"Free" Will

[FHII]

Barrd,

First off, my apologies for mispelling your name. Now then, I too believe God acts behind thr scenes and discretely. Does that violate our free will? Well, it certainly at times might put us in situations we don't want to be in, and Joseph the son of Jacob comes to mind. But it can also be him placing a nail in the road causing you to get a flat tire to avoid a fatal car wreck 4 miles up the road.

In these and many other circumstances we think we have free will, but God is ordering our footsteps. He doesn't have to knock us off our high horse and blind us in order to get us to do his will.

My goodness, that eould be just terrible if he did that!

F2F hasn't participated in this thread, at least not recently enough to appear on my browser. were you asking me or him/her about animosity? I don't have animosity toward you, and in fact kind of like you despite our many differences in doctrines. I really appreciate your sincerity towards tge Lord. Yet, I perceive that you aren't willing to change in light of clear scripture. That bit about job being a parable and your constant claims that Paul was a hard to understand jewish lawyer are examples.

Its tough to take a conversation with you seriously when you make such excuses.

So again, I am sincere when I express my fondness for you, but I am frustrated when you seemingly excuse things as mentioned. I appreciate reeds that don't shake in the wind, but not a stiff neck. You clearly aren't a reed shaking in the wind, but at times you approach stiff neck status, imo.

Thin line between the two, and again its just my perception based on what I've seen so far.

As for your questions, Jesus always spoke the truth, but sometimes he did it in parables so people wouldn't understand. He expounded and said if he spike clearly they woul d understand and their sins would be forgiven. He didn't want that.

I think if these Pharisees had earnestly pressed Jesus, he would've obligued them, but the fact remains that Jesus spoke in parables so some wouldn't get it. He even told thr disciples to leave these blind folks alone!

But then we havr nicodemus. Followed jesus by night, which is shameful, but he did follow and gained an audience with Jesus and got a profound teaching.

In short, if God don't want you, yes he's going to block a message to you. But it may br God's will for you to press harder, which produces a great reward.

But that is still God's will!

 

[newbirth]

Barrd,

First off, my apologies for mispelling your name. Now then, I too believe God acts behind thr scenes and discretely. Does that violate our free will? Well, it certainly at times might put us in situations we don't want to be in, and Joseph the son of Jacob comes to mind. But it can also be him placing a nail in the road causing you to get a flat tire to avoid a fatal car wreck 4 miles up the road.

In these and many other circumstances we think we have free will, but God is ordering our footsteps. He doesn't have to knock us off our high horse and blind us in order to get us to do his will.

My goodness, that eould be just terrible if he did that!

F2F hasn't participated in this thread, at least not recently enough to appear on my browser. were you asking me or him/her about animosity? I don't have animosity toward you, and in fact kind of like you despite our many differences in doctrines. I really appreciate your sincerity towards tge Lord. Yet, I perceive that you aren't willing to change in light of clear scripture. That bit about job being a parable and your constant claims that Paul was a hard to understand jewish lawyer are examples.

Its tough to take a conversation with you seriously when you make such excuses.

So again, I am sincere when I express my fondness for you, but I am frustrated when you seemingly excuse things as mentioned. I appreciate reeds that don't shake in the wind, but not a stiff neck. You clearly aren't a reed shaking in the wind, but at times you approach stiff neck status, imo.

Thin line between the two, and again its just my perception based on what I've seen so far.

As for your questions, Jesus always spoke the truth, but sometimes he did it in parables so people wouldn't understand. He expounded and said if he spike clearly they woul d understand and their sins would be forgiven. He didn't want that.

I think if these Pharisees had earnestly pressed Jesus, he would've obligued them, but the fact remains that Jesus spoke in parables so some wouldn't get it. He even told thr disciples to leave these blind folks alone!

But then we havr nicodemus. Followed jesus by night, which is shameful, but he did follow and gained an audience with Jesus and got a profound teaching.

In short, if God don't want you, yes he's going to block a message to you. But it may br God's will for you to press harder, which produces a great reward.

But that is still God's will!

the issue is not God it’s man...God wants us to follow him by faith....not fully understanding but believing....some people want to fully understand before they believe...not gonna happen !!!!
look at this...one of the most famous verse


John 3:16King James Version (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

men believe it and receive Jesus Christ as Lord...then suddenly they get knowledge ...Jesus is God...or God is a trinity ...and stray from the truth....

