understanding Paul

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hence the problem! You say the Law is good, and yet claim it makes no one righteous. Make up your mind!

Where to you see a problem? The law cannot make a person righteous, not because there is a problem with the Law, the problem is with people.

This is Romans 7.

The problem is, you just quote Scripture and don't think through what I'm saying. The Law was indeed making Israel righteous. It was covenant that cultivated a new nature of righteousness in Israel, as opposed to the pagan culture of Egypt.

OK, the new nature I'm talking about is the one who is born from above. The one who is a spirit, born of spirit. If you are talking about the culture of the people, that's what I mean. It inculcated a culture of the requirements of God's Law so there would always remain a remnant.

Paul was just expressing his "Christianese"

That's an interesting point of view. Myself, I don't look at this as some sort of lingo, rather, extremely specific and direct teaching.

Atonement is clearly a NT term!
Rom 3.25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.

upload_2020-6-30_15-50-9.png

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

"hilasterion", translated here "propitiation".

Atonement doesn't appear here.

The KJV uses "atonement" in Romans 5:11, but that is better translated "reconciliation".

To cover sin is either to temporarily remove sin or to permanently remove sin. Animal sacrifices temporarily removed sins. Christ's sacrifice permanently removed sins.

In the NT, different words are used, send away, release, free, like that. But yes, I agree with the distinction, in the OT sacrifices sins were covered, and in Christ, they are removed.

Much love!
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are chalk full of sarcasm, brother. Why don't you try to understand what I'm saying? Of course I'm trying to discuss both our views.
Sorry if this came across sarcastic! I was thinking back trying to remember where I was refusing something.

marks said:

By being conformed to the image of Christ, which happens by the renewing of our minds, which largely happens by internalizing His Word, this is how we are relevant to others, and to our culture. What this worlds doesn't need is someone with a system, or a philosophy, or a method, it needs someone who will be as Jesus, by being conformed to His image.


That's absolutely wrong-minded and selfish. God does whatever *He wants to do!* If He made a Justin Martyr, who syntheszed Christianity and philosophy, who are you to judge God for doing that? If God made the Church Fathers, who synthesized Greek language with Biblical Language, who are we to judge God for doing that?
I don't think you are thinking through what I'm saying here. I don't think we are to make it our business to dig into philosophy in order to be relevant. I'm not saying that's not what God will do with us. But just to try to import Scripture into philosophy or visa versa on the pursuit of relevance is to me a mistake.

We pursue Christ, and let Him work out the rest.

I agree. Just don't let that become a callous, "religious" spirit! God often takes us out of our comfort zones, right? Our hearts have to be open to a fresh word every day.

Absolutely!

:)

We follow along moment by moment wherever He should lead.

Much love!
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's okay brother. I hope we get to know each other better. But as much as I disagree with you to make my points, I think your heart and head are in the right place. Let's give it time?
All I ask is that you try to lay aside your preconceptions of me or my views. I'm perfectly happy to discuss these things, I feel them to be important.

Much love!
 

Yan

Active Member
Jun 15, 2020
410
143
43
City of David
the-land-of-hope.blogspot.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Indonesia
Paul had been saved by Jesus from doing evil further, because before he was called paul was also doing such law breaker where he did persecute Stephanus and his name was still Saulus (Acts of the Apostles 7:54-60).
Paul was doing the same as Moses did killed the egyptian (Exodus 2:11-15).
So, both Moses and Paul was also disobedient of the law but they were still protected by God with his Grace only.
So, nobody could obey 10 commandments in the whole life because in some point of man's life; everybody will disobedient to the law for something good intention like Moses killed egyption only to save their people from egyption tirany and slavery.
Because as what Paul had told on Romans 3 & Romans 4 that nobody was righteous and God's grace was only a gift to mankind as our Parent and mankind as his children. So, Jesus had been redeem our mistakes by disobeying the law from the devil imprisonment, because as what Jude had told that Moses life was under imprisonment of the devil in Jude 1:9, so did the Paul was also in the same fate. But because of the salvation in Jesus name and our baptism in holy spirit makes our soul are free from the imprisonment of the devil.
This is how we should understand that the main concern between obeying the law and disobedient of the law was no matter at all in Jesus name (1 Corinthians 7:17-24).
But whosoever was the disobedient of the law should lived under the law as what Paul also tried to be holy to get lived under the obedient of the law that will make us free from our sinful nature and not to satisfied all of his fleshy desire (1 Corinthians 9:27 - Admin, why did this verse was not linked to the bible), because Jesus was redeem us to be obedient of his law that will make us lived in a righteous freedom (1 Peter 2:11-17; Colossians 2:6-23).
 
