Revelation was written by John

[dirtfarmer]

dirtfarmer here

We establish church doctrine only from epistles written by Paul, not by Peter(Cephas), James, or John. Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." All of Paul's epistles can be used for church doctrine. We don't have any writings of Barnabus.

The epistles written by James, John, and Peter were to the Jews. Peter at first preach the gospel of the kingdom. Paul preached the gospel of the grace of God.
James 1:1 " James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, greeting.
1 Peter 1:1 " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"
Revelation 1:1 " The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants,"
Galatians 4:7 "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ." As in James, a servant, not a son.

Revelation 1:6 "Hath made us kings and priest unto God and his Father;" Exodus 19:5-6 " Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all the people: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priest, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." The Church is not a kingdom of priest but the bride of Christ.

Revelation 1:9 " I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle of Patmos, for the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ."

 

[OzSpen]

dirtfarmer here

We establish church doctrine only from epistles written by Paul, not by Peter(Cephas), James, or John. Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." All of Paul's epistles can be used for church doctrine. We don't have any writings of Barnabus.

The epistles written by James, John, and Peter were to the Jews. Peter at first preach the gospel of the kingdom. Paul preached the gospel of the grace of God.
James 1:1 " James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, greeting.
1 Peter 1:1 " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"
Revelation 1:1 " The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants,"
Galatians 4:7 "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ." As in James, a servant, not a son.

Revelation 1:6 "Hath made us kings and priest unto God and his Father;" Exodus 19:5-6 " Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all the people: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priest, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." The Church is not a kingdom of priest but the bride of Christ.

Revelation 1:9 " I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle of Patmos, for the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ."

dirtfarmer,

You state, 'We establish church doctrine only from epistles written by Paul, not by Peter(Cephas), James, or John'. I find a problem with this statement as it does not agree with Scripture:

'16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV).​

At the time Paul wrote this, the only compiled Scripture was the OT. So if I am to take your statement seriously, then only the OT is to be regarded as Scripture that is 'profitable'. We know that is not the case as the church after the death of the apostles affirmed all of the NT books as canonical.

We know that Paul quoted Luke as Scripture in 1 Tim 5:18 (ESV): 'For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”' This is an interesting Scripture because Paul quotes Deut 25:4 (ESV) in the first part, but 'the laborer is worthy of his wages' comes from Luke 10:7 (ESV), which is regarded as Scripture.

In 2 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV), Peter acknowledged that the writings of Paul were Scripture.

See: "Did the writers of the New Testament regard their writings as Scripture?" (Got Questions).

You state that 'The epistles written by James, John, and Peter were to the Jews', inferring they are not for Gentiles. So what? Do you mean to tell us that the writings of Peter, James and John are irrelevant to contemporary Christians, should not be applied to themselves because they were written to Jewish Christians? The same would apply to Galatians as Paul was addressing the problems caused by the Judaisers.

A NT book written to a certain audience has broad application to the entire NT church and the contemporary Christian church. Otherwise, there should be a proviso at the beginning of the writings of Peter, James and John (according to your theology): 'This is only for Jewish Christians. It does not belong in the NT canon and should not be read for profit by Gentile Christians'. If I'm to follow your teaching, that is what I would have to do. I should never ever preach from books written by these three authors.

I'm currently preaching my way through the Book of James (this Sunday it's James 3:6-8) and I should be telling this Gentile congregation: Don't take any notice of what I preach because it is irrelevant to you. It's only for the Jews.

That is not what the NT is for. The whole NT and OT are for the edification of God's people and both Testaments are profitable for all of us, Jew and Gentile, Marxists, feminists and postmodernists.

Oz

 

[dirtfarmer]

dirtfarmer,

You state, 'We establish church doctrine only from epistles written by Paul, not by Peter(Cephas), James, or John'. I find a problem with this statement as it does not agree with Scripture:

'16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV).​

At the time Paul wrote this, the only compiled Scripture was the OT. So if I am to take your statement seriously, then only the OT is to be regarded as Scripture that is 'profitable'. We know that is not the case as the church after the death of the apostles affirmed all of the NT books as canonical.

