Christian - Once Saved Always Saved?

[true blood]

true blood, I have a lesson called "The Rupture of the Rapture". As far as your concept of "once a child always a child" such has not been proven nor can be. You "assume" that sonship is eternal.
Your problem is that you attempt to make earthly relationships and spiritual relationships equal. While there are things about both which are alike there are also things different.
Prosecutor

Not exactly sure what you mean. I'm guessing that you are saying a earthly relationship between a father and his son is not equal with the spiritual relationship of God and his people?? Which is greater? Suppose you had a son. Nothing in the universe can change that he is you son right? Same answer applies to being saved.

 

[precept]

Ever since Christ died, sin has not been the issue.

Christ died for every man, not just believers. Faith and unbelief are the issue. Do you believe, or don’t you believe?

So your neighbor, your unsaved neighbor is not lost because he/she is sinning, sin is not the issue. He/she is lost because they are not accepting the offer/free gift of salvation.

For instance, if our government ever decided to print more money, and they decided to do a means test and to give everyone who didn’t have a million dollars, a million dollars. Suppose now that I didn’t go to the bank to get my million dollars. Why I could live and die without ever spending a single penny. I could live and die without ever having once ounce of benefit from that million dollars that the government is giving to me. I would have to collect my million dollars in order to have my million dollars. Christ on Calvary died not only for the church, but for the whole world. He died not only for the sins of the saved but for the sins of the lost. Don’t forget, if He didn’t die for the sins of lost people, you could not have been saved because you were lost when you were saved. Sin was not the issue, the issue was would you trust Christ and be saved, or would you reject Christ and be lost. Would you come to the bank and get your million dollars or will you stay away from the bank and perish and hunger.

2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

He died for all (all is inclusive of every human being that has ever sucked air on planet Earth or ever will,) God and Paul say in 2nd Corinthians. Then He distinguishes those who have accepted their “million dollars” from those who haven’t. The believers are those who have gone to the bank to collect and have stopped rejecting it.

Because of what Christ accomplished on that cross, the present condemnation of sinners is no longer due to the fact of their sins but to the fact that they will not receive the remedy God has provided in His infinite love. Dear friend… from the Amplified Bible

Your recurring point is "sin is not the issue"; "unbelief is the issue" For this to be true every human who was not exposed to the death of Jesus should see God as unjust if He refused to save them alongside those who believed in the death of Jesus for sins. These humans have every right to continue sinning against God, according to you seeing " sin is not any more the issue;and even if they are unaware of the death of Jesus for sins..., they are still free to sin because "sin is not anymore the issue".

It doesn’t say he who believes and does this, that, or some other thing, or stops doing this, that, or some other thing. It just says he that believes on Him is not condemned. He that believes not is condemned already.

You continue to make the same error re the context in which scripture must be interpreted. The scriptures are not to be taken as a broad brush to paint everything to our own choosing. Your above quote makes the point that "he who believes on him is not condemned"...a true statement; but what you omit to include is what the word "BELIEF IN HIM" conotes. Belief in Jesus means that as Jesus puts it...the believer believes Jesus entire scripture in the same way as Jesus believes His scripture. Such a "believer" would then worship Jesus the way Jesus wants to be worshipped....." " in Spirit and in Truth". [/B] tThis is the "believer" that is not condemned. The other statement, "he that believes not is condemned already" includes even those Christians gathered on the left hand of Christ, and who thought that they were included among those that believed, seeing they also had accepted Jesus as their Saviour, and showed this acceptance by "prophesying in His name", "casting out devils in His name"; in fact doing "many wondrous works in His name"....These of the "disappointment" "believed" but they were condemned by Jesus to hell fire nonetheless.
If those who "believed" are condemned to hellfire with those who "do not believe", then the criterion for hellfire cannot be based on "belief".

THEREFORE, [there is] now no condemnation (no adjudging guilty of wrong) for those who are in Christ Jesus, who live [and] walk not after the dictates of the flesh, but after the dictates of the Spirit.

Your above direct quote also makes the point that "belief" IS NOT THE DETERMINING CRITERION; but LIVING A GODLY LIFE "IS"!

