Was "apostle" Paul a true apostle of Christ or an apostle from the devil? ( Revelations 2:2)

[Truthfrees]

Amen. I completely agree.the same themes flow from G to R because God is consistent. No contradictions.
I wish I knew the Hebrew language. For instance in John 3:36 , it seems without obedience there seems to be no chance of salvation. Yet some versions call it rejection. I believe there is a huge difference in not obeying vs rejecting. Look how different translations are interpreting
John 3:36 ►

New International Version
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them.

New Living Translation
And anyone who believes in God's Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn't obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God's angry judgment."

English Standard Version
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Berean Study Bible
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. Whoever rejects the Son will not see life. Instead, the wrath of God remains on him."

Berean Literal Bible
The one believing in the Son has eternal life, but the one not obeying the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

New American Standard Bible
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."​

well this is the thing - if you believe in God truly you will love Him - if you love Him you will obey Him

so loving God and believing God and obeying God go hand in hand

but all of us sin and fall short of the glorious perfection of God - so if it was by obedience alone we would all go to hell because all of us still sin to some degree

so faith alone is just as weak as obedience alone

this is why paul talks of faith and obedience

so does james and peter and john and jude talk of faith and obedience

they are meant to work together

God bless you my dear friend

 

[MCoop]

Dear friends


I have innumerably quoted in my previous posts my strong exception to the easy believism doctrine.
Often I felt ( and you can check in my posts) that its not CONGRUENT or consistent with the REST of the message of God—the Bible.

I have also often mentioned that there is a departure in PAULS doctrine and the REST of the message.

But being continually FED with the gospel truth that ( Paul said-----) I believed every word IN THE BIBLE is the truth. BUT when I started investigating who the ORIGIN OF the heresy of easy believism is it all pointed at the apostle paul .

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ( author Paul!)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Paul Preached Easy Believism


So who is this apostle Paul who has ended up becoming the biggest MOUTHPIECE of Christianity? He is also the FATHER of easy beleivism doctrine which Jesus NEVER taught. Nor did James or peter?

Let us examine who this apostle is:

So who is this apostle Paul who has eneded up becoming the biggest MOUTHPIECE of Christianity. He is also the FATHER of easy beleivism doctrine which Jesus NEVER taught. bor did James or peter

The Conversion of Saul (Acts 9:1-31)
https://bible.org/seriespage/14-conversion-saul-acts-91-31
Imagine for a moment that this is the week of Saul’s arrival at Damascus.129 By this time Saul has gained a reputation as the ringleader of the movement to make Christianity extinct. A devout Hellenistic Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, Saul was a member of the Pharisees and was taught by none other than Gamaliel, whom we have already met (Acts 5:34-40). Saul did not agree with his teacher, Gamaliel, on how the Christians should be dealt with, however. Rather, he sought the arrest, trial, conviction, and punishment (with imprisonment the norm and death the ideal, it would seem) of those in Jerusalem. His career as a persecutor of Christians seems to have begun with Stephen, but it quickly spread to all of the Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 7:58–8:3). Saul was not content to punish some and to drive the rest from the “holy city.” He did not want to merely contain Christianity or to drive it from Jerusalem; he wanted to rid the earth of Christianity and its followers. Thus, his opposition to Christ and His church took on a “missionary” spirit. Saul went to other cities where he sought to arrest Christians and to bring them back to Jerusalem for punishment. Damascus, a city some 150 miles to the northeast of Jerusalem, was one such city. Word was out that Saul would soon be arriving. ( continued in my next post)

The self righteous religionist! Boasting in how good and obedient he thinks he is. Not surprised such nonsense is tolerated on this forum though. The reason you believe what you do about Paul’s writings (Gods Word), is because you don’t believe salvation is completely in Gods grace and centered in Christ alone. You don’t believe the gospel! You are always trying to prove that a persons works are the grounds for justification. While you fight against the other false gospel of antinomians. And try to falsely accuse that the elect of God hold to antinomianism! Wrong! Salvation is all of grace and conditioned in Christ alone apart from works.

