You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Paul and The Final Gospel
- Thread starter Noblemen
- Start date
I believe we think the same. I would also add that to know the Lord (as we are able by the Holy Spirit) also includes His purposes, for these are in keeping with His character."For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 NIV This statement by Paul is his soteriological thesis. It is either a true statement or a false statement. Which category would you place it in relative to 'Yes' for true or 'No' for false?It is far wiser to stick to what the scriptures say as to there beign only ONE Gospel . Than to imply or say there are 'other gospels .or final gospels.
For that will simply bring confusion.
It should be understood that THE Gospel is laid out by Paul and it si all "according to the scriptures"
That is the MINIMUM you must understand believe and know to be what is called a christian. Or a child of God .
To be BORNagain .
But the gospel has been REDUCED to just being BORN again. Which is bu the 'S' as it were of our so great a Salvation.
That is but gettign out of Egypt. only.
But the good news is that God in the fullness of time fullfilled his promise to mankind .The promise he made to man in the garden of eden . That a single ("it"),male ("he") child would be born of a woman but not of Adams seed who would come and bruise the head of the serpent and in the destruction of the serpent would suffer the bruising of his heel.(not 'fatal')
When God made that promise before he did so he gave them a coverign of animal skins which only COVERED their sins but did not remove them. For if it had reestablished man with God or reconciled man back to God then there would have been no need of a promise . But in that God also gave a promise .It showed that the sacrafice of animals was but temporay.
The kingdom of God is like unto a sower ....
You do not sow seed on unprepared soil .God being a "husbandman" took 4000 years to prepare the world to recieve the good seed .
No wonder Heaven could not contain itself and broke its banks after the message had bene given to the shepherds.
if then man is reconciled to God through Jesus Christ .Then he is restored to God.
A ring has bene put on his finger shoes on his feet and a robe to cover his nakedness .
But to be BORN is not the be all and end all of this life .
How much the less is it the be all and end all of a "new creation" and when we are BORNagain?
If man was given dominion over all creation in the beginning , Then he has dominion IN Christ.
But we do not see that yet . But we do see Christ ..........................."Hebrews.
The everlasting gospel that is spoken of in the end .Is the gospel of creation . But that is but a continuation also of THE Gaspel.
For By our <Lord all things were created.
in Christ
gerald
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 NIV This statement by Paul is his soteriological thesis. It is either a true statement or a false statement. Which category would you place it in relative to 'Yes' for true or 'No' for false?
As I dont use the NIV as my authority in the use of scripture then I cant answer.
I suppose I could also look up the word soteriological and did . But I do not hold to present or modern theology that has reduced the Salvation of God to being but BORNagain.
You then use a logic that says it is either a true statement or a false one . In what context?
For Paul did not use that statement in a vacum but in a biblical argument that gave substance a to it and upholds it within that argument .
So not only is what was said before it but also what was said after it is as important as what you have taken out fo context.
I do not also hold to modern theology that not only uses the worlds philosophies as a foundation for thought but also its logic .
For God by His word tells me that" His ways are not mans ways and his thoughts are higher than than our thoughts"
As words are but expressions of thought the logic and reasoning of it is not of this world but of heaven and of God.
But not of a logic that cannot be followed or a reasoning that cannot be reasonably accepted.
in Christ
gerald
Romans 2:13 is not a modern statement and it is the soteriological statement of the apostle who has written about half of the New Testament and you wish to argue against it?As I dont use the NIV as my authority in the use of scripture then I cant answer.
I suppose I could also look up the word soteriological and did . But I do not hold to present or modern theology that has reduced the Salvation of God to being but BORNagain.
You then use a logic that says it is either a true statement or a false one . In what context?
For Paul did not use that statement in a vacum but in a biblical argument that gave substance a to it and upholds it within that argument .
So not only is what was said before it but also what was said after it is as important as what you have taken out fo context.
I do not also hold to modern theology that not only uses the worlds philosophies as a foundation for thought but also its logic .
For God by His word tells me that" His ways are not mans ways and his thoughts are higher than than our thoughts"
As words are but expressions of thought the logic and reasoning of it is not of this world but of heaven and of God.
But not of a logic that cannot be followed or a reasoning that cannot be reasonably accepted.
in Christ
gerald
Romans 2:13 is not a modern statement and it is the soteriological statement of the apostle who has written about half of the New Testament and you wish to argue against it?
I dont argue against it at all. I argue against your use of it .
For I refuse to argue on a verse taken in isolation and out of context.
in Christ
gerald
Romans 2:13 is not a modern statement and it is the soteriological statement of the apostle who has written about half of the New Testament and you wish to argue against it?
I said "modern theology" ,not a 'modern statement' two very different things .
in Christ
gerald
"modern theology" is a term that references currently stated thought(s) about God. And since you refuse to argue for reasons stated good. Refrain from replying to anything I've posted or will post.
"modern theology" is a term that references currently stated thought(s) about God. And since you refuse to argue for reasons stated good. Refrain from replying to anything I've posted or will post.
As you have not made any attempt to answer mine .I suppose that will have to be that.between you and me .
But as this is a public forum. If needs must I will reply to any post you make if it is needed for anothers sake .
So in regards to" modern theology " which you had changed to modern statement . Not the same at all.
and as i pointed out a lot of modern theology has a lot to be desired as I implied and much of it is hokum.
in Christ
gerald
I do not endorse defend nor promote any written nor spoken articulations of contemporary theological or soteriological doctrines. As matter of fact I am not a member of any contemporary church nor do I attend any of their religious activities.As you have not made any attempt to answer mine .I suppose that will have to be that.between you and me .
But as this is a public forum. If needs must I will reply to any post you make if it is needed for anothers sake .
So in regards to" modern theology " which you had changed to modern statement . Not the same at all.
and as i pointed out a lot of modern theology has a lot to be desired as I implied and much of it is hokum.
in Christ
gerald