The "dictates of the flesh" is a life of sin. The dictates of the Spirit is a life that repudiates sin. This, as a "walk", denotes an ongoing excercise of repudiating sin in the life of one who "walks after the Spirit", as it also denotes a life that enjoys sinning against God in those who "walk after the flesh". Paul puts it as a daily struggle to do the right for the Christian--but for one "who wals after the flesh" there is no struggle because sin already has dominion over the one who walks after the flesh...While Sin has no dominion over the one who walks after the spirit. Here again "sin" is the deciding factor---Not 'belief"


precept

 

[precept]

Why? Well “THEREFORE” causes us to go back to what God and Paul have been saying. And God and Paul have said that we have died to sin. Did you die to sin??? That has nothing to do with sinless perfection, because the Roman believers that had died all to sin according to Romans chapter 6, were then told in that same chapter not to let sin reign as king in their mortal bodies. So it had nothing to do with sinless perfection. It has everything to do with the fact that God has removed past, present, and future condemnation and that’s why there is no condemnation in Christ. And that’s why in John 5:24;

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

And herein lies your problem.... Believing on God means believing His entire scripture...which when one does, he follows all of scripture in "worshipping God in the light and truth of scripture". Belief in God precludes any introduction of manmade inclusions developed to enhance God's truth. Any such inclusion is rejected outright and classified by God as "filthy rags".

When one "believes in Jesus" he does everything that Jesus asks Him to do; and without any questions or reasons as to why.


precept

 

[precept]

Precept are you saying that since you are now saved, that you can not sin anymore? The new beliver in Christ is incapable of sinning? If that's true then aren't you eternally secure then anyway by default, because if now you are unable to sin against God, then there's no way for you to lose your salvation. So what are we then arguing about?

Above is what you said.

Below is what I said.

No where is there any "offer in bribe" of any being saved forever or "eternally". Our responsibility to our Saviour is to rejoice in our salvation and to share our jubilation with any who would rejoice wth us. But again when we sin, we have an advocate, who will plead our case...but only if we are sorry for sinning against Him. We will be eternally saved only, and as long as whenever we sin, we show contriton, a desire not to sin, a deep repentance as was shown by God's friend, king David. If God so desires repentance from one He calls His friend, how much more us sinners saved only by His grace.


precept

 

[precept]

precept, you made reference to "man's sinful nature." Where did man get this sinful nature from?
Prosecutor

Psalm 51:5 "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother concieve me."
Ephesians 2:1-3...".....and were by nature the children of wrath,...."


precept

 

[prosecutor]

Precept, Are you saying Psalms 51:5 teaches David received a sinful nature from his mother? Let me ask you to consider this: "Behold I was shapen in a potato patch and in a field of spuds did my mother conceived me". Does this mean I was born a potato?
Prosecutor

 

[precept]

Precept, Are you saying Psalms 51:5 teaches David received a sinful nature from his mother? Let me ask you to consider this: "Behold I was shapen in a potato patch and in a field of spuds did my mother conceived me". Does this mean I was born a potato?
Prosecutor

Your argument would probably hold if David alone was born a Spud; but seeing as you and I, though we were born in the adjacent Cabbage patch, yet still behave in identical fashion as Spuds behave; one has no other option but to consider us two "wannabe Cabbages"; "misplaced Spuds".

"All have sinned" is a dogmatic admission of the inability to say opposite.."all are righteous"!

The statement "all are righteous" would need no qualification; because no one would be guilty of ever sinning...Just as similarly, the statement "all have sinned" needs no qualification--as a depraved and sinful world daily testifies to the truth of this admission.

Our persistent behaviour in continuously sinning against God, despite the known penalty of eternal death for so doing, do prove that "all have been born SPUDS."



precept

 

[prosecutor]

Precept, I just wanted to see if you would take the bate. The passage in Psalms 51:5 does in no way teach that we come into this world sinners. If you should attempt to use this passage to prove the doctrine of original sin, you have created a problem for yourself. It is not "David" of whom the passages says was "born a sinner" but rather it clearly says "in sin did my mother conceive me."
It seem evident in light of other passages that David was using a figure of speech here called a hyperbole. Just a few chapters later (58:3) he wrote, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies." Does a baby come out of his/her mother's womb "speaking lies"? The reference in chapter 51 is teaching that David was born into a sinful world. To make sin either his or his mothers is not only missing the point but is a pitful attempt to support the false doctrine of "original sin."
Prosecutor

 

[keevelish]

nd also neither is this so when one is in love with His Lord. As with human love; one in love with his Lord will also sin against his Lord

here you say a man still will sin..

