How do you confirm a false prophet or false apostle?

[hch]

John said, "The principle applies to the entire Bible because it's a fundamental truth of Scripture that God is consistent and therefore does not inspire His prophets to write contradictions."

You make this statement on your own authority because there is no Scriptural authority for what you say. When Isaiah wrote the 8:20 text THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT, so you cannot say with any authority that he was applying this text to something that had not even been written yet. It is merely an assumption on your part that this belief of yours is true.

True Isaiah 8:20 was written in the OT. But the OT did not loose its authority when the NT was written.

Bible Fact: John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

When that was written most of the NT had not been. The majority of the Scriptures referred to here were OT.

Bible Fact: 2 Timothy 4:14-5: "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

1 ¶ I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

[hch]

Paul is asking his followers to 'practice lawlessness', and this is something that Jesus speaks directly against in Rev. 22:15:

Bible FACT: 2 Peter 3:14-16 "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

[Musicman1228]

hch,

Absolutely wonderful insights. Thank you for your discernment.

[John317]

I agree with you, MM, that those posts by hch are insightful and discerning. I agree with them.

[John317]

MM, please respond to post#425720.

[Musicman1228]

You wrote in that link:

Quote:

...suffice it to say that whether the Bible is or is not the actual/very words of God there is a way to know for sure whether what you read in the Bible is the truth.

Jesus Himself told us how we will know:

Quote:

John 7:17

If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.

John 8:42-43

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. [43] Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.

John 8:47

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

John 10:16

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

John 10:26-27

but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. [27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

1 Cor. 2:1-16

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. [2] For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. [3] And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, [4] and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, [5] that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

[6] Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. [7] But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. [8] None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [9] But, as it is written,

"What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,

nor the heart of man imagined,

what God has prepared for those who love him"—

[10] these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. [11] For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

[14] The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. [15] The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. [16] "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Daniel 12:10

Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.

If someone is wrong in their understanding of what the Bible says in any particular portion of Holy Scripture, will they be in any position to judge whether it is true or not?

You and Dr. Rich have demonstrated to me that both of you often misunderstand what the Bible is teaching, particularly in the parts of the New Testament that you reject. The evidence of this is in the many posts that we have written back and forth. Acts 2: 3 is just one example. Your idea that Paul's gospel teaches or encourages lawlessness is another. When you make these sorts of mistakes in interpreting the Bible, it comes as no surprise that you would conclude that large portions of the New Testament are not inspired by God but by God's enemy.

When I've shown you Bible evidence contrary to your conclusions, you rarely respond directly to what I've written, but instead you simply continue to say the same thing, usually on a different discussion, without speaking to the points I've made. It is as if you are saying, "Forget the evidence-- full speed ahead!"

How do you explain Romans 5: 5-16; Romans 13; 1 Cor. 6: 9,10; 7: 19 and 2 Thess. 1: 5 to 2: 17, in the light of your claim that Paul taught lawlessness? How can you harmonize these verses with lawlessness?

Back to front:

I don't presume to be able to explain the writings of Paul to anyone, all I do and all I have ever done, is point out EXACTLY what he has said. I am not the one that is ignoring evidence, those that choose to believe that what Paul wrote actually came from the One True God do that. Paul DID teach lawlessness, even though he makes statements to the contrary. He often will make a statement disparaging to the Law or the Covenant and then say "Did I say that? May it never be", or something similar. Paul speaks with two tongues, yet those that love him simply choose not to take him at his word.

I believe Paul meant everything he said, on both sides of the issue. This is why (apparently) Peter was so confused by what Paul said was the gospel of God [Note: Paul refers to the gospel as either 'His gospel' or the 'gospel of God').

Here is a terrific quote from a brilliant woman who wrote a book called 'The Death of Adam':

"We routinely disqualify testimony that would plead for examination. That is, we are so persuaded of the rightness of our judgment at to invalidate evidence that does not confirm us in it. Nothing that deserves to be called truth could ever be arrived at by such means." - Marilynne Robinson

As to the evidence you present:

Yes, you have shown evidence from the 'Bible', but rarely does that 'evidence' come from the words of Jesus Christ, and even more rarely if you do quote Jesus Christ are His words taken in context. More often than not the evidence you present comes directly from the very person that you are trying to defend.When I present evidence that is contrary to your understanding you NEVER refute that evidence ONLY with the words of Jesus Christ.

