Accursed - Gal. 1:8-9

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, May 31, 2013.

  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,111
    Likes Received:
    206
    Gal. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
    9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


    1. No one on this board can honestly deny that Paul is speaking of a trivial non-essential matter.

    2. No one on this board can honestly assert that the gospel of justification by faith without works is the same or similar to a gospel of justificaton by faith with works.

    3. Therefore, it is not name calling, but is the absolute essential demand of Scriptures that either those preaching one of these gospel's is to be regarded as "Let him be" accursed and that is a very serious matter.

    4. Neither can anyone logically deny that the Scriptures speak of only TWO POSSIBLE ways/gospels and they are in direct contradiction to each other in regard to both essence and consequences (Mt. 7:12-13; Rom. 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9).

    5. Neither can anyone logically deny that the "accursed" gospel is the one that is inclusive of some kind of works as Romans 3-4 and Galatians 1-4 are all condemning that gospel which includes some manner of justification by works. This cannot be true of the only alternative as it is a gospel "without works."

    6. The two different gospels, ways, justification are contrasted by the terms "grace" versus "works" and so the false gospel, false justification, false way necessarily is inclusive of works. Thus "saved by grace....not of works" and "worketh not but justifieth...without works" is the alternative of this contrast.

    Therefore, if there are only TWO possible ways, TWO possible gospels and justification by faith without works is contradictory to justificaiton by faith with works, and the accursed is the one that includes works - then it should be obvious which of the only two possible gospels is the accursed one.
     
    #1 The Biblicist, May 31, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2013
  2. TrevorL

    TrevorL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings The Biblicist,

    I have only quoted a portion of your OP, but this is in response to all that you have stated.
    Perhaps there is a third alternative different to what is usually claimed from your side of the fence. This alternative is that faith produces works of faith, and without these works of faith a believer will not be saved and justified. Initial justification is by faith, and final justification is by faith, but if a believer does not grow in faith, and if a believer does not allow his faith to motivate him, then he will not be saved.

    Matthew 7:24-27 (KJV): 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
    Matthew 13:23 (KJV): But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
    Luke 8:15 (KJV): But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.


    Kind regards
    Trevor
     
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,111
    Likes Received:
    206
    The difference is between cause and consequential. Your position makes works causal "without...will not be saved and justified" and that is the saved/justified/gospel of works position. The first position includes works but not in a causal position and the theif on the cross demonstrates it is not a causal position.


    In regard to Matthew 7 passage, the foundation is the only difference between the two. That is none other than the Person and work of Jesus Christ and his sinless righteousness (Mt. 5:20,46) without our works. The sand foundation is a MIXTURE of our works and Christ's works and its will not stand. Our works are BUILT UPON IT not part of it as your position demands. Our works are the consequences (Eph. 2:10b "unto good works") not the cause "by grace are ye saved through faith and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, NOT OF WORKS..."

    Your position is one of the many WAYS found in the singular BROAD WAY of works that Solomon and Christ speak of (Mt. 7:13; Prov.) "There is a way that seemeth right....THE WAYS thereof"
     
    #3 The Biblicist, Jun 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2013
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,111
    Likes Received:
    206

    The narrow way, saved by grace without works way, the justified by faith without works way completely excludes our works as CAUSUAL. It does not exclude works as consequential but the theif on the cross prove they are not NECESSARY consequences for salvation/justification. However, the position of Trevor makes works NECESSARY consequences for salvation/justification.
     
  5. TrevorL

    TrevorL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings again The Biblicist,
    I believe that it is works of faith that are necessary, not works. The Apostle Paul in Galatians is arguing against works of the Law as a means of salvation, and not against works of faith. Abraham is a good example as he initially was justified by faith when he believed the promise of the seed in Gen15:6, he is spoken of as strong in faith when he was told that he would have a son when he was 99 years old, and he was told that he would be blessed because of his faith when he was prepared to offer up Isaac, accounting that God would raise him from the dead. These are all justification by faith, but they demonstrate this growth in faith and the response of faith in works of faith. This has nothing to do with justification by works of the Law.

