understanding Paul

[DNB]

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!

Hi Randy, thank you for the feedback. I was alluding to Romans 5:14, where death reigned due to the fact that no immediate Covenant was established in order to absolve men from their sins.

Romans 5:14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

In the same manner, although the Covenant of Grace, which supersedes, and is greater than, the Law of Works, was not implemented till the time of Christ, we see that there was still a means to attain God's approbation during the interim between Moses and Christ. Men were not without hope during this time period, and clearly not all were aware of the Gospel of Faith (I used death in a slightly different sense than Romans 5:14).

 

[Randy Kluth]

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.

Are you kidding? I see no difference! If this is your big protest, you need to go back to the drawing board.

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).

Enjoy your own comical protest. It may sell one or two copies.

 

[Behold]

We're good DNB

 

[Randy Kluth]

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 call this "playground antics." You did this to me, so I'm doing this to you! As I said, my purpose was not to insult you, which just brings a tit for a tat. No, my purpose is to draw a very real association between your position and that of a heretic that I know you wouldn't want to be associated with.

You need to explain why your position is not like Marcion when you, like him, tend to depreciate the value of the OT Law. Instead you want to trade insults?

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.

I'm not into Total Depravity, but I wouldn't separate over it. However, Total Depravity does not imply the Law was evil either, which is what you seem to imply. If you think the Law had nothing positive to brings its adherents, then why would God have given it to them?

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)).

I don't disagree with that statement on its face. The implication that the works of the Law are necessarily without faith is, I think, wrong. But to say that the works of the Law *can be* without faith is correct, and they would be legitimately characterized as "filthy rags." They are an illegitimate covering, when faith is not present.

My only argument here is that God *intended* faith to be part of the works of the Law. So we need to be careful when depicting the Law as *necessarily without faith.* If that's not what you're saying, we're good.

 

[Behold]

. If you think the Law had nothing positive to brings its adherents, then why would God have given it to them?

God gave the Law to define transgression and transgressors.
The law is the Mirror of God's holiness, that reflects our unrighteousness so that we can SEE IT as HE sees it.
Its from this revelation of the Law that we understand our eternal need for righteousness, which is only available through the Cross.
Without the Law showing us our sinfulness, there would be no way to understand our need of Jesus and Redemption.
The blood of Jesus is given context, by the Law's revelation of our sin.

 

[Randy Kluth]

RK wrote theological gibberish regarding any understanding of Paul, and even the first sentence in Rk's Thread isn't even true.
Peter knew Paul personally, and had access to Paul's letters.
So, what you selling, Randy?
Try again., but avoid this Topic, (Paul) (New Testament) as you are not equipped to handle those, RK.

I'm not equipped at what--presenting what Peter actually said?

2 Peter 3.16 [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Randy Kluth]

God gave the Law to define transgression and transgressors.
The law is the Mirror of God's holiness, that reflects our unrighteousness so that we can SEE IT as HE sees it.
Its from this revelation of the Law that we understand our eternal need for righteousness, which is only available through the Cross.
Without the Law showing us our sinfulness, there would be no way to understand our need of Jesus and Redemption.
The blood of Jesus is given context, by the Law's revelation of our sin.

I agree that the Law revealed our sins and weaknesses, requiring atonement. The Law provided that atonement on a temporary basis, and thus showed Israel that they needed a better atonement for *permanent atonement* for their sins.

The Law did indeed reflect God's holiness as in a mirror, and next to that image we look flawed, needing more than temporary atonement--we needed permanent atonement and a complete remake of ourselves. Jesus did provide for that at the cross, which will be realized in the resurrection.

Perhaps you just don't understand my point, and so I will reiterate. Even though all of the above is true, my point is that the Law provided a *temporary* means of righteousness, which was indeed acceptable before God. It kept Israel in good standing with God, as long at they remained in this righteousness, depending on the temporary means of atonement that God provided for them in that covenant.

Obviously, the Law showed them that despite their temporary status with God they still needed further work. And this did come at the cross, as you stated. My only worry is that when we discuss the Law we fail to recognize how God used it in a positive way, and not just tell Israel what it *didn't have.* Maybe we're just talking past each other, and not connecting on particular points?