If I occasionally choose to not respond to you it is, for the most part, because I don't believe that anything I present on a particular subject will be taken seriously or looked at dispassionately. I know exactly how this works because I was right where you are a while back. I know you believe me to be just plain nuts because of what I believe about Paul, and this causes you to unfairly discount the testimony I present, which automatically prejudices you against any evidence I might present.

You erroneously believe that the entire Bible is "Holy Scripture", and this belief is the root cause as to why you maintain your ability to misinterpret what is Truth and what is not. Neither Jesus NOR Paul believed that their words were 'Scripture'. Both understood that Scripture was ONLY the Law and the Prophets, as was evidenced in their own testimony. For you to unilaterally change their understanding to one where the entire Bible from cover to cover is Scripture flies in the face of what they actually said. I am no longer willing to help disabuse you of this understanding, that you will have to do all on your own.

[John317]

How do you explain Romans 5: 5-16; Romans 13; 1 Cor. 6: 9,10; 7: 19 and 2 Thess. 1: 5 to 2: 17, in the light of your claim that Paul taught lawlessness? How can you harmonize these verses with lawlessness?

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

I don't presume to be able to explain the writings of Paul to anyone, all I do and all I have ever done, is point out EXACTLY what he has said. ... Paul DID teach lawlessness, even though he makes statements to the contrary. He often will make a statement disparaging to the Law or the Covenant and then say "Did I say that? May it never be", or something similar. Paul speaks with two tongues, yet those that love him simply choose not to take him at his word.

Let's examine the evidence you believe you have that Paul teachdes lawlessness. Up to now you have merely made claims that he teaches lawlessness. It would only be fair to look closely at the evidence and see how your claim stands up under examination and analysis.

Give us an example of where Paul made a satemenet disparaging to the law or the Covenant and then say, "Did I say that? May it never be." I believe I can show that you believe this because you misunderstand what Paul is saying. When anyone misunderstands what someone is saying, how can we trust them to tell us what that person is teacing?

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

I believe Paul meant everything he said, on both sides of the issue. This is why (apparently) Peter was so confused by what Paul said was the gospel of God [Note: Paul refers to the gospel as either 'His gospel' or the 'gospel of God').

Peter was not confused but Peter did observe that some people ere confused. There are have already been people confused by every part of the Bible. Remember that many people have also been confused by what is in the Old Testament, including the Torah and the prophets. And when Peter wrote this, he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. So it was not merely Peter's opinion but the Holy Spirit who was speaking through Him.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Yes, you have shown evidence from the 'Bible', but rarely does that 'evidence' come from the words of Jesus Christ, and even more rarely if you do quote Jesus Christ are His words taken in context. More often than not the evidence you present comes directly from the very person that you are trying to defend.When I present evidence that is contrary to your understanding you NEVER refute that evidence ONLY with the words of Jesus Christ.

Why should I show evidence ONLY from the words of Jesus Christ? That is not a part of the Bible's requirement. Jesus said we must live by every word that proceed from the mouth of God. This includes the whole Bible. Remember that Christ quoted the Old Testament. He included these among the words of God.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

You erroneously believe that the entire Bible is "Holy Scripture", and this belief is the root cause as to why you maintain your ability to misinterpret what is Truth and what is not. Neither Jesus NOR Paul believed that their words were 'Scripture'. Both understood that Scripture was ONLY the Law and the Prophets, as was evidenced in their own testimony. For you to unilaterally change their understanding to one where the entire Bible from cover to cover is Scripture flies in the face of what they actually said. I am no longer willing to help disabuse you of this understanding, that you will have to do all on your own.

You're absolutely right that I believe the entire Bible is Holy Scripture.

Jesus knew His words would end up being written as the Christian's Scripture.

And we have evidence that Paul was aware that some of his words would become Scripture. He was aware of being a prophet of God.

All I am asking is that you not merely make claims or state your opinions but that you would show your evidence and reasoning in the Scritpure.

[Musicman1228]

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. Rom. 3:19-22.