Read the scriptures: "Sin will not have dominion over me".....When a child of God exhibits the fruit of the Spirit, it becomes impossible for him to sin against his brother....A good analogy is again found in a true love relationship between a man/woman and his/her spouse. No man/woman truly in love with his/her spouse woukl knowingly sin against said spouse

now you say he won't sin

hmm...

 

[precept]

Precept, I just wanted to see if you would take the bate. The passage in Psalms 51:5 does in no way teach that we come into this world sinners. If you should attempt to use this passage to prove the doctrine of original sin, you have created a problem for yourself. It is not "David" of whom the passages says was "born a sinner" but rather it clearly says "in sin did my mother conceive me."
It seem evident in light of other passages that David was using a figure of speech here called a hyperbole. Just a few chapters later (58:3) he wrote, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies." Does a baby come out of his/her mother's womb "speaking lies"? The reference in chapter 51 is teaching that David was born into a sinful world. To make sin either his or his mothers is not only missing the point but is a pitful attempt to support the false doctrine of "original sin."
Prosecutor

"Counsel"...before you "eat your catch"; you must also prove that the universal declaration... "All have sinned" is hyperbolic speech! And you so declare!; because if not, for all to have sinned,sin must HAVE HAD COMPLETE CONTROL OVER EACH[all] NEWBORNs, WHO, HAVING BEEN BORN SINNERS; KNOW INTUITIVELY THE MECHANISM OF "SELFISHNESS". The newborn is washed, fed; and is clean and dry on its "derryo"; yet the newborn would keep you standing by him/her until you are "stooped and gray", holding him/her to your warm "torso" as it dreams blissful dreams...because the moment you even think of lowering him/her to its "Crib"[grave] the "newborn angel" lets out a holler so loud it deafens the now "stooped and grayhaired" fool who did not think to FOLLOW THE SCRIPTURE AND "train up the 'born sinner child' in the way he should go".

You see, Prosecutor; you can't have a newborn who does not know how to sin[it is free from Original sin]. It is not taught how to sin[its mental and neurological facultites are undeveloped]; and yet it sins! [ie.It displays selfish behaviour.] If the newborn was free from original sin, it would spontaneously behave as a baby without any tinge of sinful attributes. And in much the same way if the newborn is born with Original sin.. IT WILL DISPLAY CHARACTERISTICS OF SINNERS, SUCH AS SELFISH BEHAVIOUR.

You then give a confused explanation as follows, of the phrase "born in sin"...

It is not "David" of whom the passages says was "born a sinner" but rather it clearly says "in sin did my mother conceive me."[/QUOTE

Since as you say..."David was not born a sinner"....but since David was indeed "born" from his mother's womb...then the term "born a sinner" must mean that his mother committed the "SIN" THAT RESULTED IN DAVID'S BEING CONCEIVED![afterall she did conceive him] or is her "conception of him" hyperbolic speech as well! and if it is; what need is there of David's exaggerating the common occurence of human child bearing!

But to address your reasons for saying that David was speaking "hyperbolically" you say that:

It seem evident in light of other passages that David was using a figure of speech here called a hyperbole. Just a few chapters later (58:3) he wrote, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies."

This figure of speech as used by David, quoted by you; is in fact a simile NOT a "hyperbole". Each "newborn" does "speak lies" the moment it is born....It is certainly a "lie" to suggest that it has a need to be "held" till you are "stooped and grayhaired". Because the infant is unable to form words into language due to its inadequacies in every area; it must rely on external aand internal stimuli to communicate the Truth of its current circumstances....so the infant who is born without Original sin would Not cry to attract attention if All is well "inside" and "outside". However, the child "born with Original sin" does "lie about current circumstances" when it cries; and is not hungry; when it cries; and is not wet; when it cries and is not cold.

So the "wicked" are indeed "as a child"; because they "speak lies" as spontaneously and naturally and as unthinkingly as do "newborns".