We know that Paul quoted Luke as Scripture in 1 Tim 5:18 (ESV): 'For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”' This is an interesting Scripture because Paul quotes Deut 25:4 (ESV) in the first part, but 'the laborer is worthy of his wages' comes from Luke 10:7 (ESV), which is regarded as Scripture.

In 2 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV), Peter acknowledged that the writings of Paul were Scripture.

See: "Did the writers of the New Testament regard their writings as Scripture?" (Got Questions).

You state that 'The epistles written by James, John, and Peter were to the Jews', inferring they are not for Gentiles. So what? Do you mean to tell us that the writings of Peter, James and John are irrelevant to contemporary Christians, should not be applied to themselves because they were written to Jewish Christians? The same would apply to Galatians as Paul was addressing the problems caused by the Judaisers.

A NT book written to a certain audience has broad application to the entire NT church and the contemporary Christian church. Otherwise, there should be a proviso at the beginning of the writings of Peter, James and John (according to your theology): 'This is only for Jewish Christians. It does not belong in the NT canon and should not be read for profit by Gentile Christians'. If I'm to follow your teaching, that is what I would have to do. I should never ever preach from books written by these three authors.

I'm currently preaching my way through the Book of James (this Sunday it's James 3:6-8) and I should be telling this Gentile congregation: Don't take any notice of what I preach because it is irrelevant to you. It's only for the Jews.

That is not what the NT is for. The whole NT and OT are for the edification of God's people and both Testaments are profitable for all of us, Jew and Gentile, Marxists, feminists and postmodernists.

Oz

hello OzSpin, dirtfarmer here

I have no problem with 2 Timothy 3:16-17. We are to take scripture and as stated in 2 Timothy 2:15 rightly divide the word of truth. What doctrine for the Church are you going to prove from James 3:6-8? or is reproof to the individual that you will be preaching to "this Gentile congregation"? Church doctrine are those things that are universally applied to all believers, not to both believers and non believers. "The tongue can no man tame" doesn't just apply to believers but unbelievers also.

The eternal security by being sealed by the Holy Spirit is not for the unbeliever, but for the Church. There are those that believe or say they believe, that don't espouse the security of the believer is kept by God and not themselves. They don't understand the difference between "relationship with God" and "fellowship with God." We can never loose the relationship with God, once it is established by God. He keeps us saved by our dying in Christ and being resurrected with him. Fellowship is broken when we are overtaken by faults, but it is the blood that cleanses us from all unrighteousness and restores fellowship. When fellowship is broken there is no danger of any believer being cast into the lake of fire. We do loose rewards, gold silver and precious stones, but we are saved so as by fire: 1 Corinthians 3:15

Do all believers understand that they have entered into the Sabbath by their salvation. We that are in Christ have ceased to work for our salvation and rest in Christ, that is our Sabbath. Christ is our Sabbath. We are created in Christ Jesus unto good work by our salvation. Our good works don't create us in Christ', but there are those that believe we have to work for salvation not because of salvation.

Can we take the necessity of sacrifices of lambs and rams and apply it to the Church as a necessity? What about the paying of the tithe? does it apply to the Church? Where in scripture is the tithe money and rams and lambs and first fruits of grain and doves?

 

[smaller]

Dirtfarmer, you are engaging in a falsehood, a falsehood that is prevalent in full pretermism, where they say only Paul's writings are for gentile believers, and James and Peter are only for Jews. Effectively making "two Gospels." It is the two Gospel theory of full preterism.

This methodology is not true, will not work, can not compute. We are all built on the foundation of Jesus Words, the words of ALL the prophets of the Old Testament, and the words of His Apostles, PLURAL, not just Paul. And certainly not on the basis of "eliminating" these Apostles words just because they (quite falsely proposed) don't have the same outlook that Paul wrote. This is an error. There are only differences where people think there are when there are no differences. Do you think Paul was without fault? Quite the contrary. Paul "openly exposed" not only his faults, via sin dwelling in the flesh, evil present with him, Romans 7:17-21, lustful thoughts (Romans 7:7-13), being a wretched man, Romans 7:24, doing things he hated and doing evil, all from Romans 7, EXPOSED for all to see.