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Rom. 3:28.

This is direct proof from Paul's own words that confirms that to him the law is what brought sin into the world, and that no one will be justified before God by keeping this same law that revealed sin. He states that our justification and pursuant righteousness comes apart from the law if we simply believe and have faith in Jesus.

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. Gal.2:16.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” Gal.3:10-11.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. Gal.3:13.

Paul has clearly stated his belief that the law is actually a detriment to our salvation, even saying that the law is a curse; and that Jesus became 'a curse' in order to fulfill His roll in our salvation.

Jesus IS A CURSE? And that because He became this 'curse' He was hung on a tree. Really? Does God say in Ex.12 that the Passover Lamb is a curse, and because of this became able to purchase a Kingdom?

If you are a curse can you be found worthy of anything?

And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” Rev.5:10-11.

According to God Jesus is not a curse because He was found WORTHY, and that worth caused Him to be able to purchase a Kingdom AND Priests for God.

By His sacrifice Jesus did not say that He would overcome FOR us, He said we need to overcome AS HE DID. What did He overcome? He overcame the Kingdom of the world. He was a son of a woman, making His a Son of Man from the Tribe of Judah; He is also the Son of God because of His lineage. and He was the ROOT of the Tribe of Judah. This means He came BEFORE David, and AFTER David. When He was born of Mary He was born in the line of Adam, and therefore qualified to act on behalf of those that are in His Kingdom.

The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. Rev.3:21.

Without LAW there would be nothing for us to overcome AS DID HE. Paul says that without the law there is no VIOLATION of the Law. But according to Jesus that without the Law there is NO VINDICATION. If there is no vindication from the Law then there is NO possibility for us to overcome anything.

Paul's gospel is a construct of Satan to misdirect the efforts of the Kingdom of Heaven from learning to become able to overcome sin and the kingdom of the world through the process of sanctification (abiding in His words) to believing that their overcoming is accomplished by Jesus FOR them.

This is not what Jesus taught.

[John317]

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. Rom. 3:19-22.

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Rom. 3:28.

This is direct proof from Paul's own words that confirms that to him the law is what brought sin into the world, and that no one will be justified before God by keeping this same law that revealed sin. He states that our justification and pursuant righteousness comes apart from the law if we simply believe and have faith in Jesus.

1) Where does Paul say that it was God's moral law that brought sin into the world?

2) What does it mean to be "justified" before God? Are you justified before God at this time? If so, upon what basis? And if not, when do you believe you will be justified before God, and how will it happen? Please show Bible evidence.

3) What sinful human being has been justified before God by keeping the moral law, the Tne Commandments?

4) In your understanding of Paul, does he teach that believing in, and having faith in, Christ releases us from obedience to God?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. Rom. 3:19-22.

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Rom. 3:28.

This is direct proof from Paul's own words that confirms that to him the law is what brought sin into the world, and that no one will be justified before God by keeping this same law that revealed sin. He states that our justification and pursuant righteousness comes apart from the law if we simply believe and have faith in Jesus.

1) Where does Paul say that it was God's moral law that brought sin into the world?

2) What does it mean to be "justified" before God? Are you justified before God at this time? If so, upon what basis? And if not, when do you believe you will be justified before God, and how will it happen? Please show Bible evidence.

3) What sinful human being has been justified before God by keeping the moral law, the Tne Commandments?

4) In your understanding of Paul, does he teach that believing in, and having faith in, Christ releases us from obedience to God?

#1~

For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20.

For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. Rom. 4:15.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— (13) for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Rom.5:12-13.

ALL of God’s Law’s are moral, AND lawful. Paul says that the Law brought the knowledge of sin, so without this knowledge sin did not exist in the minds of humanity. This seems to indicate that Paul felt that sin was in the world before Adam and Eve, but they didn’t know about sin until they gained the knowledge of sin by disobeying God. At that point they became like everyone else in the world, subject to the penalties of sin. Paul’s gospel is all about the advantage of removing the Law whereby sin and it’s penalties no longer apply.

#2~

There are two stages to salvation; justification and sanctification. This is revealed both in the Sanctuary service and in the words of Jesus.

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Ex.30:18.