 

[ezra]

i have yet to meet the 1st person who can walk on the water turn the water into wine ..if i told you how many times i blundered .you would try to burn me at the stake lol

 

[Rajesh Sahu]

The self righteous religionist! Boasting in how good and obedient he thinks he is. Not surprised such nonsense is tolerated on this forum though. The reason you believe what you do about Paul’s writings (Gods Word), is because you don’t believe salvation is completely in Gods grace and centered in Christ alone. You don’t believe the gospel! You are always trying to prove that a persons works are the grounds for justification. While you fight against the other false gospel of antinomians. And try to falsely accuse that the elect of God hold to antinomianism! Wrong! Salvation is all of grace and conditioned in Christ alone apart from works.

I'm not the only one brother Mcoop who is doubting Paul. Do some dd online/elsewhere. Doing will of God was Christ's message. Paul's justification through faith alone dilutes Christ's Clarion call of obedience. Please be more respectful and stop calling other people's views nonsense. We gotta respect each other's views even if we don't agree brother

 

[ezra]

i do not doubt Paul he was called on the Damascus road a apostle to the gentiles he had the gift of Love but yet was very tough and rugged ..i doubt anyone else would have went the places he went. curious why would you doubt paul?

 

[JLB]

Dear friends


I have innumerably quoted in my previous posts my strong exception to the easy believism doctrine.
Often I felt ( and you can check in my posts) that its not CONGRUENT or consistent with the REST of the message of God—the Bible.

I have also often mentioned that there is a departure in PAULS doctrine and the REST of the message.

But being continually FED with the gospel truth that ( Paul said-----) I believed every word IN THE BIBLE is the truth. BUT when I started investigating who the ORIGIN OF the heresy of easy believism is it all pointed at the apostle paul .

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ( author Paul!)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Paul Preached Easy Believism


So who is this apostle Paul who has ended up becoming the biggest MOUTHPIECE of Christianity? He is also the FATHER of easy beleivism doctrine which Jesus NEVER taught. Nor did James or peter?

Let us examine who this apostle is:

So who is this apostle Paul who has eneded up becoming the biggest MOUTHPIECE of Christianity. He is also the FATHER of easy beleivism doctrine which Jesus NEVER taught. bor did James or peter

The Conversion of Saul (Acts 9:1-31)
https://bible.org/seriespage/14-conversion-saul-acts-91-31
Imagine for a moment that this is the week of Saul’s arrival at Damascus.129 By this time Saul has gained a reputation as the ringleader of the movement to make Christianity extinct. A devout Hellenistic Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, Saul was a member of the Pharisees and was taught by none other than Gamaliel, whom we have already met (Acts 5:34-40). Saul did not agree with his teacher, Gamaliel, on how the Christians should be dealt with, however. Rather, he sought the arrest, trial, conviction, and punishment (with imprisonment the norm and death the ideal, it would seem) of those in Jerusalem. His career as a persecutor of Christians seems to have begun with Stephen, but it quickly spread to all of the Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 7:58–8:3). Saul was not content to punish some and to drive the rest from the “holy city.” He did not want to merely contain Christianity or to drive it from Jerusalem; he wanted to rid the earth of Christianity and its followers. Thus, his opposition to Christ and His church took on a “missionary” spirit. Saul went to other cities where he sought to arrest Christians and to bring them back to Jerusalem for punishment. Damascus, a city some 150 miles to the northeast of Jerusalem, was one such city. Word was out that Saul would soon be arriving. ( continued in my next post)

Brother,

Paul did not teach an “easy believism” Gospel.

Here is what Paul taught the Gentile Churches.

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:16-21

Paul taught that born again Christians must walk according to the Spirit or they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

This is far from the easy believism we hear today in Churches.

Will not inherit the Kingdom means cast into the fires of hell.


I hope we can discuss what he taught and preached, as well as the price he paid for preaching what Jesus sent him to preach.