Last edited:

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It was not linked to the Bible because the translation of the Bible that is utilized by these boards does not have that verse in it.

Some Bibles do in fact remove important verses and for this reason I stick to the kjv.

(I am not claiming to be an Administrator, but I did have the answer to your question).

To @Yan
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
My understanding is that the Law, both its required observances and means for absolution (temporary), lead a person to righteousness. For this was the Covenant of God, a Covenant with a promise, 'those who adhere to my decrees and precepts, shall live by them'. Again, this was a Covenant, as much as we have today, the Covenant of Faith, that those who abide by its principles shall inherit life. Two Testaments, both with a promise.

Romans 10:5. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.
The Law offered life to those who obeyed it, otherwise why stipulate such an arduous task if there were no rewards at the end. Yes, it was onerous and many failed, but provisions were established in order that one may find absolution if he was found in sin, knowingly or not. David extolled the virtues of the Law and how they brought life to those who revered them.

Clearly not everyone under the Law knew of Christ, nor anticipated a suffering Messiah, nor the redemption on the cross. Therefore, outside of the hope for a Davidic king, they could not have appreciated the spiritual salvation that would come with the inauguration of the Messiah.

Paul is establishing that the repetitious nature of the Law, sin & sacrifice, could never perpetually render someone absolved of their sins, but only temporarily. That is, only until the next time that they transgressed the Law. But the oblations and burnt offerings prescribed in the Law for forgiveness, were duly efficacious to render one guiltless for the time being. Death did not reign from Moses to Christ, nor did all the Old Testament saints comprehend the righteousness that comes with faith. And those that did, were merely foreshadowing what was to come, as in the case of Abraham (although not under Law).

Paul explained that God has offered an alternate way to salvation, one less fastidious and grueling, and more permanent. Any allusions to this in the OT were not defining a mandatory means to salvation, but an anticipation and understanding of what was to come. The Law saved those who followed all its precepts, both for righteous living, and for restitution upon failure.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,621
2,335
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
All I ask is that you try to lay aside your preconceptions of me or my views. I'm perfectly happy to discuss these things, I feel them to be important.

Much love!

I have no preconceptions of you or your views, other than you appear to be a faithful Christian. Discussion of points that matter to me are always preeminent in my mind. I try to fix things with brothers and sisters later. ;)
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,621
2,335
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
My understanding is that the Law, both its required observances and means for absolution (temporary), lead a person to righteousness. For this was the Covenant of God, a Covenant with a promise, 'those who adhere to my decrees and precepts, shall live by them'. Again, this was a Covenant, as much as we have today, the Covenant of Faith, that those who abide by its principles shall inherit life. Two Testaments, both with a promise.

Romans 10:5. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.
The Law offered life to those who obeyed it, otherwise why stipulate such an arduous task if there were no rewards at the end. Yes, it was onerous and many failed, but provisions were established in order that one may find absolution if he was found in sin, knowingly or not. David extolled the virtues of the Law and how they brought life to those who revered them.

Clearly not everyone under the Law knew of Christ, nor anticipated a suffering Messiah, nor the redemption on the cross. Therefore, outside of the hope for a Davidic king, they could not have appreciated the spiritual salvation that would come with the inauguration of the Messiah.

Paul is establishing that the repetitious nature of the Law, sin & sacrifice, could never perpetually render someone absolved of their sins, but only temporarily. That is, only until the next time that they transgressed the Law. But the oblations and burnt offerings prescribed in the Law for forgiveness, were duly efficacious to render one guiltless for the time being. Death did not reign from Moses to Christ, nor did all the Old Testament saints comprehend the righteousness that comes with faith. And those that did, were merely foreshadowing what was to come, as in the case of Abraham (although not under Law).

Paul explained that God has offered an alternate way to salvation, one less fastidious and grueling, and more permanent. Any allusions to this in the OT were not defining a mandatory means to salvation, but an anticipation and understanding of what was to come. The Law saved those who followed all its precepts, both for righteous living, and for restitution upon failure.

I didn't understand the part about "death did not reign from Moses to Christ." Other than that I think that was wonderfully said, with a lot of insight. My biggest concern is that Christians would mindlessly quote Scriptures as if they understand, as if the external meaning can be stated without explanation. But you show you understand. Peace!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DNB

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,621
2,335
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't think you are thinking through what I'm saying here. I don't think we are to make it our business to dig into philosophy in order to be relevant. I'm not saying that's not what God will do with us. But just to try to import Scripture into philosophy or visa versa on the pursuit of relevance is to me a mistake.

