both the texts apply to Corporate Election not Individual Election, nations not persons.

No, Romans 9:12-13 employs the difference between Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25:23-26, Malachi 1:2b-3) only as a type, not to represent the difference between the literal, genetic nations of Israel (Jacob: Genesis 32:28) and Edom (Esau: Genesis 36:43b), but to represent the difference between, on the one hand, all elect individuals from all nations (Romans 9:6-13, Galatians 3:28-29, Galatians 4:28), both some Jews and some Gentiles (Romans 9:24), and, on the other hand, all nonelect individuals from all nations, both some Jews and some Gentiles, such as Pharaoh (Romans 9:17-18, Exodus 9:12,16). Just as the individual babies in Romans 9:11-13 were either elected/loved or nonelected/hated by God before they were born, so all of the elect and nonelect individuals whom they represent were either elected/loved or nonelected/hated by God as individuals, not only before they were born, but even before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13).

*******

Wordkeeper said in post #156:

[Re: John 6:29]

John isn't saying God has caused believers to follow Jesus.

John 6:29 are the words of Jesus, who subsequently says that only God can cause people to become believers in Jesus (John 6:65).

 

[Bible2+]

justbyfaith said in post #151:

[Re: Jesus in John 6:29]

He is teaching that if you insist on being saved by works, then to have simple faith alone in what He did for you is the only thing that will count.

John 6:28-29 means that for people to work the works of God, they must believe in Jesus Christ. For apart from Jesus, people cannot work any works of God (John 15:5b).

John 6:28-29 is not contradicting, for example, Matthew 7:21, which shows that both faith and obedience to God are required for Christians to enter ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, Hebrews 5:9, James 2:24). But, because of free will, there is no assurance that Christians will choose to obey (Matthew 25:26,30, Luke 12:45-46).

*******

justbyfaith said in post #157:

[Re: John isn't saying God has caused believers to follow Jesus in John 6:29]

Maybe he isn't, but both Ezekiel and Paul do say this in Ezekiel 36:25-27 and Philippians 2:13.

Regarding Ezekiel 36:27, note that the original Hebrew word (H6213) translated as "cause" can be translated as "grant" (Job 10:12), in the sense that if Christians choose to walk in God's Holy Spirit, He will grant them the ability not to fulfill the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). But if Christians choose instead to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19), and to commit sin without repentance, then they will ultimately lose their salvation (Romans 8:13).

Regarding Philippians 2:13, while God makes it possible for Christians to do the right thing (John 15:4-5), He does not take away their free will, turning them into robots, or into macabre flesh puppets, mere marionettes whom He forces to dance across the stage as He pulls on their strings. Instead, He leaves them as His real children with free will. And so they have to choose each and every day to deny themselves, to take up their crosses, and to follow Jesus Christ, to the end (Luke 9:23, Matthew 24:13). And there is no assurance that they will choose to do that (Matthew 25:26,30, Luke 12:45-46, Luke 8:13).

*******

justbyfaith said in post #162:

Also, when we say that only the educated Greek and Hebrew scholars know the true message, it provides for a cult mentality; because now those who do not have an education in languages are dependent on those who do, to tell them what the Bible really means.

Some versions of the Bible are not translations of the original Hebrew and Greek words, but are more like paraphrased interpretations, which when checked against the original Hebrew and Greek words (by using, for example, a Strong's Concordance and Hebrew and Greek Dictionary) say something completely different than the original, inspired text. The KJV is a fairly literal translation, and so usually avoids this problem. Also, the words of the KJV are not constantly changing, like how new editions of the NIV are always coming out with some of the words changed. So you can remember key words and phrases in the KJV and use a Strong's Concordance (which is tied to the KJV) to help you find a particular verse which you are thinking of.

*******

justbyfaith said in post #163:

But if through believing in what Jesus did for you you can be forgiven completely of past, present, and future sin, then you can rest in the finished work of the Cross and the pressure is off of you to perform well enough to be accepted before the Lord.