Does a baby come out of his/her mother's womb "speaking lies"?

They do!

The reference in chapter 51 is teaching that David was born into a sinful world. To make sin either his or his mothers is not only missing the point but is a pitful attempt to support the false doctrine of "original sin."

The above quote, your own...needs no further response! But suffice it to say, you make the term "born into a sinful world", a sterile event; with the existing "sinful world" waiting to "catch" the "righteous newborn". Your argument must then fail; because if all the "righteous newborns" were so "delivered", then neither would there have arisen a "sinful world".


precept

 

[precept]

"Counsel"...before you "eat your catch"; you must also prove that the universal declaration... "All have sinned" is hyperbolic speech! And you so declare!; because if not, for all to have sinned,sin must HAVE HAD COMPLETE CONTROL OVER EACH[all] NEWBORNs, WHO, HAVING BEEN BORN SINNERS; KNOW INTUITIVELY THE MECHANISM OF "SELFISHNESS". The newborn is washed, fed; and is clean and dry on its "derryo"; yet the newborn would keep you standing by him/her until you are "stooped and gray", holding him/her to your warm "torso" as it dreams blissful dreams...because the moment you even think of lowering him/her to its "Crib"[grave] the "newborn angel" lets out a holler so loud it deafens the now "stooped and grayhaired" fool who did not think to FOLLOW THE SCRIPTURE AND "train up the 'born sinner child' in the way he should go".

You see, Prosecutor; you can't have a newborn who does not know how to sin[it is free from Original sin]. It is not taught how to sin[its mental and neurological facultites are undeveloped]; and yet it sins! [ie.It displays selfish behaviour.] If the newborn was free from original sin, it would spontaneously behave as a baby without any tinge of sinful attributes. And in much the same way if the newborn is born with Original sin.. IT WILL DISPLAY CHARACTERISTICS OF SINNERS, SUCH AS SELFISH BEHAVIOUR.

You then give a confused explanation as follows, of the phrase "born in sin"...

It is not "David" of whom the passages says was "born a sinner" but rather it clearly says "in sin did my mother conceive me."

Since as you say..."David was not born a sinner"....but since David was indeed "born" from his mother's womb...then the term "born a sinner" must mean that his mother committed the "SIN" THAT RESULTED IN DAVID'S BEING CONCEIVED![afterall she did conceive him] or is her "conception of him" hyperbolic speech as well! and if it is; what need is there of David's exaggerating the common occurence of human child bearing!

But to address your reasons for saying that David was speaking "hyperbolically" you say that:

This figure of speech as used by David, quoted by you; is in fact a simile NOT a "hyperbole". Each "newborn" does "speak lies" the moment it is born....It is certainly a "lie" to suggest that it has a need to be "held" till you are "stooped and grayhaired". Because the infant is unable to form words into language due to its inadequacies in every area; it must rely on external aand internal stimuli to communicate the Truth of its current circumstances....so the infant who is born without Original sin would Not cry to attract attention if All is well "inside" and "outside". However, the child "born with Original sin" does "lie about current circumstances" when it cries; and is not hungry; when it cries; and is not wet; when it cries and is not cold.

So the "wicked" are indeed "as a child"; because they "speak lies" as spontaneously and naturally and as unthinkingly as do "newborns".



They do!



The above quote, your own...needs no further response! But suffice it to say, you make the term "born into a sinful world", a sterile event; with the existing "sinful world" waiting to "catch" the "righteous newborn". Your argument must then fail; because if all the "righteous newborns" were so "delivered", then neither would there have arisen a "sinful world".


precept

ps sorry for the double posting!

 

[precept]

here you say a man still will sin..

' Now you say he wont sin"

Above is what you say I said!

Below is what I SAID!


And it is! The scriptures teach that none can say that he loves God; but at the same time 'hate his brother'.1 John 4:20-21... One demonstrates hate towards his brotther when he sins against his brother..."to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not; to him it is sin."...and no one who hates another could do good for the one he hates...Our mission statement is to "love one another as I have lovef you". Those who think that the "mission statement" is to "tell others about Jesus" are sadly mistaken.... Jesus made clear who His disciples are...."...everyone will know that you are my disciples " if you have LOVE ONE FOR ANOTHER"..John 13:35..and when you exhibit love for one another ...it becomes "impossible to sin against the one you love". As a result of your not desiring to sin against the one you love; you behave like God in hating the sin that would make you break your loving communion with your brother...whic becomes a concious display on your part to not sin against your brother.

