Not By Works
- Thread starter dcontroversal
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Both this point you are making, as well as the standard reply you got from 11, from vs 28-29, must be understood in context
Jn:28-29 Then they said to Him (Jesus), “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
So many people use this passage out of its context. They read Paul's mystery grace revelation into it when that was not the intention of what Jesus was saying above.
John wrote his gospel as a record of the 8 signs that Jesus performed in order for Jews to believe that he is their promised Messiah (John 20:30-31).
In that record, the signs are seen as works of God. There are at least two times the John account explains that.
John 10:
24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
John 14
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Once you understand what John was trying to do in his gospel, this verse quoted is not saying we are trying to make it say, after we read Paul's revelation of the mystery.
Jesus was not saying to "believe in his death burial and resurrection and that is all you need to do to be saved."
He was telling the Jews to believe in the signs, that he is their promised Messiah. The Jews, and Jesus were always under the Law of Moses pre-cruxifiction, and that Law must still be kept.
Jn:28-29 Then they said to Him (Jesus), “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
So many people use this passage out of its context. They read Paul's mystery grace revelation into it when that was not the intention of what Jesus was saying above.
John wrote his gospel as a record of the 8 signs that Jesus performed in order for Jews to believe that he is their promised Messiah (John 20:30-31).
In that record, the signs are seen as works of God. There are at least two times the John account explains that.
John 10:
24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
John 14
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Once you understand what John was trying to do in his gospel, this verse quoted is not saying we are trying to make it say, after we read Paul's revelation of the mystery.
Jesus was not saying to "believe in his death burial and resurrection and that is all you need to do to be saved."
He was telling the Jews to believe in the signs, that he is their promised Messiah. The Jews, and Jesus were always under the Law of Moses pre-cruxifiction, and that Law must still be kept.
Alright then. Since you believe that circumcision was not necessary to be right with God during the OT, I understand that you will find it difficult to accept that there were truth that applied in time past, that does not apply today in the But now time period.
Likewise, you will also naturally reject the doctrine that there will be truth that will apply in the age to come.
I think in your view, everything that is found in the Bible is the truth for all time periods. So I can understand why we are disagreeing.
That is fine, we can agree to disagree here. Nice to have a cordial exchange in this thread with you.
Likewise, you will also naturally reject the doctrine that there will be truth that will apply in the age to come.
I think in your view, everything that is found in the Bible is the truth for all time periods. So I can understand why we are disagreeing.
That is fine, we can agree to disagree here. Nice to have a cordial exchange in this thread with you.
Alright then. Since you believe that circumcision was not necessary to be right with God during the OT, I understand that you will find it difficult to accept that there were truth that applied in time past, that does not apply today in the But now time period.
Likewise, you will also naturally reject the doctrine that there will be truth that will apply in the age to come.
I think in your view, everything that is found in the Bible is the truth for all time periods. So I can understand why we are disagreeing.
That is fine, we can agree to disagree here. Nice to have a cordial exchange in this thread with you.
Likewise, you will also naturally reject the doctrine that there will be truth that will apply in the age to come.
I think in your view, everything that is found in the Bible is the truth for all time periods. So I can understand why we are disagreeing.
That is fine, we can agree to disagree here. Nice to have a cordial exchange in this thread with you.
" All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, "
No where in the Bible is it taught that some is for now, some for before, and some for later.
The whole idea comes from a mistaken belief about the Sinai covenant mistaking its temporal blessings and curses for eternal ones.
Don't be so sure there
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Yes, everything in the Bible is truth. But Paul instructs Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth
The terms time past, but now are all mentioned by Paul throughout his epistles, as an example of how to do that.
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Yes, everything in the Bible is truth. But Paul instructs Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth
The terms time past, but now are all mentioned by Paul throughout his epistles, as an example of how to do that.
Don't be so sure there
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Yes, everything in the Bible is truth. But Paul instructs Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth
The terms time past, but now are all mentioned by Paul throughout his epistles, as an example of how to do that.
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Yes, everything in the Bible is truth. But Paul instructs Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth
The terms time past, but now are all mentioned by Paul throughout his epistles, as an example of how to do that.
Well, as I have already stated, we interpret such scripture according to whatever pre-existing doctrine we already have.
That is why such discussions on internet forums is very educational. It tells me that we are indeed always the protagonist in our own movie.
That is why such discussions on internet forums is very educational. It tells me that we are indeed always the protagonist in our own movie.
the Heart longs for more than simple Faith, and the Soul maybe knows there is More .....
a Thousand voices, a Thousand threads and more. God is a Big God, and He is waiting to show us more .... He is Waiting ...
John 14:11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves. 12 Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.…
greater things ... we will do ☺
what you say sounds very informative, Context does seem helpful here, though i might need to Study it more. thanks! ☺
i would suggest @Bbrdrd is right too though. the Spirit speaks through any Scripture it wishes to I Think. the problem can be if we are not hearing the Spirit correctly or only in Part, or not even the Spirit, but just a preformed idea we have latched onto or created for ourselves. 😮☺
but God is still Waiting ..... ☺☺
But is it that difficult for you to consider this, "Could I be the one in error instead?"
Just take a look how you stripped 2 Timothy 2:15 of its surrounding verses and tried to use it to say something other than what it means in context.
Your error is absolutely clear, and it compromises the actual gospel and ignores Paul's actual instruction in exchange for late 19th and 20th century theological inventions.
Have you realized that, earlier when I stated that "you believe that circumcision was not necessary to be right with God during the OT", I just stated what you believed, without judging whether was it an error or not?
To me, you were also in error there, but there was no point in me telling you that in your face, since you obviously won't agree, and I entertained the possibility that I may be the one in error.
To each of us, in our own movie, we are the protagonist so we tend to think its our opponent that is taking things out of context and coming to wrong conclusions.
To me, you were also in error there, but there was no point in me telling you that in your face, since you obviously won't agree, and I entertained the possibility that I may be the one in error.
To each of us, in our own movie, we are the protagonist so we tend to think its our opponent that is taking things out of context and coming to wrong conclusions.
Have you realized that, earlier when I stated that "you believe that circumcision was not necessary to be right with God during the OT", I just stated what you believed, without judging whether was it an error or not?
To me, you were also in error there, but there was no point in me telling you that in your face, since you obviously won't agree, and I entertained the possibility that I may be the one in error.
To each of us, in our own movie, we are the protagonist so we tend to think its our opponent that is taking things out of context and coming to wrong conclusions.
To me, you were also in error there, but there was no point in me telling you that in your face, since you obviously won't agree, and I entertained the possibility that I may be the one in error.
To each of us, in our own movie, we are the protagonist so we tend to think its our opponent that is taking things out of context and coming to wrong conclusions.
If this were something that there was ambiguity on I would certainly entertain the possibility that my reading was the incorrect one. But this is a situation where it requires applying a very anachronistic twist on the words of Scripture on the flimsiest of pretexts.
-
1
- Show all
I agree.
He keeps going on and on about this "protagonist of your own" analogy which is quite strange.
Everyone should simply let the scriptures guide them, not guide the scriptures into their "movie".
His movie is Dispensationalism.
Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory (Psalm 73:24).
He keeps going on and on about this "protagonist of your own" analogy which is quite strange.
Everyone should simply let the scriptures guide them, not guide the scriptures into their "movie".
His movie is Dispensationalism.
Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory (Psalm 73:24).