This, however, is *not* what I'm doing. So it is a bit judgmental of you to imply that.

My point is that Paul is not speaking into a vacuum, that his "shorthand" statements about faith, righteousness, and salvation refer, in context, to salvation, and should not be confused with similar things that do not have the same meaning. This has led to problems that I will not take the time to describe now.

It is precisely because we in the Western world think through a philosophical lens that we need to untangle the religious truth from the philosophical truth. And that is what I'm doing. In short, one example is the following.

We should *not* say that because Paul said we were "dead in sin" conclude that nobody in the world can make a decision for righteousness, nor surmise that righteousness cannot exist unless it leads to Salvation. I'll let it go at that. It's a matter of straightening out messes when our secular world disturbs the message of religious truth.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,621
2,335
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And therefore, man's righteousness apart from faith in Christ is as filthy rags...:rolleyes:

Not at all. Man's works fall short of acquiring permanent atonement. And yet the priesthood of Israel was made effective by the word of God that commanded it to be done. "Filthy rags" applied to those who covered up their internal or hidden sin by doing external works of the Law.

No cheaper than you saying that I am a student of Marcion.

That was not the statement. I'm saying you're theology implies things similar to what Marcion taught--something that I don't at all believe you want to be associated with!

But, humanistic philosophy teaches that man is inherently good rather than what the Bible says about the unregenerated heart in Jeremiah 17:9; and I happen to know that you reject the testimony of that verse for the concept that man has good in himself and can be righteous apart from Christ.

I reject *your interpretation* of that verse. I do not reject the verse itself, nor what it actually means.

Jer 17.9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

How do you get from the deceitfulness of the human heart to "Total Depravity?" You don't!

I told you I don't hold to humanistic philosophy. I believe in the sin nature in all men. I believe that the new nature in Christ overcomes sin, though it cannot exterminate sin.

Humanism mixes religious truth with human philosophical concepts. I don't do that. I do not believe man was able to obtain atonement on his own, even though God called for Israel to do something to that effect on a limited, temporary basis.

There are things we do in the process of getting saved. For example, we accept Christ, we repent of our sins, and we determine to follow up on the receipt of a new nature by choosing for spiritual things over the carnal things that continue to press against us.

Only Christ could make atonement for our sins, leading to eternal salvation. You're saying that man plays no role in accepting salvation, in believing for salvation, in producing righteousness as a result of that salvation? To say that righteousness under the Law was meaningless, worthless, and the opposite of true righteousness is clearly in the camp of Marcion-like dualism.

For what it's worth, I don't think you believe in Marcion. I use him to shame you away from your apparent dualistic thinking. ;)
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,621
2,335
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Something on this . . .

We've been talking about context, I'd like to point to the context of this passage, this is part of his build up to show how we are all guilty before God. In this particular part, I see the main theme being that being a Jew does not give you the advantage into salvation over a gentile, just because you were given the Law.

Everyone has a sense of right and wrong.

An interesting thing is in the syntax of the verbs, accusing and defending.

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

View attachment 9801

"and between one another the reasonings accusing or also defending."

While accusing is an Active Voice, defending is a Passive/Deponent verb. So what this verse is saying here, is that people know right and wrong, they accuse others, and defend themselves.

But the point I'd like to bring up is that it says when they "by nature" do the things written in the law, this is by nature, and not an act of obedience.

Now, I know that gentiles have obeyed God. It's just that this verse doesn't teach an innate ability in all people to be willingly obedient to God.

Much love!

I'm not at all sure you're right in your interpretation of "accuse and defend," but neither am I sure you're wrong! ;) I would have to defer to my brother, who is much more adept at the biblical languages. If you wish I can consult him?

I do think, however, that this verse may not teach, but does assume, that all men have a conscience and are able to obey God's word, if only hidden within the universal human conscience. I think that's pretty explicit, and even though it is an assumed conception, it is spelled out.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,621
2,335
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What is your philosophy of "free will"?

Much love!

I believe all men were created, by God, in His own image, so that men may respond to the word of God for their lives. Sin has darkened human understanding, and when men do not live in covenant with God may not recognize that it is God's word speaking to them within their conscience. But men may avail themselves of the inherent power of God's word to obey that word, whether they recognize it as such or not.