Again; a misguided application of scripture....Peter loved his Master; yet he denied Him three times. Jesus asked Peter three times if he Peter loved Him Jesus....Peter's response/ "Yea Lord; You know that I love you". Loving the Lord does not carry the meaning you postulate. Loving the Lord is similar to the true love between a woman and her spouse. And in similar fashion though each may in turn disagree to the point of hurting the other; yet their undying love for each other will continue to death "do us part". A man's love for his spouse and or the woman's love for her spouse is not a mindless devotion for each other as you would describe in your 24/7 description...And also neither is this so when one is in love with His Lord. As with human love; one in love with his Lord will also sin against his Lord; but he always would have rather not to sin against his Lord, his constantly being aware of the extreme cost that sin exacted form his Lord and his God. This awareness of the terrible nature of sin is sufficient for his Lord, who treats the redeemed sinner as if he never sinned.


Hence a Christian who is born of God doth not commit any sin against neighbor or against God

If this is true, then Jesus could be the only Christian.

Read the scriptures: "Sin will not have dominion over me".....When a child of God exhibits the fruit of the Spirit, it becomes impossible for him to sin against his brother....A good analogy is again found in a true love relationship between a man/woman and his/her spouse. No man/woman truly in love with his/her spouse woukl knowingly sin against said spouse. This is the same love as would be exhibited by a true child of God towards all members of the human population; loving each and every human as He loves his spouse...as he loves himself--as he loves his own body.
This is what I said::::



precept

 

[precept]

"Keeve...." It comes as no surprise that you are unable to understand! But simply put....Because the true CHILD OF GOD hates to sin against his God and his brother; when he sins against either his God or his brother, he still does not sin!['U]....OR His God treats him as if he did not sin!....because his God knows how much His True child hates sin...his God knows how much His True child is sorry to have sinned...So his God treats His true child as if he never sinned!

The True child of God does not commit sin because the true child of God hates sin like his Father hates sin.

Those who "like to sin" or who sin without remorse are unlike God who hates sin; and so cannot be forgiven for the fact that they delight in sinning against God and neighbor. And this holds true; no matter that they believe that Jesus died for the sins of humanity! This holds true for those who profess Christianity as well as the wicked and or those who do not profess belief in Christianity.


precept

 

[keevelish]

Loving the Lord is similar to the true love between a woman and her spouse

you can hardly compare spiritual things to human love. Humans do not love as God loves.

I don't really know how it is "not surprising" that I am unable to understand- I truly believe you are pulling scripture out of its rightful place to fit a really twisted idea.

The Bible tells us that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. Maybe you need to truly pray about these scriptures and this concept that you are trying to impose and see what the holy spirit says.

 

[precept]

you can hardly compare spiritual things to human love. Humans do not love as God loves.

Yes you can!

Revelation 21:9 "..........Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife."
Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church,...."


precept

 

[true blood]

Above is what you said.

Below is what I said.

No where is there any "offer in bribe" of any being saved forever or "eternally". Our responsibility to our Saviour is to rejoice in our salvation and to share our jubilation with any who would rejoice wth us. But again when we sin, we have an advocate, who will plead our case...but only if we are sorry for sinning against Him. We will be eternally saved only, and as long as whenever we sin, we show contriton, a desire not to sin, a deep repentance as was shown by God's friend, king David. If God so desires repentance from one He calls His friend, how much more us sinners saved only by His grace.


precept

Our responsibilty or rather commandment is to believe in Jesus Christ and to love others as he does. You are partially right in saying we have an advocate pleading our case but it certainly is not based on the condition of "feeling sorry". Christ grew up before God as a tender plant as a root out of a parched ground. Isaiah speaks that the very knowledge of Christ, God's righteous servant, will justify many. Just the knowledge will justify many. The sins of the people are many and he bears all of them. God knows the travails of the souls, all have gone astray and when he see's the seed of Christ (from the one time new birth that comes from believing that the power of God raised Jesus Christ from the dead and declare him Lord) God will be satisfied. To suggest that people need multiple saves is to disrespect the Lord.