    The difference is the response of two different people, the wise and the foolish. The wise heard the words of Jesus and allowed that word to bring forth a response, while the foolish also heard the words and failed to allow that word to bring forth fruit in action.

    The broad way is those that hear the word and fail to respond.

    The thief on the cross is an evidence of the great faith of the thief at a time when nearly all others failed to believe. He recognised that Jesus would rise from the dead and would eventually establish his kingdom. His faith can be equated with Abraham’s faith in Genesis 15:6.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,111
    Likes Received:
    206
    You are attempting to derail this OP and address another subject. If you want to seriously discuss this subject open up another Thread and I will be glad to address your error.
     
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,111
    Likes Received:
    206
    Once again you are taking something consequential to the new birth and justificatio and making it causal. These are works "OF faith" which are consequential to being saved by grace and being created in Christ (Eph. 2:10b) rather than causal as you making it (Eph. 2:8-10b). We are created in Christ Jesus "UNTO" good works. We are "saved by grace through faith...NOT OF WORKS." Here Paul is talking about works "OF FAITH" in Eph. 2:10b which FOLLOW as consequences. The theif on the cross is a complete rebuttal that they are necessary consequences.

    your concept of "works of faith" that are causal for justification and salvation is the very same thing Paul is opposing. That is precisely what the Jews turned the Law of God into - a causal essential for justification when the Law of God was never designed but to reveal the knowledge of sin. That is precisely why it is "another gospel" as the gospel is about the finished works of Christ not anything about YOUR WORKS or the works OF FAITH as the basis for salvation or regeneration or justification.




    Moses uses the PERFECT TENSE here (v. 7) to show that the promise in Genesis 15:1-5 was merely the further expansion of the initial promise referred to in Genesis 12:1-3 which was originally given and received by faith in Genesis 11 when Abraham was in Ur of the Chaldees. In Genesis 11 this gospel promise (Gal. 3:16-17) was first preached by God to Abraham (Gal. 3:6-8) and believed as a completed action that continued to stand as a completed action each time God expanded that revelation later.


    Here is the problem with your theory. Romans 4:16-21 proves that the "works of faith" were not causual in the justification of Abraham because there was nothing but DEADNESS that Abraham could offer, contribute to the fulfillment of God's promise. God alone without any kind of contribution by Abraham or Sarah fulfilled the promise. Justifying faith is here defined to exclude all works even works of faith.



    These demonstrative fruits of faith are not causal but consequential. The difference between "another gospel" and the true gospel is the fine line between causal and consequential in regard to works of faith.

    The difference is between including their works with their profession of Christ as "Lord" as the basis to enter heaven (Mt. 7:22-23). This is the SAND or mixture of faith plus works religion. They failed to do the will of the Father spelled out previously in Matthew 5:20,46 which can only be performed by Christ alone, thus received by faith alone without your additions (Jn. 6:38-39).




    It is an example of justification by simple faith without ANY WORKS whatsoever for salvation/justification.

    You are embracing and teaching "another gospel" by the simple fact that you are adding to the works of Christ works OF YOUR FAITH thus denying the sufficiency of Christ's works to justify you.
     
    #7 The Biblicist, Jun 2, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2013
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Sadly a great many Calvinists believe in TWO Gospels - one for 4000 years in the OT that is a covenant of WORKS - and another in the New Testament "Saved by GRACE through Faith".

    But unlike your suggestion above - I do not choose to go around calling people "ACCURSED" - I am not yet Calvinist-enough to do that.

    The ONE Gospel of Gal 1:6-11 is Preached ALSO to Abraham in the OT according to that SAME Book - that SAME author - in Gal 3:7.

    And in Heb 4:1-2 Paul says "the Gospel was preached to US JUST as it was to THEM also" speaking of the OT saints - some of whom we see mentioned in Hebrews 11.

    But sadly - there are a great many Christians today still clinging to a TWO GOSPEL model with the OT being a covenant and Gospel of WORKS and the NT being one of Grace -- not knowing what they are saying.