Note that Hebrews 10:26-29 shows that Christians, who have been sanctified by Jesus Christ's sacrificial blood (Hebrews 10:29), which sanctification requires faith (Acts 26:18b, cf. Romans 3:25-26), can, after they get saved, wrongly employ their free will to commit sin without repentance (Hebrews 10:26). By doing this, these Christians are unwittingly trampling on Jesus and His sacrificial blood, and doing despite unto the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29), turning the grace of God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:4), so that their ultimate fate will be worse than if they had never been saved at all (2 Peter 2:20-22). Even though Jesus' sacrificial blood is sufficient to forgive all sins (1 John 2:2), it actually forgives only the sins of Christians which are past (Romans 3:25-26), as in sins which have been repented from and confessed to God (1 John 1:9,7). Jesus' sacrificial blood does not remit unrepentant sins (Hebrews 10:26-29). So a Christian can ultimately lose his salvation if he wrongly employs his free will to commit unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46).

Some Christians say that Hebrews 10:26-29 is not for Christians. But the immediate context of Hebrews 10:26-29 is Hebrews 10:25, which is addressing "we" Christians. Hebrews 10:25-29 is the same idea as Hebrews 3:13: Christians need to gather together and exhort each other so that no Christian will fall into any unrepentant sin. For any unrepentant sin will ultimately result in the loss of salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46, Matthew 7:22-23, Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 2:20-22, Romans 8:13; 1 John 5:16, James 5:19-20).

One way that a Christian could come to desire to commit a sin without repentance would be if he finds a particular sin to be very pleasurable, so pleasurable and so fulfilling (in the short term) that he continues in it over time until his heart becomes hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13), to where his love for God grows cold because of the abundance of iniquity (Matthew 24:12), to where he quenches the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19), to where he sears his conscience as with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2), to where he becomes so infatuated with his sin that he can no longer endure the sound doctrine of the Bible (such as the doctrine of Hebrews 10:26-29), but instead latches onto a mistaken, man-made teaching which contradicts the Bible (2 Timothy 4:3-4), such as the mistaken teaching which assures Christians that there is no way that they can ever lose their salvation, even if they commit a sin without repentance.

*******

justbyfaith said in post #164:

The son of perdition was the only one out of all that Jesus chose or ever will choose that was ever lost or that will ever be lost. John 17:12.

Regarding John 17:12, it, like John 18:9, does not mean that no Christian can ultimately be lost (as in, e.g., Hebrews 10:26-29), but refers only to none of the chosen/elect/saved twelve apostles of Jesus Christ (Luke 6:13) becoming lost, except Judas.

justbyfaith said in post #164:

The principle applies (verily, verily) that if anyone hears Jesus' word and believes on Him who sent Him, they have everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but have passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

John 5:24 refers to salvation in the sense of Christians' present, spiritual salvation, instead of the still-future, ultimate redemption of their physical bodies (Romans 8:23-25). John 5:24 means that a Christian will not ultimately come into condemnation, as in an ultimate loss of salvation, so long as he continues to the end to believe (Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Colossians 1:23, John 15:6), to perform good works (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, John 15:2a), and to repent from every sin that he commits (Hebrews 10:26-29, Luke 12:45-46; 1 Corinthians 9:27). All Christians will be judged (2 Corinthians 5:10).

justbyfaith said in post #164:

Jesus' sheep hear His voice; and He knows us, and we follow Him. And He gives unto us eternal life; and we shall never perish; neither can anyone pluck us out of God's hand. (John 10:27-30)

John 10:28-29 means that Christians will never spiritually perish so long as they remain in God's hand, and that no one outside of a Christian can ever take him or her out of God's hand. But John 10:28-29 does not mean that Christians are imprisoned in God's hand, that they cannot wrongly employ their free will to jump out of God's hand themselves, such as by committing apostasy, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12). Also, John 10:28-29 is not contradicting that God Himself can in the end cast Christians out of His hand, that they can in the end lose their salvation, if they do not continue in His goodness (Romans 11:20-22), such as by wrongly employing their free will to commit a sin without repentance (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46), or by becoming utterly lazy without repentance (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a, Romans 2:6-8).