 

[precept]

[True Blood] Our responsibilty or rather commandment is to believe in Jesus Christ and to love others as he does. You are partially right in saying we have an advocate pleading our case but it certainly is not based on the condition of "feeling sorry".

That is what you say....Here is what the Author of our salvation says....Mark 1:14-15" Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospe [the same gospel He commissioned us to preach I might add]....."The kingdom of heaven is at hand: REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL"

"Repent" Dictionary's definition...."feel regret or penitence about something". If your definition of salvation stands...Then first you would have the sinner "REPENT" or feel regret for sinning against his Saviour, AND "PENITENTLY ASKS FORGIVENESS"; but such regret is a one time occurrence...After expressing this one time only "regret" ; if and when he sins again; he has no more need to regret having sinned again against his Lord.

You are alone; and in error in this belief....John, the apostle teaches that whenever anyone sins..." HE HAS AN " Advocate" with the Father--Jesus Christ the Righteous---.1 John 2:1. What need is there for an "Advocate" if in fact one has no regret for having sinned!


precept

 

[Scuba Pete]

You guys are WAY off the original topic.

 

[rmarchy]

Precept, repent does not mean to feel sorry, it means simply to RE-THINK! I don’t know which dictionary you pulled that from. We are to follow Paul now in this dispensation of grace, not Christ, and I’ll show you why.

Sometimes those who do not fully understand "the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery" wonder whether or not we give undue prominence to the Apostle Paul. Isn't Christ our pattern and shouldn't we walk in His footsteps? By emphasizing Paul and the special message committed to his trust, are we casting a shadow on the Lord Jesus Christ?

1Ti 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.


What a marvelous combination: a great sinner and a great Savior!

Thus it is the Scriptures themselves that establish Paul as our pattern for salvation today. When we think it through it soon becomes apparent that the Lord Jesus Christ could not be the example and pattern for our salvation. He did not need to be saved--indeed, His perfect, sinless life only shows up our imperfections. His life condemns us; it is His death that saves us.


The chief of sinners, saved by grace, however, makes a fitting pattern for us, for as we take our place with him and trust in the Savior who died for our sins: "...we have redemption through [Christ's] blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7).

Paul is the only man in the Bible, apart from our Lord Himself, who says again and again, "Follow me." And this is not because he was anything in himself, but because Christ had given him the message of grace and had made him the pattern for this age of grace. This is not a question of personal excellence, but of divine revelation and God-given authority and position. Note his words carefully:

"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I AM THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES; I MAGNIFY MINE OFFICE" (Rom. 11:13).

"PAUL, AN APOSTLE (NOT OF MEN, NEITHER BY MAN, BUT BY JESUS CHRIST, AND GOD THE FATHER, WHO RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD)" (Gal. 1:1).

"For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, "If ye have heard of THE DISPENSATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD WHICH IS GIVEN ME TO YOU-WARD: "How that BY REVELATION HE MADE KNOWN UNTO ME THE MYSTERY..." (Eph. 3:1-3). (NOT THE KINGDOM GOSPEL)

A key passage in properly understanding the relationship between our Lord's earthly ministry and that later committed to Paul is Romans 15:8-12. It begins with this declaration: "Now I say that JESUS CHRIST WAS A MINISTER OF THE CIRCUMCISION FOR THE TRUTH OF GOD, TO CONFIRM THE PROMISES MADE UNTO THE FATHERS" (v. 8).

The next few verses contain the words "and again...and again...and again," referring to the prophetic promises that one day the Gentiles would "rejoice...with His people" Israel, as they with Christ as King "reign over the Gentiles." The prophets had often predicted that the blessing of God would go to the Gentiles through the rise of redeemed Israel to Kingdom glory (e.g., Isa. 60:1-3, Zech. 8:13,20-23). Hence Paul, here in Rom. 15, quotes no less than four direct references to this glad day of millennial blessings; for this was the clear focus of our Lord's earthly ministry.

We know, however, that "His own received Him not" at His first appearing (John 1:11), declaring, "We have no king but Caesar," and demanding His crucifixion.