So, do we think it a small matter for Paul to expose the HYPOCRISY of Peter when Paul so exposed himself? Paul puts us all on the same ground, as SINNERS saved by the Grace and Mercy of God in Christ. And ALL of the Apostles shunned the very evil that we all carry in our flesh/minds and hearts.

So no, there is no differences between these Apostles. They all speak Perfectly, Identically, WITH their own faults, openly exposed for the world to see.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And this "includes" every Word that we have today, in our Bible.

Full preterism does not and can not see, in the way they try to divide, parse and cancel scripture. In some extreme cases they even toss aside Jesus' Own Words, which is quite a shame. All of this activity is an old heresy that was introduced by Marcion, who claimed that only Paul's words were for N.T. believers. And he even went so far as to propose that Gods Words of the Old Testament were from "another god", even another 'creator' called the demi-urge. It is patently absurd, this entire approach to Gods Words.

Jesus said that we will live by every Word of God. Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4.

The Apostles, all of them, BUILT on the foundation of the Old Testament Words of God, beyond any uncertainty.

 

[Free]

dirtfarmer here

We establish church doctrine only from epistles written by Paul, not by Peter(Cephas), James, or John. Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." All of Paul's epistles can be used for church doctrine. We don't have any writings of Barnabus.

The epistles written by James, John, and Peter were to the Jews. Peter at first preach the gospel of the kingdom. Paul preached the gospel of the grace of God.
James 1:1 " James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, greeting.
1 Peter 1:1 " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"
Revelation 1:1 " The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants,"
Galatians 4:7 "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ." As in James, a servant, not a son.

Revelation 1:6 "Hath made us kings and priest unto God and his Father;" Exodus 19:5-6 " Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all the people: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priest, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." The Church is not a kingdom of priest but the bride of Christ.

Revelation 1:9 " I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle of Patmos, for the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ."

This is a highly problematic position and is simply unable to be supported by Scripture. The writings of Peter are most likely written primarily to Gentile believers, although he doesn't actually say explicitly. The first passage that came to mind was 2 Peter 3:15-17:

15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. (ESV)

It's hard not to notice that Paul and Peter are writing to the same people and that Peter is warning these people of those others who are twisting Paul's letters, lest they be led astray by those false teachings.

More than that, of course, is the obviously implication that Peter is saying Paul's letters are on par with "the other Scriptures," meaning the OT. This becomes even more problematic for you if you still want to insist that Peter was writing to Jewish Christians only when we look at 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Since Peter is telling these Jewish Christians that Paul's letters are Scripture, he is then also telling them that all of Paul's letters are "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (ESV)

As for Revelation: "4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne," (ESV)

These seven churches are representative of all churches. There is nothing specific to Jewish Christians nor Gentile Christians, as is consistent with most of the NT. And specifically regarding your use of Rev. 1:6 and Exo. 19:5-6, you must not ignore what else Scripture says, such as in Rev. 1:9-10:

9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." (ESV)

Or 1 Pet. 2:5,9:

5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (ESV)

Not is there only nothing to support your position, there is much against it. There are some NT writings which may be written primarily to either Gentile or Jewish Christians, but since there is neither Jew nor Greek in the kingdom of God, all Scripture is useful for doctrine for all believers in Christ.

 

[OzSpen]

hello OzSpin, dirtfarmer here

I have no problem with 2 Timothy 3:16-17. We are to take scripture and as stated in 2 Timothy 2:15 rightly divide the word of truth. What doctrine for the Church are you going to prove from James 3:6-8? or is reproof to the individual that you will be preaching to "this Gentile congregation"? Church doctrine are those things that are universally applied to all believers, not to both believers and non believers. "The tongue can no man tame" doesn't just apply to believers but unbelievers also.

The eternal security by being sealed by the Holy Spirit is not for the unbeliever, but for the Church. There are those that believe or say they believe, that don't espouse the security of the believer is kept by God and not themselves. They don't understand the difference between "relationship with God" and "fellowship with God." We can never loose the relationship with God, once it is established by God. He keeps us saved by our dying in Christ and being resurrected with him. Fellowship is broken when we are overtaken by faults, but it is the blood that cleanses us from all unrighteousness and restores fellowship. When fellowship is broken there is no danger of any believer being cast into the lake of fire. We do loose rewards, gold silver and precious stones, but we are saved so as by fire: 1 Corinthians 3:15

Do all believers understand that they have entered into the Sabbath by their salvation. We that are in Christ have ceased to work for our salvation and rest in Christ, that is our Sabbath. Christ is our Sabbath. We are created in Christ Jesus unto good work by our salvation. Our good works don't create us in Christ', but there are those that believe we have to work for salvation not because of salvation.