Also, John 10:28-29 does not mean that a Christian's will is kept in God's hand in the sense that a Christian cannot wrongly employ his will to the ultimate loss of his salvation. For any such "kept" will would be nothing but a destroyed will. It would make Christians like someone who has been lobotomized, strait-jacketed, drugged, and locked up in a cell. Thank God that He does not do that to Christians, but leaves them as free people with free will. And because He does, they themselves have to choose each and every day for the rest of their lives to deny themselves, to take up their crosses themselves, and to continue to follow Jesus Christ (Luke 9:23) to the end. And the Bible gives no assurance that every Christian will choose to do that (Hebrews 10:26-29, Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:2a).

justbyfaith said in post #164:

(verily, verily) If we believe on Jesus Christ we have everlasting life. (John 6:47).

Note that possessing something eternal in itself does not require that someone will eternally keep possession of it. For example, imagine that one of the eternal precious stones of the heavenly city of New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:19) happened to be given to someone living now on the earth, and he kept it in his pocket. But after a few years, he got complacent about it, and sold it to a jeweler for a tremendous load of cash (cf. Hebrews 12:16-17). Does this mean that it was not eternal?

 

[Wordkeeper]

No, he means that no works of any kind are required for initial salvation, as he also says in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Wrong. Paul is contrasting a non Jew Abraham with a Jew. That's why circumcision is mentioned. IOW, Abraham didn't have to become a Jew to be justified.

Also, a person does have to become a Jew to be saved, because salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22b).

That's also why Jesus Christ's Gospel of salvation goes to Jews first (Romans 1:16, Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24, Acts 3:26).

Wrong. Salvation is from the Jews.

John 4
22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.NASB

For salvation is of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), which God has made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Christian Gentiles are grafted into Israel so that they can partake of the salvation offered by God to Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, John 10:16). And all Christians, whether Jews (Acts 22:3) or Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).

Wrong. Those (Israel) who drink from the Rock are grafted into the Body of Christ. However, Israel was cut off because of unbelief.

No, Romans 9:12-13 employs the difference between Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25:23-26, Malachi 1:2b-3) only as a type, not to represent the difference between the literal, genetic nations of Israel (Jacob: Genesis 32:28) and Edom (Esau: Genesis 36:43b), but to represent the difference between, on the one hand, all elect individuals from all nations (Romans 9:6-13, Galatians 3:28-29, Galatians 4:28), both some Jews and some Gentiles (Romans 9:24), and, on the other hand, all nonelect individuals from all nations, both some Jews and some Gentiles, such as Pharaoh (Romans 9:17-18, Exodus 9:12,16). Just as the individual babies in Romans 9:11-13 were either elected/loved or nonelected/hated by God before they were born, so all of the elect and nonelect individuals whom they represent were either elected/loved or nonelected/hated by God as individuals, not only before they were born, but even before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13).

Wrong. Esau never served Jacob, but the nation Edom was defeated by Israel and was in submission to it.

John 6:29 are the words of Jesus, who subsequently says that only God can cause people to become believers in Jesus (John 6:65).

Verse 29 is the reply to verse 28:

28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

IOW, what does God desire, will, for believers to do. Confirmed by verse 40

40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6
64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

God gives believers to Jesus according to their loyalty to him. These believers hated humanity in its existing form so God was not hesitant to be called their God and prepared a new humanity, the New Man, in the Body of Christ, for them:

Hebrews 11
13All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

Judas was being referred to in John 6:65. He was definitely not a foreigner in the world. Infact, he was quite comfortable in it, and not a stranger to its ways of coveting and stealing. Jesus spoke the words that cleansed, "Serve God, not mammon", however it had no effect on him, unlike Peter, who abandoned mammon, to serve God.

 

[justbyfaith]

The title of the thread being, What is the Gospel, I say unto all, verily, that what is preached from post #166 down is not the gospel, it is not good news. It is bondage to the law, a formula for a works trip.