    Thankfully section 19 of the Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 (even as revised by C.H. Spurgeon in the 1800's) does not appear to be making that huge mistake so common today.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,111
    Likes Received:
    206
    Sorry, but you can't classify me in your artificial categories. I believe the very same gospel preached in the New Testament is the very same gospel preached prior to the cross (Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6; Acts 10:43; 26:22-23; Rom. 10:16; etc.).

    If the shoe fits wear it. I called no one anything. I simply agreed with Paul. The SDA gospel is the accursed gospel.

    Absolutely and it is BEFORE Moses and it is by grace through faith (Rom. 4:16) without works (Rom. 4:5-6; 16-21).

    Absolutely, but unliike the SDA the writer of Hebrews distinguishes between faith and the "by" products of faith = works.

    The Law written on stone or on the human hearts provides no ability to be justified by the Law whether by the power of the Spirit or without the Spirit. Christ satsifed the Law's demands - all of them. Our service even under the power of the Spirit still "come short of the glory of God" = sinless perfection which is the one and only righteous standard demanded by the law - James 2:10-11.
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Since you are not actually quoting anything in your wild accusations - nor have you found any fault in anything I posted - other than the fact that you claim to agree with me on my view of the ONE Gospel - it is not clear that your accusations have enough substance to get a response.

    Did you mean to actually quote something to show that one of your wild railing accusations had some substance to it??
     
  11. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,111
    Likes Received:
    206
    Bob you are the one that made the wild accusation that those who believe in OSAS embrace two gospels. That may be true regarding some but not regarding me or my type of Baptists. So it is no wild accusation to point out that you made a error in your general application.

    There has only been one gospel, one Savior, one way of salvation and therefore one solution to the common problem of man from Genesis 3 to Revelation 21 and that is the redemptive work of Christ which has been, is and always will be "by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works" but rather by the "workmanship of God" whereby a CREATIVE act is necessary to deal with the depraved nature of man.
     
  12. TrevorL

    TrevorL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings again The Biblicist,

    I am a bit reticent to answer because of your first response here, even though you did answer my post a bit later. I am not sure of exactly what view you expected to encounter as a result of your OP. I was interested in discussing your view and comparing it with my present belief. My interest was awakened when you quoted Galatians, and also the definite position that you expressed that seemed to be against “works”. Before posting on the previous occasion I quietly read the whole of Galatians to reconfirm some of my impressions concerning this subject.

    Galatians has been one of my favourite Bible books since my early 20s, when we were instructed by one of our expositors on Galatians at our Bible Class. This series of classes left an indelible impression on my mind, and has been part of the way I think on the subject of faith and obedience for more than 40 years. My early impression on this subject helped me find some stability in a time of strong discussion on faith and obedience in our meeting over 30 years ago. More recently my interest was renewed and partly reshaped by listening to a series of talks, originally given in 1948 by an expositor that I greatly respect, that included some aspects of this subject.

    It is interesting to me that in this series of talks the expositor actually uses the example of the thief on the cross as the pattern to link with:
    Galatians 2:20 (KJV): I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
    Rather than saying the thief on the cross is an example that “works” is not necessary, he states that the thief is a graphic picture of the life of the believer, and an example that Paul revealed in his life and actions day by day.

    I would like to make a comment / question based upon the following, and I hope this is not derailing your thread:
    Acts 8:5,12 (KJV): 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
    12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

    To me the example of the thief and the endorsement and additional teaching on this by Paul in Galatians 2:20 instructs me. It is also endorsed by the action of the believers at Samaria. My assessment of this is that having believed the true and complete gospel of the kingdom and the name, it is necessary to follow the example of the thief and Paul by identifying with the death and resurrection of Jesus by means of baptism. My question is would you consider this an unnecessary “work”, or would you consider this as a necessary response to faith and is thus a work of faith? Please note that I endorse what you say that any work must be part of God’s creative work.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
     
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,111
    Likes Received:
    206
    Galatians 2:20 has absolutely no reference to the theif on the cross. The theif on the cross had no choice about his cross circumstance but Galatians 2:20 is expressing a determined choice.