For example, after the Fall men remain capable to obeying God's word calling them to "fill the earth and subdue it." Men are still multiplying, and they are still subduing the earth. They are fashioning good things out of the soil of the earth to produce good things capable of serving the interests of men. That is "subduing the earth." The earth is now quite "full." ;)

Men were equally able, under the covenant of the Law, to serve the word of God, particularly when they actually knew God! God Himself inspired Moses to say that these words were "not too hard" for Israel to obey them.

And so, the word of God goes out across the earth, and reaches down from heaven to men, telling them to do the right thing, and to subdue evil desires. God told Cain he could indeed overcome sin, if he simply chose to do so. The word of God holds the inherent power to give men the ability to obey God.

When men choose against the word of God, it is not because they are unable to obey God, but rather, because they simply don't want to obey God. They are free creatures.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,621
2,335
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you look at what I said, I said the righteousness of the Law is not salvific. But Scripture says plainly . . .

Galatians 2
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Much love!

This is a perfect example of quoting Paul without providing the understanding. Here we have a statement of mine that is confused by some, because they misinterpret Paul.

But you then simply quote Paul without any resolution of the problem I stated at all! Good job proving nothing! ;)

I could explain what Paul means, but why bother? You don't try to explain it yourself!

Let me just say this for the sake of others who may read. Paul is prescribing living in the new nature of Christ. He is not saying he is actually dead! ;) Nor was he saying that the Law was dead before Christ himself died. It died only at the moment Christ himself died!

Again, I said: There is so much "Christianese" thrown about that quotes are used to say absurd things like, "the righteousness of the Law is not true righteousness" and "the Law was given not to offer righteousness but rather to prove people couldn't be righteous."

The Law had righteousness that existed temporarily as a fill-in until Christ's atonement took place. Then the righteousness of the Law was finished.

It had not been worthless, however, since it did do an adequate job of keeping Israel in relationship with God, and forgiven of their sins, until Christ's atonement made permanent their hope in Messiah.
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,794
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Randy Kluth said:
That also had a covenant that propagated a new spiritual nature.


Where do you see that in Scripture?
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That was not the statement. I'm saying you're theology implies things similar to what Marcion taught--something that I don't at all believe you want to be associated with!

And I'm saying that your theology implies things similar to what humanistic philosophy teaches...something that I don't believe you want to be associated with.

I reject *your interpretation* of that verse. I do not reject the verse itself, nor what it actually means.

Jer 17.9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

How do you get from the deceitfulness of the human heart to "Total Depravity?" You don't!

Here is the kjv on it:

Jer 17:9, The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

I get total depravity out of that most faithfully.

And if the heart is deceitful beyond cure, I get total depravity out of that also.

To say that righteousness under the Law was meaningless, worthless, and the opposite of true righteousness is clearly in the camp of Marcion-like dualism.

No. I don't know what Marcion believed about these things; but I do know that righteousness under the law *is as filthy rags*...and that the only genuine righteousness is the righteousness which is of God by faith (Philippians 3:9, Isaiah 64:6, Revelation 19:8 (kjv)).
 

Yan

Active Member
Jun 15, 2020
410
143
43
City of David
the-land-of-hope.blogspot.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Indonesia
It was not linked to the Bible because the translation of the Bible that is utilized by these boards does not have that verse in it.

Some Bibles do in fact remove important verses and for this reason I stick to the kjv.

(I am not claiming to be an Administrator, but I did have the answer to your question).

To @Yan
But lets take a look in the full verses of 1 Corinthians 9.
 

Behold

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2020
15,221
6,248
113
Netanya or Pensacola
Faith
Christian
Country
Israel
I do not find that I can converse with you on this matter because you limit what you will discuss. You will only discuss the Scriptures, and only your view of them.

Actually, its your view of the Scriptures, that is the issue.
For example, you stated that Peter said....."paul is difficult to understand"... Yet Peter never said this.... YOU said it.
So the first sentence in your Thread is false.. Its this... """"Peter said that Paul was sometimes difficult to understand. """"
What Peter actually said is that Paul's LETTERS can be difficult to understand, but he did not say the MAN himself is hard to understand.
So, your original Thread's first sentence starts off with something that isn't in the New Testament, because its YOUR complete misunderstanding of the verse.
But here is the good news.....
Now you can go and edit the Thread so that you can pretend that you didn't write what i just exposed, and this way, your pretense of bible knowledge is more carefully hidden. (except it isn't).