And since I don't have the time right now to respond, as I am moving in two weeks, I am just going to have to pray that people will take my word for it, as this thread is an important battleground but I cannot fight on it and also take care of the business that is before me in my personal life.

 

[justbyfaith]

I would just encourage people to read Galatians through a bunch of times to get a solid understanding of the grace of God.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I would just encourage people to read Galatians through a bunch of times to get a solid understanding of the grace of God.

http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/new-perspectives-on-paul/

Quote
Allow me, if you will, a moment of autobiography, for reasons similar to those of Paul in Galatians 1 and 2. In my early days of research, before Sanders had published Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977 and long before Dunn coined the phrase ‘The New Perspective on Paul’, I was puzzled by one exegetical issue in particular, which I here oversimplify for the sake of summary. If I read Paul in the then standard Lutheran way, Galatians made plenty of sense, but I had to fudge (as I could see dozens of writers fudging) the positive statements about the Law in Romans. If I read Paul in the Reformed way of which, for me, Charles Cranfield remains the supreme exegetical exemplar, Romans made a lot of sense, but I had to fudge (as I could see Cranfield fudging) the negative statements about the Law in Galatians. For me then and now, if I had to choose between Luther and Calvin I would always take Calvin, whether on the Law or (for that matter) the Eucharist. But as I struggled this way and that with the Greek text of Romans and Galatians, it dawned on me, I think in 1976, that a different solution was possible. In Romans 10.3 Paul, writing about his fellow Jews, declares that they are ignorant of the righteousness of God, and are seeking to establish ‘their own righteousness’. The wider context, not least 9.30–33, deals with the respective positions of Jews and Gentiles within God’s purposes – and with a lot more besides, of course, but not least that. Supposing, I thought, Paul meant ‘seeking to establish their own righteousness’, not in the sense of amoral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership? I saw at once that this would make excellent sense of Romans 9 and 10, and would enable the positive statements about the Law throughout Romans to be given full weight while making it clear that this kind of use of Torah, as an ethnic talisman, was an abuse.

 

[justbyfaith]

Or, you might consider that both in Galatians and Romans, it is teaching simply that the way to salvation (being born again) is through simple faith in Jesus Christ; but that those who have faith in Christ love Jesus much because they are forgiven much (Luke 7:36-50, 1 John 4:19), and therefore desire to obey Him. Since to obey Him means to obey His commandments, those who are redeemed will be doers of the word, the law of God (Romans 8:4, Romans 8:7, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6, Romans 13:8-10; w/ Romans 5:5).

But Paul is trying to make clear in both epistles that the way to be redeemed is not going to happen through our observance of the law or by what we do; but that we must enter in through faith in Jesus Christ alone (John 14:6).

So by understanding cause and effect, and in not putting the cart before the horse, it becomes easier to see the relationship between law and grace. When you look at things this way, there are no contradictions between the negative statements about the law in Galatians and the positive statements about it in Romans.

I would mention as a final point what the Lord brought to my mind last night concerning the way to be saved:

In John 3:14-15 we find the words, spoken by Jesus, And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

And in Isaiah 45:22 it is written (Jehovah God speaking), Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.


As the bronze serpent was lifted up on a pole in the wilderness, and those who looked on the serpent were healed of the effects of the poison of the serpents that were then moving through the camp of Israel; so, if we look to Jesus as He was there dying on the Cross (for He is God), we will be healed of the poison of sin that afflicts us because we were "bitten" by the demonic principalities that have sought to destroy us.

We look unto Him and are saved. He took our sins upon Himself and bore the penalty for them; and our simple faith in this fact of scriptural truth redeems us.

Therefore as long as we keep these things in memory, as long as we continue to trust in Him and what He did for us on the Cross, we stand saved before a living and holy God (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (kjv)).

 

[justbyfaith]

btw, the word "impute" in English is an accounting term that means to credit to one's account.

 

[Wordkeeper]

btw, the word "impute" in English is an accounting term that means to credit to one's account.