    Works are not "part of" God's creative work. You are confusing the cause with consequences. By insisting they are "necessary" consequences is oxymoronic as that makes them ultimately causal.

    Romans 11:6 use the Greek preposition "ek" rather than "apo." The difference is about the source of origin. "ek" originates from within something and moves to the exterior whereas "apo" originates outside something and moves away. That is the primary distinction. Works cannot have thier source of origin in grace and grace cannot have its source of origin in works or they cease being what they are by nature which is exclusive of one another. That is why consequential works that we perform are never called "grace works" but rather "works of righteousness" and Paul explicitly states "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he has saved us".

    Did the theif receive baptism? No! Did he receive salvation? Yes? Hence, baptism is not essential to salvation.
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Sadly a great many Calvinists believe in TWO Gospels - one for 4000 years in the OT that is a covenant of WORKS - and another in the New Testament "Saved by GRACE through Faith".

    But unlike your suggestion above - I do not choose to go around calling people "ACCURSED" - I am not yet Calvinist-enough to do that.

    The ONE Gospel of Gal 1:6-11 is Preached ALSO to Abraham in the OT according to that SAME Book - that SAME author - in Gal 3:7.

    And in Heb 4:1-2 Paul says "the Gospel was preached to US JUST as it was to THEM also" speaking of the OT saints - some of whom we see mentioned in Hebrews 11.

    But sadly - there are a great many Christians today still clinging to a TWO GOSPEL model with the OT being a covenant and Gospel of WORKS and the NT being one of Grace -- not knowing what they are saying.

    Thankfully section 19 of the Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 (even as revised by C.H. Spurgeon in the 1800's) does not appear to be making that huge mistake so common today.
    ================================

    To which we get a post from Biblicist saying he agrees with me that there is only one Gospel and it is saved by grace through faith - found in both OT and NT.

    And yet this is in innexplicable way this is supposed to be a problem for my post above by "accusation alone"



    If you are going to claim that the member of this board have not being urging that we "believe" that the OT is a "covenant of works" - all day long - I for one have to ask how many others "believe" they have not been doing that? Because I find them doing it all day long in response to my posts.

    Where have you been??


    Ahh now some truth in lending.

    I am more than happy to hear your affirmation that the Full Ten Commandment keeping position in both OT and NT as proclaimed by your own Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 - is in fact not at all a covenant of works - because it was written on the heart and the mind.

    Because I certainly believe that to be the case.


    On that point we have agreement.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,111
    Likes Received:
    206
    I do not deny that many "Baptists" and others believe in a two gospel theory, one kind before calvary and another after Calvary. They are wrong. Redemption is by the "blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" which is equally applied both before and after the cross and Abraham is the Biblical Poster boy for that truth.

    You have not interpreted The Baptist Confession of Faith you refer to correctly. It does on teach what you are claiming it to teach. They do not teach keeping the ten commandments saves anyone nor that the final decision for heaven or hell is determined at Judgment day. They teach no such thing. They carefully teach that the only thing determined on judgment day is the determination of REWARDS according to what you have done in your body. Rewards for the saved in heaven and rewards of punishment for the lost in hell.

    Another thing, you don't seem to grasp is that the "old" and "new" covenants are PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS for service not means of salvation. PERSONAL salvaton occurs between God and man according to the "blood of the everalsting covenant" as described in Ephesians 1:4-13; Romans 8:28-39; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:7; etc.

    The change of covenant PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS replaces one PUBLIC house of God for another; one PUBLIC ministry for another; One kind of ceremonial ordinances for another, One Sabbath day for another.
     
  16. TrevorL

    TrevorL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Greetings again The Biblicist,

    I disagree strongly as I believe that the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, the crucifixion of this thief in contrast to the other thief, and Paul’s identification with the crucifixion and resurrection are all inseparably linked with true Scriptural baptism. Although the thief’s crucifixion was not voluntary, after his conversion and confession there was an acknowledgement that he was rightfully worthy of death, and true baptism is similar.