 

[Behold]

Perhaps you just don't understand my point, and so I will reiterate. Even though all of the above is true, my point is that the Law provided a *temporary* means of righteousness,

The Law has never ever provided any means of Righteousness.
NONE.
ZERO.
It cant.
This is proven by the fact that in the OT you had to sacrifice the BLOOD of animals, and in the NEW TESTAMENT You find the sacrifice of God's blood for the "world". John 3:16

God's blood and the CROSS proves that the law can't provide Righteousness.
Redemption, forgiveness, pardon, can't be found in the LAW, its only found in the BLOOD.
= "without the sheddng of BLOOD there is not clearing, pardon, or forgiveness, for SIN".

Do not teach that the Law can provide righteousness or ever did at any time....it cannot. IT can only define Transgressing and "sin".

""""Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions"""

""""IF = there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."""

""""the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."""

 

[Randy Kluth]

Randy Kluth said: ↑
That also had a covenant that propagated a new spiritual nature.


Where do you see that in Scripture?

Some feel that Eze 36.26 refers to the salvation of Israel under the New Covenant. But the following has to do with the return of Israel from the Babylonian Captivity. They were to change from their previous state of idolatry to a state of fidelity to God.

Eze 11.17 “Therefore say: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will gather you from the nations and bring you back from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you back the land of Israel again.’

18 “They will return to it and remove all its vile images and detestable idols. 19 I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. 20 Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God. 21 But as for those whose hearts are devoted to their vile images and detestable idols, I will bring down on their own heads what they have done, declares the Sovereign Lord.”

That his applied *under the Law* is even more clear here...

Eze 18.Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel?

This unmistakably indicates that under the Law God desired that Israel give up their sinful attitudes and adopt a new nature. This was a return to righteousness from a state of backsliding. In Jesus' time, Israel was in a state of backsliding, and Jesus was preparing to offer them a permanent new nature, the new life in Christ. This is salvation.

 

[marks]

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

And what exactly was the problem you are finding?

 

[marks]

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!

Deceiptful beyond cure? That doesn't speak "total depravity" to you?

 

[marks]

Christ's atonement

Hi Randy,

I hope you receive this in the spirit I intend . . .

I'd like to suggest that you do some word studies in the Bible, including Atonement, Righteousness, Mercy Seat, New Covenant, really, any others that are related. I think once you do these more will come up. Looking at every place these words appear, and I'd use a more literal translation like the King James, or NASB, JP Green, something like that.

Looking at the Greek and Hebrew words used, and which words are used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew OT. That shows much about how the ancients understood the text.

Looking at related words to get a fuller sense of their meanings. Comparing and contasting the words used for atonement in the OT, compared to the way this is

Atonement is a very misused word. It is used to translate a few different words in the OT, but none of them are the same as what God did for us in the New Covenant.

Sinces were covered in the OT for those who trusted God. But in the New Testament, sins have been removed. This is completely different, and confusion between the two can lead us to the wrong sum.

Much love!

 

[CharismaticLady]

Until Christ died for all sin on the cross, the stain of sin was on all men. No matter how much "right" they did, no matter how much they repented, they could not achieve eternal life until *after* the atonement of Christ. Repentance must be coupled with Christ's atonement in order to achieve eternal life.

I agree. So once we have repented and come under Jesus, then do we live in atonement?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Deceiptful beyond cure? That doesn't speak "total depravity" to you?

marks, I though you said you weren't a Calvinist???

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Randy,

I hope you receive this in the spirit I intend . . .

I'd like to suggest that you do some word studies in the Bible, including Atonement, Righteousness, Mercy Seat, New Covenant, really, any others that are related. I think once you do these more will come up. Looking at every place these words appear, and I'd use a more literal translation like the King James, or NASB, JP Green, something like that.

Looking at the Greek and Hebrew words used, and which words are used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew OT. That shows much about how the ancients understood the text.

Looking at related words to get a fuller sense of their meanings. Comparing and contasting the words used for atonement in the OT, compared to the way this is

Atonement is a very misused word. It is used to translate a few different words in the OT, but none of them are the same as what God did for us in the New Covenant.