 

[Barrd]

Barrd,

First off, my apologies for mispelling your name. Now then, I too believe God acts behind thr scenes and discretely. Does that violate our free will? Well, it certainly at times might put us in situations we don't want to be in, and Joseph the son of Jacob comes to mind. But it can also be him placing a nail in the road causing you to get a flat tire to avoid a fatal car wreck 4 miles up the road.

Ooh, I guess I also owe you an apology. Your name is so similar to F2F's that I got the two of you mixed up. I am sincerely sorry for my error.

Thank you for spelling my name right. It's kind of a thing with me, you know? I am "The Barrd". A silly vanity, but thanks, anyhow.

I will not deny that there are times when God (or His angels?) act behind the scenes, either to direct us to someplace He wants us to be, or, more likely, to keep us from some disaster...like the pesky flat tire that keeps us from the fatal car wreck.

I totally believe in the goodness of God, but I do not believe that He would ever force us to do something we would not do on our own.

In these and many other circumstances we think we have free will, but God is ordering our footsteps. He doesn't have to knock us off our high horse and blind us in order to get us to do his will.

But He did do that with Paul.

My goodness, that eould be just terrible if he did that!

I suspect that it would have been a lot worse if God had let Paul continue on as he was. Sometimes I think people forget that Paul was a murderer who had severely persecuted the church, before God knocked him down.

F2F hasn't participated in this thread, at least not recently enough to appear on my browser. were you asking me or him/her about animosity? I don't have animosity toward you, and in fact kind of like you despite our many differences in doctrines. I really appreciate your sincerity towards tge Lord. Yet, I perceive that you aren't willing to change in light of clear scripture. That bit about job being a parable and your constant claims that Paul was a hard to understand jewish lawyer are examples.

Your names are sort of similar....and I got the two of you confused. Again, my most abject and humble apologies.
Actually, that bit about Job does represent a change in my thinking. This came about after a deep and heartfelt conversation with a pastor. I had voiced some concerns I had with the story of Job, and he assured me that the story was a parable. Now, that makes a lot more sense to me than the notion that God made a wager with Satan, with the lives of Job and his family as the stakes, or that God would allow Job's kids to be killed and then decide that giving him a bunch more kids in his old age would make that okay. Not to mention Mrs. Job. Poor kid got a seriously bad rep, but we forget that those kids were her babies...anyone might react the same way to such a tragedy. To me, the whole story was just unconscionably cruel, and I just could not see the God that I know as Jesus Christ behaving in such a way. It was a huge relief to me to realize that He had not and would not. One might even say that my faith in Him, which had been shaken by some things going on in my own life, was restored.

It does bother me quite a bit that so many people seem to rely more on Paul than they do on Jesus for their doctrine. It makes no sense to me that Jesus would train His disciples for three and a half years, and then send them out into the world with instructions to teach others what He had taught them....and then bring in a brand new guy and give him an entirely different message to teach. Thus, there has to be a misunderstanding somewhere. Now, Jesus is quite clear when He says that we are to obey Him, so that can't be where the misunderstanding is.
And Peter does tell us that Paul has many things in his writings that are difficult to understand, and that people would twist his words to their own destruction. Now that is a huge red flag, isn't it?

Its tough to take a conversation with you seriously when you make such excuses.

And, of course, it never occurs to you that I might have a point? I may not have a fancy education...but I'm not exactly stupid, either.

So again, I am sincere when I express my fondness for you, but I am frustrated when you seemingly excuse things as mentioned. I appreciate reeds that don't shake in the wind, but not a stiff neck. You clearly aren't a reed shaking in the wind, but at times you approach stiff neck status, imo.

I'm sorry you see me that way.

Thin line between the two, and again its just my perception based on what I've seen so far.

And again, you might consider the possibility that I have a point. Perhaps I am not the one with the stiff neck...

As for your questions, Jesus always spoke the truth, but sometimes he did it in parables so people wouldn't understand. He expounded and said if he spike clearly they woul d understand and their sins would be forgiven. He didn't want that.

And yet, we are told that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all might com to repentance...

I think if these Pharisees had earnestly pressed Jesus, he would've obligued them, but the fact remains that Jesus spoke in parables so some wouldn't get it. He even told thr disciples to leave these blind folks alone!

Of course, He could have violated their free will, and forced them to repent and be saved. He did not do that.

But then we havr nicodemus. Followed jesus by night, which is shameful, but he did follow and gained an audience with Jesus and got a profound teaching.