After His resurrection the Lord commissioned His apostles to again offer repentance to Israel, and Peter thus proclaimed: "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, AND IN THY SEED SHALL ALL THE KINDREDS OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED.

"UNTO YOU FIRST God, having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (Acts 3:25,26).

But again they rejected Him. Thus Paul continues in his declaration to the Romans: "Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of THE GRACE THAT IS GIVEN TO ME OF GOD,

"THAT I SHOULD BE THE MINISTER OF JESUS CHRIST TO THE GENTILES, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be accept-able, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 15:15,16).

Here we have God sending salvation to the Gentiles--not in the manner predicted by the prophets, to be sure, but sending it nonetheless. Indeed, salvation now is going to the Gentiles through the fall of Israel:

"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather THROUGH THEIR FALL SALVATION IS COME UNTO THE GENTILES, for to provoke them to jealousy" (Rom. 11:11 ).

From His ascended position in heaven the Lord Jesus Christ poured out His grace to a rebellious world by saving the very leader of their rebellion and sending him forth as both the herald and the living demonstration of His grace. Hence Paul, now "the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles," could proclaim:

"...I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11,12).

This was no afterthought on God's part, no makeshift arrangement, for the Apostle adds that God has "separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me" (vs. 15,16).

Today Jesus Christ is revealing Himself to the world through the writings of the Apostle Paul. Paul was in Christ and Christ was in Paul. The Lord first revealed himself to Paul, and then through him to the world.

Those who continue to pit "the words of Paul' against "the words of Christ," should carefully consider the Word of God in 1Tim. 6:3,4: "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, EVEN THE WORDS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

"He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words...."

It is hard to imagine how he could more emphatically set forth the truth that his words were in fact the words of Christ. He again insists upon this in his stern rebuke to the carnal Corinthians: "If I come again I will not spare, SINCE YE SEEK A PROOF OF CHRIST SPEAKING IN ME" (11 Cor. 13:2,3).

Thus our ascended, glorified Lord is now sending a message of love and grace to a world of sinners, through the chief of sinners, Paul, "saved by grace"--a message committed to him by special revelation (Gal. 11:11,12, Tit. 1:3, 1Cor. 14:37).

 

[rmarchy]

The evidence is overwhelming that Paul was not one of the Twelve.

First, he never qualified for this position. Acts 1:20-22 clearly states that Judas' successor must be one who had "companied with [the Twelve] all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among [them], beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that He was taken up from [them]" ( cf. Matt. 19:28, John 15:27). Thus Paul's name never could have been put "on the ballot."

Neither was Paul given the same commission as the Twelve. A comparison between Christ's instructions that the Twelve "go baptizing" (Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:16) and Paul's statement, "Christ sent me not to baptize" (1Cor. 1:17) easily demonstrates the point. Also the Twelve were sent forth to teach "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20)--which clearly included the faithful observance of the Law (Matt. 5:19; 23:1-3), while Paul later proclaimed Christ as "the end of the law," and says, "Ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ....For ye are not under the law, but under grace" (Rom. 10:4; 7:4; 6:14). No, Paul is never to be considered as one of the Twelve Apostles.

As if the obvious contrasts above were not enough, the Holy Spirit Himself has sealed the question shut by divine revelation. Notice the inspired reference to "the Twelve," at a time when numerically there were only eleven: "And that He was seen of Cephas, then of THE TWELVE (1Cor.15:5).

This inspired reference to "the Twelve" between the resurrection and ascension of Christ is irrefutable evidence that the Holy Spirit considered Matthias as one of the twelve Apostles. And this is further confirmed by the fact that when Matthias was added, they were "all filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 1:26; 2:4).

Further, Paul and the Twelve represented different programs. Not only is the number 12 associated particularly with Israel, but we are told that the Twelve Apostles were her official representatives, destined to "sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:28, Luke 22:28-30). Paul, on the other hand, was by birth both a Hebrew and a Roman (Acts 16:37; 22:28), and thus an appropriate representative of the "one Body," composed of reconciled Jews and Gentiles.

Again, Paul and the Twelve proclaimed different messages. The very heart of the message of the Twelve was the establishment of Messiah's kingdom on earth, while in Paul's message the kingdom pro-gram awaits a future day, having been interrupted. Today everything centers in God's grace to a Christ-rejecting world, as He reconciles believing Jews and Gentiles to Himself in one body, giving them a position in heavenly places with Him.