Sinces were covered in the OT for those who trusted God. But in the New Testament, sins have been removed. This is completely different, and confusion between the two can lead us to the wrong sum.

Much love!

May I suggest to you that instead of asking me to study, you correct where you think I've not properly used these words? I've already studied the Bible for a very long time. And I'm certainly open to change, where you find I've gone wrong. But the burden is on you to *prove* that I've misused these words, rather than simply ask me to go back and study where I'm wrong, when you haven't even proved I'm wrong.

You, in fact, are doing what you infer I'm doing. And I could just as easily ask you to go back and do the studies, without even stating what you need to study! You're saying that atonement always means to "cover" in the OT, and always means to "remove" in the NT.

Have you done a language study of the *words* to prove that? Certainly, in the broader context this would be true. But are the concepts of "temporary" and "final" atonement really inherent in these words, such as "atonement?" I don't think so. They require context to be understood, as I see it.

For the record, the principle of *temporary atonement* under the Law and *final atonement* by the Cross is something I've been stating for some time. It's a language I've been using for quite a while now. And you seem to be saying the *exact same thing,* even as you claim I'm using the words wrong. This has me befuddled!

Do you really find, in your own studies, that there are definitive *words* that express "cover" in the OT and "remove" in the NT. Most often, technical words like "atonement" would not infer these things, unless qualified by other words.

But I'm not a language expert. I could go to my brother for the answer. But we're the ones having the discussion. And the burden is on you to correct me if indeed you're making the claim I'm wrong. I sincerely would like to know more on this, if you have more?

 

[marks]

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.

I'd say this is an assumption that may apply to some but not to others. Minds work in all sorts of ways. "we in the western world think" is overgeneralized.

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.

True, there is the righteousness that is of the law, and the righteousness of God by faith. One is considered worthless by Paul for salvation, the other, the righteousness of God, that's what saves us.

. . . not to say that bad men can't do good things. But we need to think through what those good things mean, and are. Good works are good, of course, but good works don't save.

I don't really find Paul all that difficult to understand when I just accept what he wrote, and apply myself to understanding it. I do find you rather difficult to understand though!

For instance I don't know why you said this . . .

"It's a matter of straightening out messes when our secular world disturbs the message of religious truth."

You raise an interesting point. Righteousness apart from salvation.

"I reject God, but I help ladies cross the street." Is that truly righteousness?

The righteousness that is by the Law. If Paul declared this worthless, what does that tell you? Is righteousness apart from faith in God righteous?

Did the righteous acts of the Jews save them? I don't think so! I think is was trusting in God as they saw their own unrighteousness. Looking for His mercy.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I agree. So once we have repented and come under Jesus, then do we live in atonement?

I'm not sure what that means. How do we "live in atonement?" If you mean that once we repent and accept Jesus we live in *his righteousness," in "his new nature," I agree. We are saved because we have chosen to live with him, in him, and through him. Thanks.

 

[marks]

marks, I though you said you weren't a Calvinist???

I'm just saying the heart is deceiptful and desparately wicked, and who can know it?

And to me that sounds an awful lot like what I think when I hear the words, total depravity. If your heart is deceiptful, without cure, and you can't know it, what does that sound like to you?

Am I Calvinist? That's an entirely different question. I don't believe in limited atonement, or unconditional election, for instance.

Much love!

 

[marks]

May I suggest to you that instead of asking me to study, you correct where you think I've not properly used these words? I've already studied the Bible for a very long time.

That was my first thought but you didn't seem too receptive of that, and so I suggest you find out for yourself. You've studied a long time, and you insist that Atonement is what Jesus did. So what can I say?

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Law has never ever provided any means of Righteousness.
NONE.
ZERO.
It cant.

That is completely, absolutely, and finally false!
That you're wrong is easily provable. I need only provide a single verse here.

Psalm 119.1 Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord.

This is proven by the fact that in the OT you had to sacrifice the BLOOD of animals, and in the NEW TESTAMENT You find the sacrifice of God's blood for the "world". John 3:16

That proves nothing! God *required* that animal blood be offered! How can obedience to that *not* be righteousness? I think you're confused. And I'm utterly unable to convey to you the problem.