It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
Sainthood
If the Christian community in general are “the saints”, that seems to leave no room for a separate category of sainthood within the Christian community. This would preclude the traditional claim that church authorities have the ability to identify and designate individual saints. So the more restricted concept of sainthood as a special qualification finds no support in the New Testament.
“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours”- (1 Corinthians ch1 v2)
originally posted by: Seede
Is this a teaching of those who are not sanctified as well as those who are sanctified? This is addressed to an ekklesia in Corinth as well as those who are not in the ekklesia in Corinth?
(12) Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
So here is my question> If there are some in Corinth who follow this teaching of Chloe (which little is known) and call upon the name of the Lord, is this Lord of Chloe the same Lord of Paul?
originally posted by: DISRAELI
One of the “party cries” which Paul complains about is “I belong to Christ”, which makes scholars wonder if there was also a distinct “Christ party”.
Now it seems to me that “I belong to Christ” is precisely anyone should be saying, who understands Paul’s point that we belong to Christ rather than individual teachers.
If there was a group of people saying “I belong to Christ”, he ought to be approving them.
I suggest the explanation is that the trouble was really coming only from two parties, that is “I belong to Apollos” and “I belong to Cephas”.
However, Paul throws in the two extra slogans “I belong to Paul” and “I belong to Christ” in order to address his complaint against “faction” as such, and soften the impression that he’s directly attacking the other two parties.
In fact the “wisdom” group, which is probably the followers of Apollos, is the only group which receives much criticism in the rest of the letter, so it’s possible that even “I belong to Cephas” has been thrown in to lessen the danger that the people of Apollos will take it all personally.
TextP.S. Yes, this is what I said on that occasion (supplementary post to second thread in the series);
originally posted by: DISRAELI
Sainthood
If the Christian community in general are “the saints”, that seems to leave no room for a separate category of sainthood within the Christian community. This would preclude the traditional claim that church authorities have the ability to identify and designate individual saints. So the more restricted concept of sainthood as a special qualification finds no support in the New Testament.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
there are three distinct sets of doctrines/teaching. One set for the Jews (unsaved Israel alone), one for the Gentiles (unsaved Gentiles alone) and one for the church of God (saved Jews and Gentiles).
The elect in Matt 24 is not the Body of Christ but the nation of Israel. Have you never recognize the the Body of Christ is only mentioned of by Paul concerning both Jew and Gentile? if you see that then you should see that the elect in Matt 24 is only Israel i.e. Jews only.
If we make the elect in Matt 24 the same elect of Paul's writings concerning the Body of Christ, then we destroy the pretribulational gathering as found in 1Thes 4:13-18.
Paul's mention of the Election 2Tim 2:10 is speaking of the people from the line of David, i.e. Israel, that context started in vs 8, the "they" of vs 10 is the elect who is Israel.
the instruction was given to rightly divide the word of truth
1) he questioned God, 2) he changed God's words (compare to Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.) And then he makes God out to be a liar by saying that they would not surely die.
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Ge 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
You have shared nothing more here in your NT thread series that has not already been said by thousands like you before and since 2,000BC.
First set of questions are: You know what the original message is? And by what, the using copies of unverifiable documents in the so called original languages (when all those languages are dead) that many mistakenly call "the originals"? Does the original message change from then to now? If we do study from those "originals" is it because God could not possibly had inspired and preserved his original message to us in English, in this generation?
I would not WANT to say anything new. Novelty is heresy by definition, a departure from the original message. The function of a teacher is to make the old message understandable.
I do not assume you to be so naive as to think that God can't give the simple understanding. The simple here are the ones you are saying you are a teacher of and making the "message more understandable".
Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.
Ps 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
So if I don't like the verse of the AV or don't believe it, I then can go to the "Original Languages" or easier yet go to some man I revere (more than God) and use his commentary, or better yet go to another version (like theJW's do) to get a meaning I believe is better than what God inspired in the AV. This is far easier than "Rightly Dividing that much is for sure.
2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is]/i] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
One indicates that by studying one should be able to make a distinction between (right division) one thing and another. Why would God inspire us to rightly divide his word if he didn't mean we were to rightly divide? is it because you believe that the word of God in the AV is in error? I assume you must believe that to be true or you would not so vehemently say I use it as a mantra, when in fact, it is a teaching given by inspiration of God via the Holy Ghost.