Did Nicodemus choose to follow Jesus, or did God move in the background to bring him to Jesus so that he could receive this profound teaching?
I believe it was his choice. What do you think?

In short, if God don't want you, yes he's going to block a message to you. But it may br God's will for you to press harder, which produces a great reward.

"If God don't want you?" Aside from the bad grammar, what is wrong with this sentence?

But that is still God's will!

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Do you believe that? I do.

 

[FHII]

Barrd:

"But He did do that with Paul. "

Yes. I know, and how anyone can say God did not press His will against Paul is beyond me. I am also well aware of Paul's past. God didn't seem to care much about it. Why did Jesus pick Paul? Not to clean up Paul's life (though that happened) but rather for God's purpose, which was to go to the gentiles.

Let's talk a bit more about Paul:

"It does bother me quite a bit that so many people seem to rely more on Paul than they do on Jesus for their doctrine."

Paul was Christ's ambassador. He came in Christ's stead. He spoke for Jesus, so whatever he said was Christ approved and were the words Jesus wanted him to say. There are thise few 2-3 exceptions where Paul spoke by permission, but other than that, it is still the Word of God.

"And Peter does tell us that Paul has many things in his writings that are difficult to understand, and that people would twist his words to their own destruction. Now that is a huge red flag, isn't it?"

No, not exactly. Peter said some thing, not many. Peter said unlearned and unstable people would wrest what he said, but Peter also said, "as they do other scripture. " so it isn't a problem with Paul's epistles.

What exactly is so hard to understand in Paul's writings? You can tell me what you think is hard to understand, but a better answer is what did Peter think was hard to understand? Was it grace? No, Peter and john taught the same thing. Was it faith? Nope.

The only thing I can think might have been hard to understand is the notion that we are no longer under the law of Moses, but are now under grace. Paul did say we are under the law of God, but john also wrote of that.

My theory (and I do acknowledge it is a theory) is that the Jews had a hard time accepting this amd Peter did too. The gentiles, however, understood it and gladly accepted it.

So, if you think Paul's ministry was a big misunderstanding, you'll have to take that up with Jesus, cause he's the one who called him.

So some things Paul wrote are hard to understand. Peter didn't say they were wrong nor did he say impossible.

And it doesn't matter that he WAS a jewish lawyer! He was also a pharisee, a tent maker and a roman citizen. All played a small part in his travels, but a SMALL part. Guess what else he was? An APOSTLE! That played a big part.

 

[Barrd]

What did Jesus teach His 12 Disciples during His lifetime? Did He not teach them to obey the law?
And before He left them, He told them to teach others the same thing:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Now, why would He train His disciples to obey the law, and then have them go and teach all nations to also obey the law...

And then suddenly bring in a new guy with a different message?

The answer is, He wouldn't and didn't.

Paul did warn us about accepting another Gospel:

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

Paul himself kept the law:

Act 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

And what was it that Peter said again?

2Pe 3:15 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;
2Pe 3:16 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.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Now it seems to me that it is those who are teaching that Paul taught that the law of God no longer applies to us who "wresting" his writings, making them seem to mean something that Paul never intended to teach.

Do you remember James' advice to Paul?


Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

So we see that Paul, himself, kept the law, and that he also exhorted others to keep the law.
The notion that Paul taught people that the law no longer applies to Christians, imho, is rank slander.

 

[Barrd]

As I have said all along...if something Paul has said seems to contradict what Jesus has said, then you can be sure that you have misunderstood Paul...

 

[Barrd]

God never said that the New Covenant would be a lawless covenant. In fact, He said just the opposite:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

And this is repeated in the New Testament:

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

And did you notice? In both of these examples, He promises grace for forgiveness:

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

So we see that, while the law still applies, we have grace for forgiveness.

After all....if there were no law, there would be no sin...and if there were no sin, what would we need grace for?

 

[FHII]

We are not under the law of Moses. Paul said so and Jesus did not ever say that following the law of Moses would save them. Peter also said that no one was even able to keep the law of Moses. AND he said that in defense of what Paul was teaching.

What law Paul DID say we were under is the law of God, AKA the law of the inward man, AKA the two great commandments Jesus talked about.

Barrd, there is a difference between the law of God and the law of Moses. You do know that, don't you?

 

[FHII]

Paul said the good I would do, I do not. But the evil that I would not do, that I do.