Wrong. Impute is a forensic term. If the trial is declared a mistrial because the evidence was contaminated, the defendant is acquitted. So even though he is guilty, because of the prosecutors goof up, innocence is imputed to the defendant. IOW, he is guilty, but because of the incompetence of the prosecution, the criminal escapes. His innocence is legal fiction.

Repute is an accounting term. If a person possesses a hundred dollar bill, the Federal Reserve promises to pay the bearer one hundred crisp one dollar bills. The hundred dollar bill has got a good reputation in itself. If a person possesses a three dollar bill, no one, not even God, can rightfully pay him three one dollar bills. It doesn't have a reputation, a correct face value. If God imputes, lends a value to the three dollar bill, it won't be the value of the Federal Reserve. In other words, if God gives three one dollar bills to the bearer of the fictional bill, He has not carried out a legal transaction.

Abraham's act was not imputed, a legal fiction. It was reputed, an accounting credit. It was really credited to him as an entry, in his righteousness account.

Or, you might consider that both in Galatians and Romans, it is teaching simply that the way to salvation (being born again) is through simple faith in Jesus Christ; but that those who have faith in Christ love Jesus much because they are forgiven much (Luke 7:36-50, 1 John 4:19), and therefore desire to obey Him. Since to obey Him means to obey His commandments, those who are redeemed will be doers of the word, the law of God (Romans 8:4, Romans 8:7, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6, Romans 13:8-10; w/ Romans 5:5).

But Paul is trying to make clear in both epistles that the way to be redeemed is not going to happen through our observance of the law or by what we do; but that we must enter in through faith in Jesus Christ alone (John 14:6).

So by understanding cause and effect, and in not putting the cart before the horse, it becomes easier to see the relationship between law and grace. When you look at things this way, there are no contradictions between the negative statements about the law Galatians and the positive statements about it in Romans.

I would mention as a final point what the Lord brought to my mind last night concerning the way to be saved:

In John 3:14-15 we find the words, spoken by Jesus, And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

And in Isaiah 45:22 it is written (Jehovah God speaking), Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.


As the bronze serpent was lifted up on a pole in the wilderness, and those who looked on the serpent were healed of the effects of the poison of the serpents that were then moving through the camp of Israel; so, if we look to Jesus as He was there dying on the Cross (for He is God), we will be healed of the poison of sin that afflicts us because we were "bitten" by the demonic principalities that have sought to destroy us.

We look unto Him and are saved. He took our sins upon Himself and bore the penalty for them; and our simple faith in this fact of scriptural truth redeems us.

Therefore as long as we keep these things in memory, as long as we continue to trust in Him and what He did for us on the Cross, we stand saved before a living and holy God (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (kjv)).

Wrong. what the article says is that in Romans, Paul praises good works, teaches it is necessary for all believers, and judgment depends on persistence, attempts to be perfect, which will lead to grace, which is sufficient to have a part of Christ. In Galatians, Paul attacks the need to take up Works of the Law, to pass the requirements of conversion, to become Jews, which the Judaisers were wrongly teaching was necessary for believers to have a part of Christ.

 

[Bible2+]

Wordkeeper said in post #171:

Abraham didn't have to become a Jew to be justified.

He didn't have to do anything to be initially justified (Romans 4:3), just as we don't (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Wordkeeper said in post #171:

Salvation is from the Jews.

Through their New Covenant (Hebrews 9:15), made only with them (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Wordkeeper said in post #171:

Israel was cut off because of unbelief.

No, for there are Christian Jews as well as Christian Gentiles (1 Corinthians 12:13). So only "some" (in the sense of not all) Jews are cut off from the tree of Israel (Romans 11:17a) because of their unbelief in Jesus Christ (Romans 11:20) and His saving New Covenant Passover death on the Cross for our sins (1 Corinthians 5:7b, Matthew 26:28). Compare the Old Covenant cutting off of only some Israelites from Israel if they failed to keep the Old Covenant Passover (Numbers 9:13).

 

[Bible2+]

justbyfaith said in post #172:

. . . what is preached from post #166 down is not the gospel, it is not good news. It is bondage to the law . . .

No, there is no bondage to the law for Christians.