Can we take the necessity of sacrifices of lambs and rams and apply it to the Church as a necessity? What about the paying of the tithe? does it apply to the Church? Where in scripture is the tithe money and rams and lambs and first fruits of grain and doves?

dirtfarmer,

My name is OzSpen and not OzSpin.

I note in your response to me that you did not reply to most of what I wrote in #2. You seem to have conveniently forgotten to deal with my content and were off and running with what you wanted to talk about with (a) doctrine of the church from James 3:6-8, (b) eternal security; (c) the Sabbath, and (d) Sacrifices and tithe applied to church??

This is not a forum conversation when you do this. I had the courtesy in #2 to respond to what you wrote in #1, but not so with you in #3. Would you please learn to address what I wrote about and not what you want to discuss.

Then you have the audacity to ask what doctrine of the church is addressed in my sermon for Sunday on James 3:6-8. I'm a faithful expositor of Scripture. I teach directly from the text with illustration and application. Not all aspects of Scripture address the same kind of doctrine. James is a practical book addressing practical issues of the Christian life. It does not have the same doctrinal intensity as, say, the Book of Romans.

For your interest, here is my broad outline from my Sunday message (which I completed yesterday, along with the PPT I will use):

My outline is:
James 3:6-8 (ESV): Tongue lashing wreckage
1. The tongue can ruin your whole life (v. 6)

1.1 The tongue sets on fire the course of life (v. 6)

(a) ‘The tongue is a fire’.
(b) The tongue is ‘a world of unrighteousness’.
(c) It is ‘staining the whole body’ (v. 6).​

1.2 The tongue is set on fire by hell [Gehenna] (v. 6)

(a) A dilemma​

2. All kinds of creatures can be tamed (v. 7)
3. No human being can subdue the tongue (v. 8)

3.1 The tongue’s ability to spew forth uncontrollable evil like deadly poison

(a) A restless evil
(b) Full of deadly poison​

3.2 What a paradox! With the tongue we bless God & curse people (vv 9, 10)​

4. Applications

(Taipan photo courtesy www.emaze.com)
​

This is profound theology with poignant applications to all Christians.

Sincerely in Christ,
Oz

 

[dirtfarmer]

Dirtfarmer, you are engaging in a falsehood, a falsehood that is prevalent in full pretermism, where they say only Paul's writings are for gentile believers, and James and Peter are only for Jews. Effectively making "two Gospels." It is the two Gospel theory of full preterism.

This methodology is not true, will not work, can not compute. We are all built on the foundation of Jesus Words, the words of ALL the prophets of the Old Testament, and the words of His Apostles, PLURAL, not just Paul. And certainly not on the basis of "eliminating" these Apostles words just because they (quite falsely proposed) don't have the same outlook that Paul wrote. This is an error. There are only differences where people think there are when there are no differences. Do you think Paul was without fault? Quite the contrary. Paul "openly exposed" not only his faults, via sin dwelling in the flesh, evil present with him, Romans 7:17-21, lustful thoughts (Romans 7:7-13), being a wretched man, Romans 7:24, doing things he hated and doing evil, all from Romans 7, EXPOSED for all to see.

So, do we think it a small matter for Paul to expose the HYPOCRISY of Peter when Paul so exposed himself? Paul puts us all on the same ground, as SINNERS saved by the Grace and Mercy of God in Christ. And ALL of the Apostles shunned the very evil that we all carry in our flesh/minds and hearts.

So no, there is no differences between these Apostles. They all speak Perfectly, Identically, WITH their own faults, openly exposed for the world to see.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And this "includes" every Word that we have today, in our Bible.