JLB

 

[brujaq]

I understand friends i will lose many friends today-- here on christainforums. net . I know many will be furious at me for stating this post. BUT I request you to do due diligence because what satan is best at is DECEIVING> I would highly recommend studying as many times as you can the LORD'sS words versus Pauls words. pauls doctrine ( which was easy be,eivism) has, unfortunately, become the CENTERPIECE of Christianity. It should NEVER have been. read Peter's words and his message. See how substantially different it is from Paul's doctrine. WHY? peter and other apostles did not MIX/ MINCE their words. Nobody BUT Paul talked about easy believism. Now ask yourself WHY? Did paul walk with jesus even for a day?

Please explain how you can believe that satan could cast out satan Acts 16:16 then explain the rest of Acts 16 .. IMO you are dangerously wrong and need to back up and take a fresh look at the Apostle Paul before your root of bitterness can't be dealt with if it's not already too late ..

 

[Razeontherock]

Hi Rajesh! I hope it's ok if I call you friend, and Brother? I understand your concerns here. Look at how many times Paul said "do not be deceived." He warned against turning the Grace of God into licentiousness. In all the OSAS arguments I never trotted out the slam dunk, which is Paul stating he could "make shipwreck concerning the Faith." He even said if you think you have it rough following Jesus, he has it much harder; then he lists off all sorts of things he'd been through, in the context that if he fell away he'd be lost.
Paul preached AGAINST "easy believism," if you wish to use that term.

The law of Moses says EVERYTHING Paul introduced as doctrine, which means he made absolutely nothing up. It's all there, but hidden very cleverly, with our Father waiting for us to discover it much like parents get excited about Christmas morning in a way that's different from how their kids do. It is a very deep understanding, but Paul had that from studying it all his life, and under the best of teachers. I can tell you for sure, it all checks out.

Righteous indignation is deserved towards bad teaching!

Islam preaches that Paul corrupted God's Word, and that it contradicts Jesus' words. Don't be like them. That thinking has even invaded some (very liberal) churches; don't be deceived!

What does it mean to "keep the faith?" This is part of culture that is almost certainly foreign to you, but what it means is "follow the rules."

Jesus said to clean the inside of the cup first, only then the outside can be made clean. We know He was referring to our heart. We cannot possibly do that, only He can! So yes we start with Salvation, allow the Lord to clean our innards, and sooner or later we should grow up. Every bit of that is Salvation! God is good!

Think of the early Church, from the Day of Pentecost to whenever Paul finished writing, in prison, in Rome. None of them were about to be taken in by false teaching!
Not in the Church at Jerusalem.

This really gets into not only were the Gospels eventually written down, but also why they WEREN'T, for at least a couple decades. Lots to learn, that will help you.

I'm not your Pastor, but maybe God wants you to not read Paul for a while? That'd be ok, there's plenty of other Scripture. It's still absolute genius to put Romans after Acts in our NT ...

 

[JLB]

Dear friends


I have innumerably quoted in my previous posts my strong exception to the easy believism doctrine.
Often I felt ( and you can check in my posts) that its not CONGRUENT or consistent with the REST of the message of God—the Bible.

I have also often mentioned that there is a departure in PAULS doctrine and the REST of the message.

But being continually FED with the gospel truth that ( Paul said-----) I believed every word IN THE BIBLE is the truth. BUT when I started investigating who the ORIGIN OF the heresy of easy believism is it all pointed at the apostle paul .

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ( author Paul!)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Paul Preached Easy Believism


So who is this apostle Paul who has ended up becoming the biggest MOUTHPIECE of Christianity? He is also the FATHER of easy beleivism doctrine which Jesus NEVER taught. Nor did James or peter?