In the Sanctuary service the laver was used by the priest to wash the outside of the body before the Priest put on the linen garments which indicate righteousness. This is represented today by baptism. The light from the lampstand that lights the area in front of the Table of the Presence represents the Holy Spirit, and this indicates sanctification that is the process by which people clean their minds and hearts.

Paul mentions sanctification but not as a goal which must be achieved. Jesus speaks often of Sanctification as a necessary part of becoming one with Him and the Father, and this is done through the power of the Holy Spirit leading those who are in the process of sanctification to ALL the truth. Knowing the Truth is absolutely necessary in becoming sanctified.

#3~

I never said that anyone is justified by keeping the 10 Commandments. We are justified by acknowledging that we are sinners and need forgiveness of our sins, that we need the penalty for our sin paid by someone other than ourselves (we could pay this penalty ourselves but it would kill us forever), and that we need to be cleansed from ALL unrighteousness. Keeping the 10 Commandments is integral to the process of sanctification, because learning to do this is what being cleansed from unrighteousness is all about.

#4~

Again:

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. Rom.3:21-22.

“Believe” in what? That Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Even Satan and his demons believe that, so that can’t be it. Paul wants his followers to believe that they are saved by grace through faith; that the righteousness of God is not manifested through the Law but through faith that Christ Jesus saves them in spite of their not keeping the Law.

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Rom. 3:28.

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. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Rom. 7:7-9.

In the above passage Paul, as usual, speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand he says that the Law is not sin; but on the other hand (the conjunction ‘yet’ modifies what has just come before it) he says that without the law he would have not known sin. He is speaking of the 10 Commandments here because he clearly cites #10. The he says that without the law he was alive, but with the law he is dead. So in his mind when God gave the 10 Commandments he consigned the Kingdom of Heaven (of which he considered himself a part) and the world to death. This is blaspheme, because the purpose for God giving the commandments to Israel was to identify the Kingdom of Heaven and bring them to life NOT to bring them to death.

I honestly don’t understand why you cannot see this as clearly as do I.

[John317]

#1 Where does Paul say that it was God's moral law that brought sin into the world?

Originally Posted By: Musicman

#1~

For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20.

For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. Rom. 4:15.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— (13) for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Rom.5:12-13.

Can you see how the verses you've quote here do not teach that it was the moral law that brought sin into the world? That was your statement. But those verses don't teach this. Instead, what they say is that God's written moral law points out sin and convicts us of our sinfulness. In other words, the moral law of God which is summarized in the Ten Commandments makes us face our sins, which are violations of that law. Nowhere does Paul say that sin came into the world because of the law. Rather, people become concious of their sins by the law. Those are two very different things.

It would be somewhat like a parent writing the rules of the household on the wall of a child's room so he will understand them and know when he hasn't followed them. The rules don't cause the child to do wrong, but they do alert him as to when he is not obeying them, or doing right.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

ALL of God’s Law’s are moral, AND lawful.

The moral law is the law of God that defines right and wrong; that is, it defintes sin. Not all of God's laws did this. There were some laws that told people what they should do when they violated the moral law. They were to take a lamb or goat and slay it. It was part of the ceremonial law, not the moral law. Yet it was lawful. But being lawful and being moral are two different things.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

Paul says that the Law brought the knowledge of sin, so without this knowledge sin did not exist in the minds of humanity. This seems to indicate that Paul felt that sin was in the world before Adam and Eve, but they didn’t know about sin until they gained the knowledge of sin by disobeying God. At that point they became like everyone else in the world, subject to the penalties of sin. Paul’s gospel is all about the advantage of removing the Law whereby sin and it’s penalties no longer apply.

I'm glad you distinguish between sin existing in the world and sin existing in the mind's of people. Yes, Paul teaches that by studying the law of God, we learn what sin is. So, as you say, Paul knows that sin was in the world before the giving of he law at Mt. Sinai, but the law brought a consciousness of sin as a transgression or violation of God's righteous requirements. One of his requirements is that we keep holy the Sabbath day. This is a part of the moral law of God. When we don't keep the Sabbath holy, we are sinning, or violating God's moral law.

But you say that Paul felt that there was sin the world before Adam and Eve. Don't you mean there was sin in the world after Adam and Eve fell?