Aside from this--and much more could be said--it is how those who insist on following Peter and the Twelve never come to grips with the following: "And when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me [Paul], THEY GAVE TO ME AND BARNABAS THE RIGHT HANDS OF FELLOWSHIP; THAT WE SHOULD GO UNTO THE HEATHEN, AND THEY UNTO THE CIRCUMCISION" (Gal. 2:9).

How could the record here in Galatians 2 be clearer? James, Peter and John, along with the whole Jerusalem church, recognize the further revelation given through Paul and take part in a public act of recognition and endorsement of the fact that God had now appointed Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles 1 If Peter's present day admirers would ask him, he (and the Twelve) would tell them, "Follow Paul: he is God's spokesman for the present day."

Just as our ascended Lord, as it were, says, "Follow Paul, I have revealed myself to you through him;" just as the Twelve say, "Follow Paul, he is God's appointed spokesman for the dispensation of grace;" so Paul himself exhorts us by divine inspiration:

"BE YE FOLLOWERS OF ME, EVEN AS I ALSO AM OF CHRIST" (I Cor. 11:1).

While we firmly believe and contend that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable" (2Tim 3:16), we also recognize that we can only obtain the profit God has placed for us in His Word when we "rightly divide the Word of truth" (2Tim. 2:15). Frankly put, we need those divine instructions which are appropriate to the age in which we live. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount simply will not do, for who among us is sufficient to keep them?

The next time you hear the so-called "Lord's Prayer" recited, think for a moment: Are we to be praying, "Thy kingdom come?" Are we not going to be with Christ, rather than waiting for Him to come to earth to reign? Again, do we gain forgiveness from God in the measure that we "forgive our debtors?"

Should we not rather forgive others "as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us" (Eph. 4:32)? Would God have us to twist and misapply this important passage into a mindless and meaningless ritual?

Neither does the Pentecostal program provide an adequate basis upon which to operate today. Its legalism, baptismal salvation, signs and wonders, "all things common," Jerusalem first and apostolic powers to remit sins are only some of the things which produce confusion when attempted today.

No. It is not until we turn to the epistles of Paul that we find instructions appropriate to the age in which we live. It is Paul who has so much to say about salvation by grace through faith, about the spiritual life and walk of the believer and how to achieve a walk that will truly glorify God. It is Paul who tells us how to function as members of the body of Christ. Indeed, he is our apostle-God's spokes-man for the dispensation in which we live.

When Peter, on the Mount of Transfiguration, started talking simply because "he wist not what to say," God interrupted him, saying, "This is My beloved Son; hear ye Him" (Mark 9:7, Matt. 17:5). But now, from heaven's glory, our Lord Himself says, as it were: "I have saved the chief of sinners by My grace, and have given him to you, My representative, a living example and pattern of My grace to you: "Hear ye him" And in hearing him, we are thus giving heed to our risen, glorified Lord (John 13:20).

The Twelve echo in tune: "God has interrupted the prophesied program and has given a further revelation through Paul; we commend you to him - hear ye him" And Paul himself adds:

"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began,

"But hath in due times MANIFESTED HIS WORD THROUGH PREACHING, WHICH IS COMMITTED UNTO ME ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD OUR SAVIOR" (Tit. 1:2,3).

"[Christ] gave Himself a ransom for all, TO BE TESTIFIED IN DUE TIME,

"WHEREUNTO I AM ORDAINED A PREACHER, AND AN APOSTLE...A TEACHER OF THE GENTILES, IN FAITH AND VERITY" (1Tim. 2:6,7).

What a glorious message Christ has sent down from heaven for us today--a message that makes Him everything! Rather than giving undue prominence to the Apostle Paul, as we recognize His unique position of God-given authority and its importance for us today, we are in fact being faithful to our God-given message. God has put a high premium on faithful obedience to His Word. By His grace may we refuse the wine of the religious system and its attempts to draw us away from the path of obedience to God's particular word to us.

Precept you need to recognize the different distinctions. That is where you are getting confused.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth 2Tim 2:15

You can't take scriptures that apply to the Jew and apply them to the Body of Christ.