Yea, sure... he kept the law. He kept the law of God, not the law of Moses.

 

[FHII]

As I have said all along...if something Paul has said seems to contradict what Jesus has said, then you can be sure that you have misunderstood Paul...

Yet it bothers you that people rely more on Paul's teaching than Jesus's?

Yet it bothers you that Jesus called 12 and then called this new guy?

Either you're flip flopping or you've updated your stance or I misunderstood your stance on Paul.

If the latter is the case, I apologize. But I must say you weren't exactly clear on the issue.

 

[Barrd]

Yet it bothers you that people rely more on Paul's teaching than Jesus's?

Yet it bothers you that Jesus called 12 and then called this new guy?

Either you're flip flopping or you've updated your stance or I misunderstood your stance on Paul.

If the latter is the case, I apologize. But I must say you weren't exactly clear on the issue.

Perhaps I have not been exactly clear. So, let me try to clarify for you.
I think that Paul, who was called by Jesus to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, has been grossly misunderstood. I think that Paul was teaching the truth, but that people have twisted what he said to make it mean something he never meant. Paul never meant that we were not to obey the law. He only meant that we now have grace for forgiveness when we "mess up". That is what I believe.

And yes, it does bother me that more people can quote Paul than can tell what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount. I've met Christians who don't even know what the Sermon on the Mount is, let alone where to find it.
I believe Paul would be appalled to think that his letters have become the center of the New Testament, and that people know more about what he had to say than what Jesus taught.
And that, I believe, is because so many people think that Paul taught freedom from the law, which was never the case. People like to hear that they are not under the law...they don't want to hear any "thou shalt nots" or even Jesus' message which says "If you love me, obey my commands". They like to think that they can live any way they like, and still end up in Heaven, because, of course "Jesus paid for my sins"...and some of them seem quite determined to get His money's worth...

Paul never taught that we need not obey the law. He obeyed the law himself, and he taught others the same thing.

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Please read this next passage carefully:

Rom 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
Rom 2:18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
Rom 2:19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
Rom 2:20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
Rom 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
Rom 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Notice especially the part I've bolded in on this next verse:

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Why does everyone seem to miss that bit?

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

And didn't John tell us that sin is the transgression of the law? It seems Paul agreed with him.

Did Paul say that, because we are "under grace" we no longer need to obey God's laws?

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Well, I guess that clears that up! Thanks, Paul!

I could go on, but I think that is enough to begin with. What is the conclusion of the matter?
Yes, there are those who have twisted the words of Paul, but not in the way most people seem to think. Paul never taught that the law no longer applied to Christians...quite the contrary!
There is no contradiction between Paul and Jesus except in the vain imaginations of some of Paul's followers.

 

[FHII]

Barrd,
There are so many errors in what you wrote, and so little willingness on your part to learn that I won't bother going through them. You wouldn't believe it and show no desire to want to hear it.

Paul did teach freedom from the law, he taught we weren't under the law, he didn't keep the law himself and didn't teach others to keep the law either. You can isolate verses from context and underline what you want me to read (and hope that I'll ignore what you don't underline) all you'd like, but that doesn't make your point right. And Barrd... You do that a lot!

So you go ahead and keep believing you are in control. You go ahead and keep (or try to keep) the law and earn your way into heaven. I thank God for grace and freeing me from the law.

Amen!

 

[StanJ]

We are not under the law of Moses. Paul said so and Jesus did not ever say that following the law of Moses would save them. Peter also said that no one was even able to keep the law of Moses. AND he said that in defense of what Paul was teaching.

What law Paul DID say we were under is the law of God, AKA the law of the inward man, AKA the two great commandments Jesus talked about.

Barrd, there is a difference between the law of God and the law of Moses. You do know that, don't you?

Under the OC, it was the same. The written Levitical/Mosaic/ laws included God laws as He voiced them to His prophets.

 

[Barrd]

Barrd,
There are so many errors in what you wrote, and so little willingness on your part to learn that I won't bother going through them. You wouldn't believe it and show no desire to want to hear it.

Paul did teach freedom from the law, he taught we weren't under the law, he didn't keep the law himself and didn't teach others to keep the law either. You can isolate verses from context and underline what you want me to read (and hope that I'll ignore what you don't underline) all you'd like, but that doesn't make your point right. And Barrd... You do that a lot!