People were conscious of having done wrong even before God gave the law at Sinai, but they didn't see their sins as clearly before the giving of the law as they did after the law was given. See what Paul taught about this in Romans 2: 12-16.

Romans 2:12-16

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

[16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Therefore Paul didn't teach that people had no awareness at all of right and wrong before the giving of the moral law.

Rather, Paul said that the law made people see sin as a transgression of God's righteous requirements so that they became conscious of themselvves as sinners in need of God's forgiveness. So God uses the moral law to drive home the fact that we are sinners in need of a Savior. Otherwise, if we don't have the Savior and atonement, we know that our disobedience will result in our death.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

....I honestly don’t understand why you cannot see this as clearly as do I.

Do you still believe that Paul taught that the moral law of God brought sin into the world?

I think this shows, as I've said before, that you are condemnding Paul for teaching things that he never taught. Therefore, the solution to the problems you see is to aquire a correct understanding of Paul's theology and not to jettison Paul's inspired letters to the church and all the other NT books that you reject.

Again, I would ask you to show evidence that Paul teaches that the law of God brought sin into the world. This is what you have accused Paul of teaching. It's on the basis of these kinds of misunderstandings-- of which you have many-- that you have rejected him and the writings inspired by the Holy Spriit. Please show that Paul teaches this or apologize to God's apostle.:-)

[doug yowell]

[1) Where does Paul say that it was God's moral law that brought sin into the world?

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man,

Sin came in thru one man, not one law. So sin could not have been part of the human condition until man brought it in. What's the point of the first 3 chapters of Genesis if sin existed in humanity before sin was practiced by humanity? Long before Paul's lifetime Moses had recorded that after man had come perfectly from the Creator's hand the law was given to him,"Don't eat from that tree..." So the law predated sin but was not (as Paul verifies)sin itself.Adam and Eve's consciences were witness to the violation of the law,as Paul also verifies,("Who told you that you were naked?") So Paul is not saying that the law creates sin but that it identifies sin.By your own evidence the best you can claim about Paul's theology is that it seems contradictory and confusing. Picking a verse and ignoring an opposing verse is not thoughtful analysis.

[John317]

Excellent points, doug.

[John317]

[2) What does it mean to be "justified" before God? Are you justified before God at this time? If so, upon what basis? And if not, when do you believe you will be justified before God, and how will it happen? Please show Bible evidence.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

]#2~

There are two stages to salvation; justification and sanctification. This is revealed both in the Sanctuary service and in the words of Jesus.

Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Ex.30:18.

In the Sanctuary service the laver was used by the priest to wash the outside of the body before the Priest put on the linen garments which indicate righteousness. This is represented today by baptism. The light from the lampstand that lights the area in front of the Table of the Presence represents the Holy Spirit, and this indicates sanctification that is the process by which people clean their minds and hearts.

Paul mentions sanctification but not as a goal which must be achieved. Jesus speaks often of Sanctification as a necessary part of becoming one with Him and the Father, and this is done through the power of the Holy Spirit leading those who are in the process of sanctification to ALL the truth. Knowing the Truth is absolutely necessary in becoming sanctified.

You didn't answer the question, whether you are or have been justified. Nor did you answer the quesion, what is justification? And upon what basis are people justified before God? Also, if you are not now justified, when do you believe you will be justified before God, and how will it happen?

Originally Posted By: Musicman

....I honestly dont understand why you cannot see this as clearly as do I.

You have not shown that you understand it at all.

[Musicman1228]

The foundational issue lays in the difference between having the knowledge of sin (ref. Tree of the Learning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) and the putting of that knowledge into practice.

God has always had the KNOWLEDGE of sin and righteousness, of good and evil. God has never practiced unrighteousness/evil. It is not the knowledge of evil that got humanity into trouble, it was the PRACTICE or doing of evil, ie. disobedience to the commands of God, that caused the initial problem. It is the distinction between the knowing and the doing of sin that is the problem.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the knowledge of sin; the mere knowledge of sin is not in itself 'sin'. The opposite is also true; it is not the mere knowledge of righteousness that makes a person righteous, it is the DOING or PRACTICING of righteousness that demonstrates that one righteous.