    We are called upon to voluntarily submit to death in baptism, identifying with the death of Jesus, to acknowledge that God was right in condemning Adam and his descendants to death because of Adam’s sin. It is also identification with the resurrection of Jesus, and a sharing of the new life in him. The thief on the cross is an object lesson to us, and teaches more than baptism, he was literally crucified with Christ.
    John 19:32 (KJV): Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
    Matthew 16:24-25 (KJV): 24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
    Galatians 5:24-25 (KJV): 24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.


    The thief on the cross acknowledged Jesus’ faultless character, he anticipated Jesus’ resurrection and his return to establish the kingdom, when he would raise the dead. He acknowledged Jesus as Lord, and if his feet and hands were not nailed to the cross he would have commenced to serve Christ. He used his heart to believe and his voice to seek to encourage and convert his fellow thief, and to acknowledge Jesus as lord and to seek forgiveness.

    No it is faith that is causal, not the works of faith. But as James says, faith without works is dead.
    Romans 10:1-5 (KJV): 1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
    I believe you are confusing works of faith with the Jews concept of righteousness by means of works of the Law.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,111
    Likes Received:
    206
    Of course you can beleive what you like. However, the theif on the cross is a complete repudiation that baptism is essential to be saved or else he could not be saved as he was not baptized.

    That is not to say that baptism has no connection with Christ's death, burial and resurretion (Rom. 6:4-5; Col. 2:12). That is not to say that baptism does not save or remit sins. However, the question is HOW does it save and remit sin, and HOW does it relate to Christ's death, burial and resurretion? The answer is in "FIGURE" and "FIGURE" only - 1 Pet. 3:21.

    This is proven by the fact it is compared to circumcison which Paul explicitly states is nothing more than an outward "sign" and "seal" of an internal condition (Rom. 4:11) that is totally UNRELATED to how that internal condition was obtained. Abraham, like the thief on the cross was completely justified by faith WITHOUT cirucmcison (Rom. 4:9-10).

    The thief on the cross, like Abraham may be an EXAMPLE of justification by faith WITHOUT WORKS but neither are examples of justification by circumcison/baptism.



    Your statement is oxymoronic. The very statement "faith WITHOUT works is dead" distinguishes faith from works. Faith is the "work of God" (Jn. 6:29) and Christ is the cause as he is the "author and finisher" of faith. In relationship to works, faith is the cause I grant you but that proves that faith is not works. It is one thing to say we are Justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS but it is another thing to say "faith WITHOUT WORKS is dead - the difference is between apples and oranges. The first has to do with the basis of justification whereas the latter has to do with the evidence of justification and that should be self-evident from the context of james 2 where James is speaking about the "profit" to other people and visible proof of justification

    What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
    15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
    16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
    17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.





    Romans 10:1-5 (KJV): 1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.


    You don't understand that the very text you are quoting above completely condemns your own position! You are in fact, teaching the very thing Paul is condemning in Romans 10:1-5.
     
  18. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    I deny that Paul is speaking of a trivial, non-essential matter. I believe it is NOT trivial, and it IS essential.

    I think I can make that case if you like.

    This contradicts point 1.

    I can deny that there are two gospels:

    Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
    7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.​

    There is one gospel, and any others would be a perversion of that gospel.

    Indeed, and I agree. The "other gospel" that is "accursed" is one that includes Works of the Law.

    Works is not a gospel (not good news) since it's purpose is to conclude all under sin, and therefore condemn all to death.

    If you wanted to be accurate and use the Biblical terms, you would have used the word "covenant." There are two covenants, not two gospels. There is only one gospel because one of the covenants (the law) isn't good news to a sinner - of which we are all.

    Gal 4:24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.​
     
  19. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gal 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."

    16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.​

    So here, Paul tells us that the "Gospel of Christ" was preached to Abraham. What was the result?

    Gal 3:6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.​

    But what about the law?