So you go ahead and keep believing you are in control. You go ahead and keep (or try to keep) the law and earn your way into heaven. I thank God for grace and freeing me from the law.

Amen!

One does not earn their way into heaven. Goodness, I never even implied such a thing.

I wonder, which of the ten commandments may we ignore, since we are not under the law?
Perhaps you think we can worship some other god?
Or perhaps we may make and worship idols?
Use the Lord's name as a curse?
I'm guessing you will tell me that the seventh day Sabbath no longer applies, although Jesus and His apostles, including Paul, all kept it all of their lives.
How about respect for our parents? Can we trash that one? Lots of folks do seem to have done that.
I don't think murder would pass, do you?
What about stealing?
Or adultery?
Or lies?
How about the ever-popular "coveting"....that is, jealously longing for something that doesn't belong to you?

The truth is that most Christians would say that we must keep all of these, with the possible exception of the fourth....since the Catholic church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, although they would tell us that we ought to be in church on Sunday and honor it as the Lord's day.

"We are not under law, but under grace." But what does that actually mean? Does it mean that we no longer need to obey the law?

Then why does John tell us that sin is transgression of the law?

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

And why do you accuse me of unwillingness to learn? Do you see yourself as a teacher, and me as a student? How did you come to the conclusion that it is I who needs to be taught and not yourself?

 

[Barrd]

Let me very clearly say this, so that nobody is mistaken about Who I believe.

A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ.
Now, Paul was a Christian, and would very quickly tell us that we are also to be followers of Christ, and not followers of Paul.
Perhaps some of us have forgotten that...

 

[StanJ]

Let me very clearly say this, so that nobody is mistaken about Who I believe.

A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ.
Now, Paul was a Christian, and would very quickly tell us that we are also to be followers of Christ, and not followers of Paul.
Perhaps some of us have forgotten that...

A Christian is a DISCIPLE of Jesus Christ. Many of his followers turned back after John 6:66, so let's be sure we define Christian properly.

 

[nypdog]

Peter and Paul had disagreements. Peter wanted to preach to the Jews locally, while Paul wanted to preach to all others in far away lands.
How then are they are both Christians?

 

[Barrd]

A Christian is a DISCIPLE of Jesus Christ. Many of his followers turned back after John 6:66, so let's be sure we define Christian properly.

What do you think a DISCIPLE is, if not a follower?

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Mat 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

Mat 8:19 And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.

Mat 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Mat 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

Mat 16:24 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.

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Mar 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

Mar 5:37 And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James.

Mar 6:1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.

Mar 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mar 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

I could post many more such scriptures, but, really, I think you actually know this, don't you? You are just feeling in an argumentative mood.

And even Paul:

1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

 

[FHII]

This conversation isn't going to go anywhere unless you can understand what the difference is between the law of Moses and the Law of God.

It'll open wide up and blossom when you do see the difference.

Jesus expounded and taught about Moses' law. I'll even say he told ONE individual to follow it. But he never taught his disciples to follow it. It wasn't the curriculum.

Paul said so many times in so many ways that we are not under the law. I gotta think a jewish lawyer wouldn't say out of one side of his mouth we aren't under the law and then tell folks to follow it anyway. No. He was speaking of the law of God. Thats the law we are under now, not the law of moses.

You are not an ambassador of Christ. Neither am I. We are sheep. Paul had a seal of his apostleship. Neither of us have one. At most we are in training to be ambassadors of some sense, but not likely in this lifetime.

So are my age and gender and number of years a christian credentials or not? You said they were, then said they weren't but you'd trust me more if I told you. So which is it?

Personally I'm more interested in what a person says and how they display a working knowledge of doctrine than their age, gender or how long it took them to get there.

To ask is nothing more than a distracting tactic. I'd rather stay on task. Thus its not a distraction to me, but its become a distraction to you. All of a sudden you are more interested in my vital statistics than you are in what I say. Blinded by sonething that has nothing to do with the conversation!

I'll answer, but are you sure you want to pry? You will not like the answer I give!

My advice is to look into the differences between the law of God and that of Moses.

 

[Barrd]

Peter and Paul had disagreements. Peter wanted to preach to the Jews locally, while Paul wanted to preach to all others in far away lands.
How then are they are both Christians?

One was called to one purpose, and the other to another purpose.

Would you say that the ushers who bring the money plates around, or the members of the choir, or the dedicated people who teach Sunday School are not all Christians because they serve in different ways?
Same idea.