The problem in Christianity with respect to good and evil is the misplaced belief that only the knowledge of Good or Evil is sufficient to make a person one or the other. The distinction between what the mind wants and what the body does is where Paul finds confusion. He states that his mind does not want to sin and is therefore righteous by faith, but that his body, being evil because of the lusts of the flesh wants to sin and is evil, therefore both evil and good exist at the same time in the same person.

Jesus says that it is the practice of what you do that informs as to whether you are righteous or unrighteous; and this irrespective of any connection between mind and body. Ref. John 3:19-21.

Claiming that salvation comes through righteousness by faith through grace removes any distinction between the knowing and the doing of either good or evil, and the concept that we must become as righteous as is the Father becomes moot. Jesus did not die to satisfy a penalty for the knowledge of sin, because there is no death sentence for just knowing about evil. Jesus died to pay the penalty for the practicing of sin, the doing of unrighteousness, which is defined as disobeying the Commandments of God. Therefore, the claim that doing unrighteousness does not put one under a death sentence, thereby making sin of none effect toward our salvation, and declaring that we are saved by the merits of Jesus Christ alone (that He became righteous for us) makes His sacrifice of no value. Why would Jesus have to die for a 'concept'? No, Jesus died for the FACT of sin, to make it possible for those that choose to keep the Commandments of God (obedience to the will of the Father) to be purified and refined (Dan. 12:10) and become Holy, even as Jesus Christ is Holy. (Rev. 3:21).

[John317]

#3) What sinful human being has been justified before God by keeping the moral law, the Tne Commandments?

Originally Posted By: Musicman

#3~

I never said that anyone is justified by keeping the 10 Commandments.

Are you then saying that people are justified without, or before. keeping the 10 commandments? Or does God wait until people are perfectly keeping the 10 commandments before justifying them? In other words, is our justification before God due to our law-keeping?

It sounds like you are saying that we are justified by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. If not, then how is what you are saying different from this?

Again, are you justifed? Have you been justified? And if so, were you justifed before you kept he Ten Commandments-- or while you were imperfect?

Originally Posted By: Musicman

We are justified by acknowledging that we are sinners and need forgiveness of our sins, that we need the penalty for our sin paid by someone other than ourselves (we could pay this penalty ourselves but it would kill us forever), and that we need to be cleansed from ALL unrighteousness.

You say here that we are justifed before God only by acknowledging that we have not kept God's law and that we are therefore in need of God's mercy and forgiveness; that we must acknowledge also that we cannot pay the penalty for our sins but that it must be paid by Someone else, i.e., Jesus Christ; and that we need to be cleansed from All unrighteousness.

Are you saying that a person must show faith in Christ and acknowledgee himself a sinner and in need of a Savior in order to be justified before God? I agree with this.

Are you not saying the same thing that Paul taught-- that sinners are not justified by keeping the law but by God's grace through faith in Christ? If we must wait until we are perfectly keeping the law before we are justifeid before God, who would be justified?

Originally Posted By: Musicman

Keeping the 10 Commandments is integral to the process of sanctification, because learning to do this is what being cleansed from unrighteousness is all about.

But aren't sanctification and justifcation different aspects and processes?

I believe they are different but closely related. Paul taught that when we are justified, God also sanctifies us, but that sanctification is also a process by which we increasingly become more and more like Jesus through the power of the Spirit in our lives. So sanctification is understood in two ways: both as an objective fact once we truly accept Christ as our Savior and Lord, and as a process that happens to us over a lifetime as we daily walk with Christ.

Is this what you believe?

Originally Posted By: Musicman

....I honestly don’t understand why you cannot see this as clearly as do I.

I'm trying to determine what you believe.

[John317]

4) In your understanding of Paul, does he teach that believing in, and having faith in, Christ releases us from obedience to God?

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Again:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. Rom.3:21-22.

Believe in what? That Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Even Satan and his demons believe that, so that cant be it. Paul wants his followers to believe that they are saved by grace through faith; that the righteousness of God is not manifested through the Law but through faith that Christ Jesus saves them in spite of their not keeping the Law.

I thought you said earlier that we are not justified by keeping the Ten Commandmetns. Do you still believe this?