Let us examine who this apostle is:

So who is this apostle Paul who has eneded up becoming the biggest MOUTHPIECE of Christianity. He is also the FATHER of easy beleivism doctrine which Jesus NEVER taught. bor did James or peter

The Conversion of Saul (Acts 9:1-31)
https://bible.org/seriespage/14-conversion-saul-acts-91-31
Imagine for a moment that this is the week of Saul’s arrival at Damascus.129 By this time Saul has gained a reputation as the ringleader of the movement to make Christianity extinct. A devout Hellenistic Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, Saul was a member of the Pharisees and was taught by none other than Gamaliel, whom we have already met (Acts 5:34-40). Saul did not agree with his teacher, Gamaliel, on how the Christians should be dealt with, however. Rather, he sought the arrest, trial, conviction, and punishment (with imprisonment the norm and death the ideal, it would seem) of those in Jerusalem. His career as a persecutor of Christians seems to have begun with Stephen, but it quickly spread to all of the Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 7:58–8:3). Saul was not content to punish some and to drive the rest from the “holy city.” He did not want to merely contain Christianity or to drive it from Jerusalem; he wanted to rid the earth of Christianity and its followers. Thus, his opposition to Christ and His church took on a “missionary” spirit. Saul went to other cities where he sought to arrest Christians and to bring them back to Jerusalem for punishment. Damascus, a city some 150 miles to the northeast of Jerusalem, was one such city. Word was out that Saul would soon be arriving. ( continued in my next post)

I definitely agree with you that people have misrepresented what Paul said, and turned his gospel into an “easy believism” message.

On that point, you and I are in total agreement.

I honestly think that is the message you are wanting us to get.

And you are really make us think about what you are posting.


Thanks. JLB

 

[Rajesh Sahu]

I definitely agree with you that people have misrepresented what Paul said, and turned his gospel into an “easy believism” message.

On that point, you and I are in total agreement.

I honestly think that is the message you are wanting us to get.

And you are really make us think about what you are posting.


Thanks. JLB

You understand my heart brother JLB. My hope for all followers is to understand that obedience was the heart of the Lord's message ---- to learn to do God's will over their own. The only way for me to accept Paul's doctrine is to read OBEY whenever he said believe. This is something you ( prudently) advised me. Thank you
In my experience at churches, I noticed it was invariably Paul's 13 books/ Epistles which dominated the teaching. It would be (IMO) far more useful to teach Jesus' words , like the incredible sermon on the mount teaching. It is do beautiful and so profound! Due to their great zeal for Paul's doctrine , I fondly call them ( my church teachers) Paulians instead of Christians

 

[JLB]

The only way for me to accept Paul's doctrine is to read OBEY when he said believe

Yes sir.

 

[JLB]

It would be far more useful to teach Jesus' words , like the incredible sermon on the mount teaching. It is do beautiful and so profound!

Agreed.

Jesus’ teachings are the foundation of which the letters of Paul and John and Peter and Janes are to be understood and built upon.


JLB

 

[Rajesh Sahu]

Agreed.

Jesus’ teachings are the foundation of which the letters of Paul and John and Peter and Janes are to be understood and built upon.


JLB

Yes yes indeed . Everything the other NT writers wrote MUST be viewed in the light of what Jesus taught and not vice versa .
I believe Jesus had completed his mission of teaching, healing, and finally His sacrifice on the cross. No doctrine is NEEDED beyond what Jesus taught. It's full n final for me .
Matthew 28:18-20 captures Christ's expectation of all three from his followers :
1) Faith
2) Baptism
3) Obedience

 

[Rajesh Sahu]

Brother,

Paul did not teach an “easy believism” Gospel.

Here is what Paul taught the Gentile Churches.

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:16-21

Paul taught that born again Christians must walk according to the Spirit or they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

This is far from the easy believism we hear today in Churches.

Will not inherit the Kingdom means cast into the fires of hell.


I hope we can discuss what he taught and preached, as well as the price he paid for preaching what Jesus sent him to preach.



JLB

Brother JLB I was reading this article here below on Wikipedia, and it seems there was a disagreement between Peter and Paul Galatians 2:11–14
Also, it is proposed in that article Peter was a "bridge-man" between the opposing views of Paul and James the brother of Jesus, and writer of NT epistle of James, which I love to read. While reading this article/ piece, I realized you've become the "bridge-man" between me and Paul! I find his doctrine hard to swallow, Well I'm glad I'm not the only one. Peter and James also seemed to have some conflicts with him.