Full preterism does not and can not see, in the way they try to divide, parse and cancel scripture. In some extreme cases they even toss aside Jesus' Own Words, which is quite a shame. All of this activity is an old heresy that was introduced by Marcion, who claimed that only Paul's words were for N.T. believers. And he even went so far as to propose that Gods Words of the Old Testament were from "another god", even another 'creator' called the demi-urge. It is patently absurd, this entire approach to Gods Words.

Jesus said that we will live by every Word of God. Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4.

The Apostles, all of them, BUILT on the foundation of the Old Testament Words of God, beyond any uncertainty.

hello smaller, dirtfarmer here

You seem to be hung up on Romans 7 to prove that Paul had sin dwelling in his flesh. When Jesus spoke those words in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4, he had not yet been to the cross. How do you apply those scriptures to the Gentile believers before they cross?
Matthew 15:24 Jesus said that he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The Church had not been established yet and Christ during his earthly ministry was offering to the nation of Israel the kingdom that was promised in Exodus 19:5-6.

 

[dirtfarmer]

This is a highly problematic position and is simply unable to be supported by Scripture. The writings of Peter are most likely written primarily to Gentile believers, although he doesn't actually say explicitly. The first passage that came to mind was 2 Peter 3:15-17:

15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. (ESV)

It's hard not to notice that Paul and Peter are writing to the same people and that Peter is warning these people of those others who are twisting Paul's letters, lest they be led astray by those false teachings.

More than that, of course, is the obviously implication that Peter is saying Paul's letters are on par with "the other Scriptures," meaning the OT. This becomes even more problematic for you if you still want to insist that Peter was writing to Jewish Christians only when we look at 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Since Peter is telling these Jewish Christians that Paul's letters are Scripture, he is then also telling them that all of Paul's letters are "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (ESV)

As for Revelation: "4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne," (ESV)

These seven churches are representative of all churches. There is nothing specific to Jewish Christians nor Gentile Christians, as is consistent with most of the NT. And specifically regarding your use of Rev. 1:6 and Exo. 19:5-6, you must not ignore what else Scripture says, such as in Rev. 1:9-10:

9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." (ESV)

Or 1 Pet. 2:5,9:

5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (ESV)

Not is there only nothing to support your position, there is much against it. There are some NT writings which may be written primarily to either Gentile or Jewish Christians, but since there is neither Jew nor Greek in the kingdom of God, all Scripture is useful for doctrine for all believers in Christ.

hello Free, dirtfarmer here

In 1 Peter 1 we are told to whom the epistle was written: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." Why would Peter call Gentiles; strangers scattered abroad. We find written in Leviticus 25:23: "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me."
1 Chronicles 29:13 "For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were our fathers: our days on the earth are a shadow, and there is none abiding."
Hebrews 11:13 " These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."

On the day of Pentecost did Peter preach the gospel of the grace of God or was it the gospel of the kingdom? Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you and to your children, even to them that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." To whom was the promise and what was that promise?
Joshua 24:13-14 " And I have given you a land for which you did not labor, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyardsand the oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat. Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD."
They were looking for the earthly kingdom. We know this from Acts 1:6 " When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel

As to "kingdom of priest", is there a difference between "bride" and "priest"? The Church is the bride of Christ and will rule and reign with him. Can you give any scripture that states that "priest" are the bride of Christ?
In 1 Peter 2:5-6, "does head of the corner" have reference to the Church? In verse 8 it is stated "a rock of offence, a stone of stumbling"; where do you find this is stated to the Church?

Can you quote scripture that states there is neither Jew or Gentile in the kingdom of God? There are scriptures that state that in the Church, which is the bride of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but all are children of God and heirs and joint-heirs with Christ.

Scripture about the worthy one to open the scroll is Revelation 5:9-10

 

[JLB]

dirtfarmer here

We establish church doctrine only from epistles written by Paul, not by Peter(Cephas), James, or John. Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." All of Paul's epistles can be used for church doctrine. We don't have any writings of Barnabus.

The epistles written by James, John, and Peter were to the Jews. Peter at first preach the gospel of the kingdom. Paul preached the gospel of the grace of God.
James 1:1 " James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, greeting.
1 Peter 1:1 " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"
Revelation 1:1 " The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants,"
Galatians 4:7 "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ." As in James, a servant, not a son.