    Gal 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.​

    So at the time when Abraham heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, believed, and was made righteous by his faith, the Law of Moses had not yet been given. This begs the question - what part of the law was necessary for Abraham - the man the Bible says was the first saved by grace through faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ? None!

    But surely he had "works of faith" right?

    Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

    Rom 4:9 [Cometh] this blessedness then upon the circumcision [only], or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
    10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.​

    God made Abraham righteous by his faith alone in the Gospel of Jesus Christ prior to any accompanying "works of faith." But James says "faith without works is dead." What does that mean? How does this play a role?

    Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:​

    So faith is the causal agent, and works is an outworking or proof of the faith. God made righteousness an eternal inheritance to Abraham's seed. But it wasn't to the physical heir, but to the spiritual heir.... those who were of the same faith as Abraham (faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ).

    Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

    Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

    Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

    22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

    26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

    29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.​

    Because it is an inheritance, you do not have to qualify by any works to receive it. You qualify as a spiritual descendant of Abraham by having the same faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that Abraham had.

    Even though Ishmael was the rightful biological (legal) heir, he was cast out and Isaac was made the heir - the child of promise. Even so it now is with the Jews (and Arabs through Ishmael) not receiving the inheritance, but only those who are sons of God through faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Jhn 8:39 "Our father is Abraham!" they declared. "No," Jesus replied, "for if you were really the children of Abraham, you would follow his example.

    Jhn 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad."​

    So we don't need to "work" because Abraham didn't do any works to before being made righteous. His "works" (circumcision, offering Isaac, etc) came after that and was a seal of the righteousness he had already been given by grace through his faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are made righteous as an inheritance of that everlasting covenant so long as we qualify as spiritual heirs - those with the same faith as Abraham had.

    Also consider that the covenant of Faith existed for 430 years without the Law of Moses, but the Law of Moses has never existed outside of and apart from the covenant of Faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is the covenant of Faith that exists outside of and apart from (and irrespective of and unmodified by) The Law, not the other way around.

    The purpose of the Law was to conclude all under sin as hopeless and lost in order to lead them back to the first covenant to be saved. The Law teaches us about our relationship with God. It is a type and shadow - a physical representation of the spiritual condition.
     
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,111
    Likes Received:
    206
    Alright, I will take the blame of placing too many negatives in my sentence and that caused the confusion. You read and understood me to mean "ANYONE can deny that Paul is speaking of a trivial non-essential matter." I have three negatives in my sentence. Two negatives make a positive but I have three negatives (no, deny, non-), but it does make my point confusing.

    I am denying that Paul's words can be interpreted to be something of no consequene. So we agree.


    Really?????? You can make a case that justification "without" works is justification "with works" and therefore the terms "without works" and "with works" provide no substantial distinction?????? Remember, I have already said that the key to James and Paul is that of cause and consequence in regard to justification's relationship to works.


    it does according to how you understood my sentence with three negatives.



    Have you by any chance taken a look at the Greek word translated "another" in verse 6 in contrast to the Greek word translated "another" in verse 7. You might look it up and then respond.



    The good news of the gospel is inseparably connect to the doctrine and meaning of justfication. That is why Paul introduces the problem as centered upon "the gospel" versus "another" gospel. In the following epistle he make this difference between "works" and "faith" in regard to the doctrine and meaning of justification (Gal. 2:16).



    There are THREE covenants (1) "old" (2) "new" (3) "everlasting" - Heb. 13:20. Both the "old" and "new' are TEMPORAL public administrations of the third. The first or "old" is the gospel anticipated while the "new" is the gospel fulfilled. In neither is the works of Law designed to justify anyone but merely to reveal the knowledge of sin.

    The first woman pictures the perversion of the marriage covenant while the second pictures the marriage covenant. The Jews had taken the Old Covenant and perverted it from God's true design (Rom. 3:19-20) by making it the modus operandi for obtaining eternal life by their own personal obedience to it. This is exactly the same perversion by the majority of professing Christendom today of the "new" covenant. They have perverted it into the same system of personal obedience for final justification before God. This is the Galatian heresy.
     

Share This Page

Loading...