Paul is talking about believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is believing that God has set forth Christ as a mercy seat by His blood, to be received through faith. Romans 3: 24, 25.

He states it in the following verses:

Romans 1:16-17

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it [the gospel] is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes [the gospel], to the Jew first and also to the Greek. [17] For in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

Romans 10:9-13

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. [11] For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." [12] For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. [13] For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Acts 16:30-31

Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" [31] And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

NOTE: Believing in or on the Lord Jesus Christ means believing who He said He is and believing He shed His blood on the cross to save me personally. It means appropriating His work to my life.

1 Cor. 15:1-5

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, [2] and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain.

[3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, [4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, [5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Are people, then, justified or saved because they perfectly keep the moral law? I think the answer is, obviously not. Jesus is the only one who has ever kept the law of God perfectly, yet we know that many people will be saved in God's kingdom. This fact alone proves that the saved will not get into heaven because of perfectly keeping any law.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

(quoting): For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Rom. 3:28.

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. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Rom. 7:7-9.

In the above passage Paul, as usual, speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand he says that the Law is not sin; but on the other hand (the conjunction yet modifies what has just come before it) he says that without the law he would have not known sin.

Paul answers the question whether the law is sin by categorically denying it. He says it is certainly not sin. The next word, "yet," may also be translated as "but" (Beck), "on the contrary" (NKJ), "Indeed" (NIV), or "however" (Christian Community Bible). All those words are appropriate in this context. He is not contradicting his denial but is showing the true function or purpose of the law. The law helped him become more aware or conscious of sin and of himself as a sinner. His conscience was as if asleep before he was confronted by his own evil by means of the law.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

He is speaking of the 10 Commandments here because he clearly cites #10. The he says that without the law he was alive, but with the law he is dead. So in his mind when God gave the 10 Commandments he consigned the Kingdom of Heaven (of which he considered himself a part) and the world to death. This is blaspheme, because the purpose for God giving the commandments to Israel was to identify the Kingdom of Heaven and bring them to life NOT to bring them to death.

The apostle Paul is here merely pointing out that the law of God made him aware of his condemnation before God as a sinner. This is necessary if we are going to realize our need of a Savior and of Salvation.

Quote:

I honestly don't understand why you cannot see this as clearly as do I.

Are you sure you saw it clearly? I think your posts on this topic show that you reject a mistaken view of Paul's theology and not what Paul actually taught.

What do you think? :-)

[doug yowell]

I honestly don't understand why you cannot see this as clearly as do I.

Are you sure you saw it clearly? I think your posts on this topic show that you reject a mistaken view of Paul's theology and not what Paul actually taught.

What do you think? :-)

Perhaps a bit of help can be gleaned from one of the main witnesses to what Jesus taught. "...consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul,according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand..." So take heart,MM.you're not the only person to have difficulty understanding some of how Paul presents the gospel.But if Peter recorded that Paul had it right then let's try to figure out how and why.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: John317

I honestly don't understand why you cannot see this as clearly as do I.

Are you sure you saw it clearly? I think your posts on this topic show that you reject a mistaken view of Paul's theology and not what Paul actually taught.

What do you think? :-)

Perhaps a bit of help can be gleaned from one of the main witnesses to what Jesus taught. "...consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul,according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand..." So take heart,MM.you're not the only person to have difficulty understanding some of how Paul presents the gospel.But if Peter recorded that Paul had it right then let's try to figure out how and why.

It is doubtful (from scholars of textual criticism) that Paul wrote First Peter. There is no doubt that Peter DID NOT write Second Peter-he was dead at the time 2Peter was supposedly penned. There was no love lost between Peter and the disciples of Jesus Christ that were the leaders of the Jerusalem assembly called The Way and Paul, the apostle that was trying to usurp the position that Jesus Christ gave them (particularly Peter) before He ascended to Heaven for the 2nd time (the first time was right after His resurrection on Sabbath evening-early on the 1st day of the week). Therefore, this casts doubt on the validity of the quote from Peter calling Paul his 'beloved brother'. And it doesn't take the supposed words of Peter to point out how confusing the writings of Paul really are. All it takes is the realization that 100's of denominations each with their own idea as to what is truth have stemmed from the pen of Paul. This does not reflect the unity for which Jesus prayed in John 17. It shows that Paul sowed the seeds of discord and disunity much more than he promoted unity within the early church, and even today.