For on Jesus Christ's Cross, for both Jews and Gentiles (John 11:51-52), of all times, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was completely and forever abolished (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), disannulled (Hebrews 7:18), rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8), taken away and replaced (Hebrews 10:9) by the better hope (Hebrews 7:19), the better covenant (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-12), the second covenant (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 10:9), of Jesus' New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 1:17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 9:15), so that the law was changed (Hebrews 7:12).

All Christians, whether Jews or Gentles, of all times, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, and should not keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Galatians 2:11-21), or have any desire to keep it (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25). Christians keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6) by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12).

The New Covenant is a new law (Hebrews 7:12,18-19, Hebrews 10:1-23), consisting of Jesus Christ's New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15), such as those which He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29), and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37). These commandments exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48). So there is no reason for any Christian to ever want to go back under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). It was just a temporary schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24-25), a temporary shadow (Colossians 2:16-17), which God set up because of sins long after He had set up the original promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, and long before He brought this promise to fulfillment in Jesus' New Covenant (Galatians 3:16-29, Matthew 26:28).

*******

justbyfaith said in post #175:

Since to obey Him means to obey His commandments, those who are redeemed will be doers of the word . . .

Not necessarily, because of free will.

For Matthew 25:26,30 shows that even someone who was a servant of Jesus Christ can ultimately lose his salvation because of unrepentant laziness. One way that a Christian could desire to become lazy without repentance would be if he finds a particular sin to be very pleasurable, so pleasurable and so fulfilling (in the short term), that he continues in it over time until his love for God grows cold because of the abundance of iniquity (Matthew 24:12). Love for God means choosing to do what God says to do (1 John 5:3). So if one's love for God grows cold (Matthew 24:12), one will no longer choose to do what God says to do (John 14:24), meaning that one will become lazy in God's eyes (Matthew 25:26,30).

 

[Wordkeeper]

He didn't have to do anything to be initially justified (Romans 4:3), just as we don't (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Before he was circumcised, performed the Works of the Law to covenant with God, Abraham was loyal, faithful, to God. Loyalty, faith, is credited as righteousness, saves.

Romans 4
9Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;

Through their New Covenant (Hebrews 9:15), made only with them (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

No, salvation is from the Jews because the Messiah comes from Israel. Some wires in your noggin are crossed, it seems. Otherwise you would understand simple statements.

No, for there are Christian Jews as well as Christian Gentiles (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Wrong. There are no Christian Jews. When they convert, they are no longer Jews. Ask any Rabbi.

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Galatians 3
28There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male andfemale. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So only "some" (in the sense of not all) Jews are cut off from the tree of Israel (Romans 11:17a)

Romans 11
17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

Wrong, Some branches were broken off means Jews were broken off. There are no Jews in the root of the olive tree after the Temple fell, Israel is unclean, not consecrated to the Lord.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jewish-sacrifices.html

Quote
For all intents and purposes, the Jewish practice of animal sacrifice ended in AD 70, the year that the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. With the temple gone, there is no longer a place for the sacrifices to be offered according to the Mosaic Law (see Deuteronomy 12:13–14). Repeatedly in the Old Testament, the point is made that sacrifices were required to make atonement for sin (e.g., Exodus 29:36; Leviticus 4:31; 9:7; 14:19; 15:15; Numbers 15:25). The shedding of blood is what consecrated things and people to the Lord (Leviticus 16:19; cf. Hebrews 9:22).

because of their unbelief in Jesus Christ (Romans 11:20) and His saving New Covenant Passover death on the Cross for our sins (1 Corinthians 5:7b, Matthew 26:28). Compare the Old Covenant cutting off of only some Israelites from Israel if they failed to keep the Old Covenant Passover (Numbers 9:13).

Romans 11
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;

All Jews can’t keep the Covenant Passover, so all Israel is cut off.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No.
A remnant Yahweh saved for Himself,
and others later were /are/ grafted back in, as Yahweh's Word Says Clearly.

All Jews can’t keep the Covenant Passover, so all Israel is cut off.