Right Divider
Body part
I've shown clearly, FROM SCRIPTURE, that you don't know what you're talking about.
Has the Church Replaced Israel ?
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
Showing something from scripture and asserting something from scripture are two entirely different things. Someday maybe you will understand the difference.
Right Divider
Body part
I completely agree. That's why I SHOW IT FROM SCRIPTURE instead of asserting it from scripture.
What I showed you from scripture was quite plain and clear. But you don't like it.
Derf
Well-known member
Now whose reading comprehension is in question?
Huh? Are you seriously saying that "brethren...as among other Gentiles" means these were proselytes? Seriously? HAHAHAHAHAHA. And that is that force of your "showing" me something from scripture? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
He preached the death and resurrection of Christ. That is the gospel Paul preached. The difference was 1. That Paul preached it rather than Peter (thus it was Pails gospel), and 2. That Paul's focus was more on the gentiles.
So
You seem to make much of Paul having not been to Rome, but that doesn't mean the believers in Ro.e had never heard Paul's gospel before, only never from him, and perhaps without the clarity he brought. For instance, Aquila and Priscilla were from Rome, they had heard Paul's gospel, and they likely could have returned to Rome at some point, or at least gave someone the gospel message to take back to Rome. Unless you are saying that the only way for anyone to become a believer in Paul's gospel is to hear it directly from him, in which case, even the Romans didn't get his gospel from the letter he wrote to them, because he didn't write it.
Romans 16:22 KJV — I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.
Yes, that is what Paul said. Look at what he says, and the order.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
They have a faith. Yet he says he is ready to preach the gospel.
15 So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.
17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God, 18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
Derf
Well-known member
Yet he also said they had already obtained mercy because the Jews had rejected Christ. How can that be the same folks? It can't be. So the interpretation that Paul is writing to proselyte unbelievers is hogwash.
Why are you guys wasting time responding to "arguments" that are based on things that have nothing to do with hardly anything at all? Derf and Lon, based on what tiny scraps of their posts I see by virtue of what gets quoted in other people's posts, are making arguments about minutia and you guys are letting them turn that into evidence against the super obvious.
If Hebrews and Paul are teaching the same message, then there are two and only two options.
Either Paul’s gospel of grace is utterly dismantled, or the warnings in Hebrews are reduced to empty rhetoric.
If Hebrews is collapsed into Paul, then the conditional language of Hebrews must be taken seriously as describing the Christian life. That means perseverance becomes a requirement for final salvation, failure carries the threat of irreversible loss, and continued faithfulness is the condition upon which one’s standing rests. In that case, Paul’s repeated insistence that salvation is not of works, that believers are sealed, that there is no condemnation, and that nothing can separate us from Christ cannot stand as written. They must be softened, reinterpreted, or just ignored. Grace becomes law and security becomes aspirational and the need for Paul's ministry to exist in the first place evaporates.
In short, Paul’s ministry and message does not survive that move intact.
The alternative is no better....
If Paul’s gospel is preserved as written, sealed, complete, unconditional, and secure, then the warnings in Hebrews must be emptied of their force. The threats must be hypothetical, rhetorical, or merely pedagogical. Apostasy becomes theoretical, judgment becomes symbolic, and language like “impossible to renew again to repentance” must be explained away as something that never actually happens. Hebrews becomes a book full of warnings that warn of nothing, consequences that never arrive, and dangers that cannot materialize.
In short, the message of Hebrews does not survive that move intact.
This tension is not something that can be resolved with clever sounding quips, with singular sentence proof-texts as evidence, or by arguing about trivialities such as whether portions of the audience were proselyte Jews. It is a structural contradiction that forces a choice. Either Hebrews is genuinely addressing a people for whom endurance is covenantally necessary, or Paul is genuinely proclaiming a gospel in which salvation is already settled. To affirm both as saying the same thing is to empty one or the other of its plain meaning. It is, as Derf apparently likes to lament, to pit one portion of scripture against another, only this time with actual destructive effect!
The problem is not that Hebrews and Paul disagree about Christ. They do not. The problem is that they are not speaking to the same audience, within the same framework (i.e. dispensation). When that distinction is ignored, theology becomes incoherent and Scripture is forced to contradict itself.
The conclusion, therefore is quite simple...
There is no way to keep both intact while insisting they teach the same message. The only coherent alternative is to recognize that Hebrews speaks within Israel’s covenant context, while Paul proclaims a distinct gospel of grace to the Body of Christ. Deny that distinction, and Scripture is forced to be at war with itself, contradicting itself all over the place. I say, "all over the place" because this tension with Paul's teaching is not unique to Hebrews. It exists between Paul and EVERY OTHER AUTHOR throughout the ENTIRE scripture!
If Hebrews and Paul are teaching the same message, then there are two and only two options.
Either Paul’s gospel of grace is utterly dismantled, or the warnings in Hebrews are reduced to empty rhetoric.
If Hebrews is collapsed into Paul, then the conditional language of Hebrews must be taken seriously as describing the Christian life. That means perseverance becomes a requirement for final salvation, failure carries the threat of irreversible loss, and continued faithfulness is the condition upon which one’s standing rests. In that case, Paul’s repeated insistence that salvation is not of works, that believers are sealed, that there is no condemnation, and that nothing can separate us from Christ cannot stand as written. They must be softened, reinterpreted, or just ignored. Grace becomes law and security becomes aspirational and the need for Paul's ministry to exist in the first place evaporates.
In short, Paul’s ministry and message does not survive that move intact.
The alternative is no better....
If Paul’s gospel is preserved as written, sealed, complete, unconditional, and secure, then the warnings in Hebrews must be emptied of their force. The threats must be hypothetical, rhetorical, or merely pedagogical. Apostasy becomes theoretical, judgment becomes symbolic, and language like “impossible to renew again to repentance” must be explained away as something that never actually happens. Hebrews becomes a book full of warnings that warn of nothing, consequences that never arrive, and dangers that cannot materialize.
In short, the message of Hebrews does not survive that move intact.
This tension is not something that can be resolved with clever sounding quips, with singular sentence proof-texts as evidence, or by arguing about trivialities such as whether portions of the audience were proselyte Jews. It is a structural contradiction that forces a choice. Either Hebrews is genuinely addressing a people for whom endurance is covenantally necessary, or Paul is genuinely proclaiming a gospel in which salvation is already settled. To affirm both as saying the same thing is to empty one or the other of its plain meaning. It is, as Derf apparently likes to lament, to pit one portion of scripture against another, only this time with actual destructive effect!
The problem is not that Hebrews and Paul disagree about Christ. They do not. The problem is that they are not speaking to the same audience, within the same framework (i.e. dispensation). When that distinction is ignored, theology becomes incoherent and Scripture is forced to contradict itself.
The conclusion, therefore is quite simple...
There is no way to keep both intact while insisting they teach the same message. The only coherent alternative is to recognize that Hebrews speaks within Israel’s covenant context, while Paul proclaims a distinct gospel of grace to the Body of Christ. Deny that distinction, and Scripture is forced to be at war with itself, contradicting itself all over the place. I say, "all over the place" because this tension with Paul's teaching is not unique to Hebrews. It exists between Paul and EVERY OTHER AUTHOR throughout the ENTIRE scripture!