Revelation 1:6 "Hath made us kings and priest unto God and his Father;" Exodus 19:5-6 " Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all the people: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priest, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." The Church is not a kingdom of priest but the bride of Christ.

Revelation 1:9 " I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle of Patmos, for the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ."

So the Church that is made up of Gentiles, should not read the book of Revelation, because it was written to Jews?

4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:

Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.

To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, Revelation 1:4-5


This sure looks as if it was written to the Church in Asia.

Asia would have been Gentile Churches, don't you think?

Here all this time I thought that we were all, both Jews and Gentiles, one in Christ Jesus.

That in Christ there was neither Jew nor Gentile.



JLB

 

[JLB]

hello smaller, dirtfarmer here

You seem to be hung up on Romans 7 to prove that Paul had sin dwelling in his flesh. When Jesus spoke those words in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4, he had not yet been to the cross. How do you apply those scriptures to the Gentile believers before they cross?
Matthew 15:24 Jesus said that he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The Church had not been established yet and Christ during his earthly ministry was offering to the nation of Israel the kingdom that was promised in Exodus 19:5-6.

The Church was established with Abraham.

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. 2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” 3 Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: 4 “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations.
Genesis 17:1-4

Abraham was the first member of the Church.

Abraham was in Covenant with Jesus Christ, before He became flesh.


The New Covenant is a refreshed Abrahamic Covenant, that we are "grafted into" through faith in Jesus Christ.

17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. Romans 11:17-18

That is why we are called son's of Abraham.

• Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. Galatians 3:7

• that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:14

JLB

 

[dirtfarmer]

dirtfarmer,

My name is OzSpen and not OzSpin.

I note in your response to me that you did not reply to most of what I wrote in #2. You seem to have conveniently forgotten to deal with my content and were off and running with what you wanted to talk about with (a) doctrine of the church from James 3:6-8, (b) eternal security; (c) the Sabbath, and (d) Sacrifices and tithe applied to church??

This is not a forum conversation when you do this. I had the courtesy in #2 to respond to what you wrote in #1, but not so with you in #3. Would you please learn to address what I wrote about and not what you want to discuss.

Then you have the audacity to ask what doctrine of the church is addressed in my sermon for Sunday on James 3:6-8. I'm a faithful expositor of Scripture. I teach directly from the text with illustration and application. Not all aspects of Scripture address the same kind of doctrine. James is a practical book addressing practical issues of the Christian life. It does not have the same doctrinal intensity as, say, the Book of Romans.

For your interest, here is my broad outline from my Sunday message (which I completed yesterday, along with the PPT I will use):

My outline is:
James 3:6-8 (ESV): Tongue lashing wreckage
1. The tongue can ruin your whole life (v. 6)

1.1 The tongue sets on fire the course of life (v. 6)

(a) ‘The tongue is a fire’.
(b) The tongue is ‘a world of unrighteousness’.
(c) It is ‘staining the whole body’ (v. 6).​

1.2 The tongue is set on fire by hell [Gehenna] (v. 6)

(a) A dilemma​

2. All kinds of creatures can be tamed (v. 7)
3. No human being can subdue the tongue (v. 8)

3.1 The tongue’s ability to spew forth uncontrollable evil like deadly poison

(a) A restless evil
(b) Full of deadly poison​

3.2 What a paradox! With the tongue we bless God & curse people (vv 9, 10)​

4. Applications

(Taipan photo courtesy www.emaze.com)
​

This is profound theology with poignant applications to all Christians.

Sincerely in Christ,
Oz

hello OzSpen, dirtfarmer here

Sorry about misspelling of your name.

Jesus said in Matthew 15:11 "Not that which goes into the mouth that defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man" In verses 18-20 he explains that it is a "heart" condition.

I have said nothing against your expositor ability.

When have I ever said anything about "Gentile" Christians. In the Church there is no division, Jews nor Gentiles, but children of God, heirs and joint heirs with Christ.

I don't see where answering all points are necessary if they are covered by less words.

 

[OzSpen]

hello OzSpen, dirtfarmer here

Sorry about misspelling of your name.

Jesus said in Matthew 15:11 "Not that which goes into the mouth that defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man" In verses 18-20 he explains that it is a "heart" condition.