[doug yowell]

[John317]

Do you know where I can pick up a copy of The True Bible According to Contextual Scholars? This certainly would explain your difficulty in harmonizing Paul's teachings with whatever they say sould be the real gospel.

That Bible would be about 1/8 of the New Testament and also only a fraction of the Old, because the "liberal" wing of the so-called textual scholars have largely jettisoned most of Christ's words from the NT, including much of Musicman's favorite book, the Gospel of John. In fact, their philosophy and theories have led them to conclude that the apostle John did not write the Gospel attributed to him. Their theories are not based on facts but on conjectures. If we go by what many of these "scholars" believe, we are left with a dead Jesus instead of the living Christ in heaven who's preparing to return for His church. One of the leaders of these "scholars" is an agnostic named Bart, who doesn't even believe in prophecy or that Christ died to save him.

[Musicman1228]

It is always possible, and often helpful to a pre-conceived position to ignore the sciences, history, and honest appraisal of facts in favor of faith without limits. This makes it much easier to believe anything you want to believe as taught by anyone that claims the authority of God (see Paul and EGW). No one has yet shown beyond a reasonable doubt who it was that laid down the claim that the entire Bible (cover to cover) is in fact the infallible, inerrant word of God. God never did this, either as the Father or as the Son. Yet all I hear on this forum is how awful I (and others) am for even proposing that this idea is not true. Again, facts in evidence don't matter when put up against faith.

I guess the definition of being 'liberal' means trusting only in the words and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented by His own eyewitnesses, and in the Law and the Prophets in the OT. Wow, if this it true I wonder what the definition of 'conservative' is?

[John317]

It is always possible, and often helpful to a pre-conceived position to ignore the sciences, history, and honest appraisal of facts in favor of faith without limits. This makes it much easier to believe anything you want to believe as taught by anyone that claims the authority of God (see Paul and EGW).

You are the one who is ignoring things because of your pre-conceived position.

You ignore the fact that the scholars you put your trust in are themselves prejudiced and have pre-conceived notions.

The reason they claim that Peter did not write 2 Peter is simply that they believe it was written at particular time when they believe Peter was dead. However, they have no proof of when the letter was written. They believe it partly on the basis of their idea that the writer of 2 Peter copied parts of Jude. But it is actually more likely that the writer of Jude copied a part of 2 Peter. They also believe it because of the differences in style between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, although those differences are explainable by their difference in subject matter and by the liklihood that Peter had secretaries who helped him write his letters. But those same scholars ignore the fact that the book closest in style to 1 Peter is 2 Peter. In any case, there is no way of proving which book-- whether Jude or 2 Peter-- was written first.

I have over 10 study Bibles and all of them give the reasons for some scholars' conclusion that 2 Peter was "probably" writen by someone besides Peter. However, all of them also say that those reasons do not outweigh the reasons for believing it was written by Peter before he died. I have already listed in another discussion the reasons for believing this letter was a genuine part of Scripture. One of them is that Christians see internal and experiential evidence that Christ speaks to them through 2 Peter. Jesus Himself said that His sheep hear His voice. His voice is found clearly in 2 Peter, 1 Peter, Jude, Hebrews, Mark, Luke, Acts, & James.

In the final analysis, on the basis of all the evidence, I choose to accept the whole Bible as the word of God. If you want to reject much of the Bible, that is certainly your preogative. You can make this argument all you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that the letter is rightfully a part of the Holy Bible.

[John317]

Please respond to post#426971 and the other 3 that answer your previous post concerning the apostle Paul's teachings.

[doug yowell]

I guess the definition of being 'liberal' means trusting only in the words and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented by His own eyewitnesses, and in the Law and the Prophets in the OT.

No,being "liberal" means trusting only in the words and teachings of those who were not evewitnesses and never claim to have been over the words of those who claimed to have been eyewitnesses and have their eyewitness accounts preserved by those who those eyewitness accounts were written to.Being "liberal" also means ignoring the harmony between the teachings of the (alleged) eyewitnesses and the OT.