Incident at Antioch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch

The Incident at Antioch was an Apostolic Age dispute between the apostles Paul and Peter which occurred in the city of Antioch around the middle of the first century. The primary source for the incident is Paul's Epistle to the Galatians 2:11–14. Since Ferdinand Christian Baur, scholars have found evidence of conflict among the leaders of Early Christianity; for example James D. G. Dunn proposes that Peter was a "bridge-man" between the opposing views of Paul and James the brother of Jesus. The final outcome of the incident remains uncertain, resulting in several Christian views of the Old Covenant to this day.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Jesus did two of the most extreem forms of grace and forgiveness while on the cross. To those who put him on the cross Jesus asked His Father to forgive them. They did not know what they were doing. To one of the others being crucified (who must have been a criminal deserving his crucification) Jesus promised him that that day he would be in paradise, because he spoke up on Jesus's behalf.

Thinking on these two acts of forgiveness boggles my mind in trying to do the same. But they also seem to justify that Jesus would use Paul who was persecuting Christians, to show that even someone like Paul can be saved. Not just to be saved but to be able to be used to reach so many more.

Thinking in that light, Paul's life is one hope of mine when I fail. That God would endorse him to the point of being stoned and getting up again after being prayed over, and be bitten by a snake with no ill effects, and to be healed by another man that God called to pray for Paul's sight to return. Based on Acts it seems that God did endorse Paul.

That said, when I read the New Testiment for the first few times I didn't understand Paul or his letters. So instead I focused on the gospels. Though now I think I could use more study on the letters, I now think they were in line with Jesus's teaching.

Good luck with understanding Paul's words. It sounds like at this point in the conversation your reconsidering Paul.

 

[brujaq]

Brother JLB I was reading this article here below on Wikipedia, and it seems there was a disagreement between Peter and Paul Galatians 2:11–14
Also, it is proposed in that article Peter was a "bridge-man" between the opposing views of Paul and James the brother of Jesus, and writer of NT epistle of James, which I love to read. While reading this article/ piece, I realized you've become the "bridge-man" between me and Paul! I find his doctrine hard to swallow, Well I'm glad I'm not the only one. Peter and James also seemed to have some conflicts with him.

Incident at Antioch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch

The Incident at Antioch was an Apostolic Age dispute between the apostles Paul and Peter which occurred in the city of Antioch around the middle of the first century. The primary source for the incident is Paul's Epistle to the Galatians 2:11–14. Since Ferdinand Christian Baur, scholars have found evidence of conflict among the leaders of Early Christianity; for example James D. G. Dunn proposes that Peter was a "bridge-man" between the opposing views of Paul and James the brother of Jesus. The final outcome of the incident remains uncertain, resulting in several Christian views of the Old Covenant to this day.

What is your teaching on physical circumcision and Galatians 2:11-14 ? I'm not angry or anything but why pick on Paul, he probably understood Jewish law better than any other apostle yet he was sent to the gentiles .. What a perfect pick for the gentiles Paul was, who already understood the Old Covenant Jewish law to relate to the new with such precision .. Paul's problem was his thorn in the flesh that he understood as a good thing in the end and proper medicine from the Lord .. In the end the apostles different backgrounds prove they were ordinary men that we all qualify as but all suited for our calling ..

 

[Rajesh Sahu]

What is your teaching on physical circumcision and Galatians 2:11-14 ? I'm not angry or anything but why pick on Paul, he probably understood Jewish law better than any other apostle yet he was sent to the gentiles .. What a perfect pick for the gentiles Paul was, who already understood the Old Covenant Jewish law to relate to the new with such precision .. Paul's problem was his thorn in the flesh that he understood as a good thing in the end and proper medicine from the Lord .. In the end the apostles different backgrounds prove they were ordinary men that we all qualify as but all suited for our calling ..