I have said nothing against your expositor ability.

When have I ever said anything about "Gentile" Christians. In the Church there is no division, Jews nor Gentiles, but children of God, heirs and joint heirs with Christ.

I don't see where answering all points are necessary if they are covered by less words.

Problem is that you didn't deal with the content of what I wrote in #2.

Your reply at #3 (which was in response to my #2) did not respond to most of what I wrote in #2. You seem to have conveniently forgotten to deal with my content and were imposing what you wanted to talk about:
(a) doctrine of the church from James 3:6-8,
(b) eternal security;
(c) the Sabbath, and
(d) Sacrifices and tithe applied to church??

I did not write about b, c and d. Yours was an intrusion of that content.

Oz

 

[dirtfarmer]

Problem is that you didn't deal with the content of what I wrote in #2.

Your reply at #3 (which was in response to my #2) did not respond to most of what I wrote in #2. You seem to have conveniently forgotten to deal with my content and were imposing what you wanted to talk about:
(a) doctrine of the church from James 3:6-8,
(b) eternal security;
(c) the Sabbath, and
(d) Sacrifices and tithe applied to church??

I did not write about b, c and d. Yours was an intrusion of that content.

Oz

hello OzSpen, dirtfarmer here

b, c, and d are examples of trying to take scripture not written by Paul and applying it as doctrine for the Church.
How do you apply 2 Timothy 2:15 "rightly dividing the word of truth"? According to that verse there is "rightly dividing the word of truth" that a workman should do so that he is approved and not ashamed.

 

[smaller]

hello smaller, dirtfarmer here

You seem to be hung up on Romans 7 to prove that Paul had sin dwelling in his flesh.

I wouldn't term acknowledging facts of scripture as "hung up." What's there is there to see for reasons given by the Holy Spirit who happens to be exceptionally adroit at "truth telling."

When Jesus spoke those words in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4, he had not yet been to the cross.

And you would consider that as a basis to eliminate the Words of God in Christ? Are you not familiar with Gods Command, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him?" Matt. 17:5, Mark 9:7. Why would we, as believers, not take Jesus' Every Word most seriously? You think Jesus was "different" before and after the cross? How about when Jesus SPOKE as the Word of God in the Old Testament?

1 Peter 1:
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

How do you apply those scriptures to the Gentile believers before they cross?

There are no lines of eradication that can be legitimately applied to ANY Word of God in the entire Bible. They are ALL applicable to all of us.

Matthew 15:24 Jesus said that he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The Church had not been established yet and Christ during his earthly ministry was offering to the nation of Israel the kingdom that was promised in Exodus 19:5-6.

Gods Words are as Jesus Said. For man. Not just Jews. Just because the Jews couldn't hear and SHARE doesn't mean Gods Words weren't then, for MAN as well.

Deuteronomy 8:3
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

Why God chose to express Himself in the lineage of Jews is another topic matter. One that not everyone is fit to engage.

If you are a full preterist, just admit it.

 

[OzSpen]

hello OzSpen, dirtfarmer here

b, c, and d are examples of trying to take scripture not written by Paul and applying it as doctrine for the Church.
How do you apply 2 Timothy 2:15 "rightly dividing the word of truth"? According to that verse there is "rightly dividing the word of truth" that a workman should do so that he is approved and not ashamed.

You still refuse to deal with the fact that when you answered me at #3 you refused to deal with the bulk of what I wrote at #2. Your reply was a red herring fallacy.

You are still presenting a faulty view of the inspiration of Scripture with your requirement that doctrine must come from Paul and not from Peter, James and John. That is contrary to what the Scriptures teach at:

• Acts 17:11 (ESV);
  
• 1 Tim 5:18 (ESV), and
  
• 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV).

By the way, there is no need to tell me in your post, 'dirtfarmer here'. I already know that from the identification associated with your Avatar.

Oz

 

[Mike]

I feel the need to quote the final section of the A&T Guidelines.

• Failing to answer someone’s question doesn’t necessarily amount to an admission of error or surrender but keep in mind that in any debate if you refuse to or can not answer a reasonable question, it may weaken your position.

Note that we cannot place demands on others that they respond to everything we ask or spell out. There is no obligation there. Note also that failure to respond to certain questions or points can intentionally or unintentionally imply certain things.

It goes both ways. Don't make demands, but understand not responding has implications.

 

[dirtfarmer]

You still refuse to deal with the fact that when you answered me at #3 you refused to deal with the bulk of what I wrote at #2. Your reply was a red herring fallacy.

You are still presenting a faulty view of the inspiration of Scripture with your requirement that doctrine must come from Paul and not from Peter, James and John. That is contrary to what the Scriptures teach at:

• Acts 17:11 (ESV);
  
• 1 Tim 5:18 (ESV), and
  
• 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV).

By the way, there is no need to tell me in your post, 'dirtfarmer here'. I already know that from the identification associated with your Avatar.

Oz

hello OzSpen, dirtfarmer here

I understand that you know who is writing but I have always opened my post with "dirtfarmer here". It seems as there is some hostility creeping in, if so, then I will not continue.

I understand that Acts 17:11 is speaking of the Bereans. They searched the scriptures daily to if what was being preached was true. That is what we all should do. When I pastored, I told the congregation to search over what was preached and allow the Spirit to convince them of truth so that their faith would not be in man's words.
1 Timothy 5:18 is speaking for those that minister the word. A church should reward those that minister the word and not expect that it should be done without pay of some type.
1 Timothy 3:16-17 has already been discussed

I still stand by "doctrine for the Church should be from Paul's epistles". That is not saying that other scripture should not be used, it is useful, just not Church doctrine.

 

[OzSpen]

hello OzSpen, dirtfarmer here

I understand that you know who is writing but I have always opened my post with "dirtfarmer here". It seems as there is some hostility creeping in, if so, then I will not continue.

I understand that Acts 17:11 is speaking of the Bereans. They searched the scriptures daily to if what was being preached was true. That is what we all should do. When I pastored I told the congregation to search over what was preached and allow the Spirit to convince them of truth so that their faith would no be in man's words.
1 Timothy 5:18 is speaking for those that minister the word. A church should reward those that minister the word and not expect that it should be done without pay of some type.
1 Timothy 3:16-17 has already been discussed

I still stand by "doctrine for the Church should be from Paul's epistles". That is not saying that other scripture should not be used, it is useful, just not Church doctrine.

The reason I raised 1 Tim 5:18 was that the second part of the verse is a quote from Jesus in Luke and it is called 'Scripture', thus refuting your view that we should only use the Pauline epistles for doctrine. That's not what Paul taught.

Doctrine for the church being only from the Pauline epistles is not taught anywhere in Scripture. Are you a preterist in your eschatology?

Oz

 

[JLB]

I still stand by "doctrine for the Church should be from Paul's epistles".

24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” Matthew 7:24-27


It is amazing to believe that one could actually teach that we are to ignore what Jesus taught, because "Church Doctrine" should only come from Paul.

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:18


Words of Christ in red.




JLB

 

[dirtfarmer]

The reason I raised 1 Tim 5:18 was that the second part of the verse is a quote from Jesus in Luke and it is called 'Scripture', thus refuting your view that we should only use the Pauline epistles for doctrine. That's not what Paul taught.

Doctrine for the church being only from the Pauline epistles is not taught anywhere in Scripture. Are you a preterist in your eschatology?

Oz

hello OzSpen, dirtfarmer here

It is my understanding that a "preterist" believes that 70 AD was when Christ returned to earth. I believe the rapture of the Church is future. I also believe that he first comes in the air to gather the believers for the marriage of the Lamb and that the marriage feast will be in heaven during the 7 year tribulation. At the end of the tribulation Christ will return to earth to set up the kingdom promised to the Israelites, in which we will rule and reign with him for that period.

It is my understanding that the feasts represents God's time table. Not trying to set a date. In Leviticus 23:39 the latter part of that verse reads: " and on the eighth day shall be a Sabbath". Which other feast has an "eight day". Eight is the number of new beginnings and I believe verse 39 is in reference to the "new heaven and new earth" spoken of in Revelation 21. Verse 27 of Revelation tells us that only those whose name is written in "the Lamb's book of life" will be able to enter.