That's a good question - is physical circumscision required? I completely agree with him what he says in Romans 2: 29
29 On the contrary, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart—by the Spirit, not the letter. That man’s praise is not from men but from God.
This is so true. It has a similar ring to what Jesus says in
Matthew 15:1 : "What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
Jesus was looking for circumscision of the heart , a change if heart . So yes I absolutely agree with Paul on that one.
But let's examine what Paul is saying to Peter in Galatians 2 : 15-18
15 “You (Peter) and I ( Paul) are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. 16 Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”
But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not!18 Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down. 19 For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me.
It appears that Paul had discarded ( torn down) the Law since it was condemning him . He also says he had abandoned the Law.
Now there is a difference in what Paul is saying and what Jesus replied to the Rich man (Mark 10:17–31) , and to the expert in law ( Luke 10:25-37) when they asked Jesus the same question on two different occasions " What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
What would Paul have answered had those two gentlemen asked him ( Paul) this question. Believe in Jesus and you will be saved . Well I'm assuming this since Paul had abandoned the law and torn it down.
But did Jesus says that to the two men this? No he didn't. He pointed to the Law instead. In both occasions Jesus " fails" to say " believe in me"
This is consistent with what Christ says in Matthew 5: 17
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill it. "
It is apparent to me Paul had done a deplorable thing by abandoning the Law. And it was obedience to the Law that Jesus pointed when the two men asked him how to be saved. So I see a contradiction in Jesus and Paul's teaching. The Law is not dead. We still sin when we break the law.
Would you or anyone reading this like to shed some light on why Paul abandoned and tore down the Law given by God ?

 

[Rajesh Sahu]

I believe the grace that Paul repeatedly talks about in his ministry, is absolutely true BUT a caveat here ---- it ONLY applies to those believers who also choose to obey the Lord,...... follow Him. Not just provide lip service . Jesus says ( warns?)in Revelation 22:12 :

"Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done.
So the question is can Obedience alone save . The answer is again a big no. Else Christ died for nothing. It is when we believe in the gospel of the Lord and keep his commandments , which can be shortened into one line ---- do the Will of God versus ours , the grace of the Lord through His death on the cross IS IMPUTED, and all sins forgiven. This grace is NOT cheap. It requires faith and obedience in good measure. Not justification by faith alone but Obedience too. This requires us to walk in the Spirit rejecting the ways of Flesh, World, and devil. There is nothing called cheap grace in the message. If it were so Jesus wouldn't have said in Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen"

Again he reminds us in Matthew 7:13 ►

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
And yet again Jesus the Messiah rejects faith alone doctrine in Revelation 2:26 "And he that overcomes, and keeps my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations.
Believing is an excellent first step but not IT. We have to be born of the water and Spirit "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” ( John 3:5).
and finally not one of us can enter the kingdom of heaven UNLESS we are prepared to do the Will of God ( obedience)
( Matthew 7:21)
These three [Faith Baptism Obedience] find a place together in Matthew 28: 18-20, the Lord's great commission. His blueprint what will (really!) save us
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."​

 

[ezra]

i think your gnat straining .your taking bit and pieces of what paul wrote and cutting them up and moving them around like a scramble game . paul said the Law was our teacher till Christ came . he also said he would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.i really believe if paul was around today. he would do some serious teaching. put many things in order..... i can not nor will not agree with your post ..i think your out of line

 

[JLB]

Yes yes indeed . Everything the other NT writers wrote MUST be viewed in the light of what Jesus taught and not vice versa .
I believe Jesus had completed his mission of teaching, healing, and finally His sacrifice on the cross. No doctrine is NEEDED beyond what Jesus taught. It's full n final for me .
Matthew 28:18-20 captures Christ's expectation of all three from his followers :
1) Faith
2) Baptism
3) Obedience

Exactly.

Jesus continued to teach and reveal the mysteries of the Church through Paul and the others by His Spirit.

Much of what He taught us through the New Testament writers needs to be understood with a renewed mind.


John says it this way -


But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
1 John 2:27



JLB