Theology Club: the first and second sending of Paul

SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
I don't have a problem with Paul being sent first to Jews and Gentiles who already believed in the one true God, and then later being sent again to everyone, including Jews and Gentiles who did not already believe in the one true God.

I am not sure why this is fought against?

It makes sense that the ones he was sent to first could look in the scriptures of the prophets and see that they could claim a promise from God. And the ones he was sent to later could have all of his epistles and see how the gospel got all the way to them. I can see how it got to North Carolina.
 
glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
I don't have a problem with Paul being sent first to Jews and Gentiles who already believed in the one true God, and then later being sent again to everyone, including Jews and Gentiles who did not already believe in the one true God.

I am not sure why this is fought against?

It makes sense that the ones he was sent to first could look in the scriptures of the prophets and see that they could claim a promise from God. And the ones he was sent to later could have all of his epistles and see how the gospel got all the way to them. I can see how it got to North Carolina.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and it got all the way to Oregon, too. :thumb:
 
D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
I don't have a problem with Paul being sent first to Jews and Gentiles who already believed in the one true God, and then later being sent again to everyone, including Jews and Gentiles who did not already believe in the one true God.

I am not sure why this is fought against?

It makes sense that the ones he was sent to first could look in the scriptures of the prophets and see that they could claim a promise from God. And the ones he was sent to later could have all of his epistles and see how the gospel got all the way to them. I can see how it got to North Carolina.
Click to expand...

By the same argument, brother, why is exploring its validity or not, so fought against?

And of all places; on a MAD forum?

You and I differ for example, on the sense of Romans 16:26's "scriptures of the prophets."

You understand it to refer to the Old Testament.

I understand it to refer to Paul's own writings.

But, case in point: Other than to show your support for one of your own on here, you have basically ignored my posts on these issues, and we have both basically left it at that. And we have.

You relate "I am not sure why this is fought against?"

Brother, we can't have that both ways. We can't not explore them and then lament, why is it fought against?

As I'd suspected, it is the understanding of a key passage like that that has us each at a different understanding in other areas.

Yours in Him :)
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
Danoh said:
As I'd suspected, it is the understanding of a key passage like that that has us each at a different understanding in other areas.

Yours in Him :)
Click to expand...
We have a different understanding because we recognize that things that are different are not the same while others continue to try to make them say the same when they don't.

This is why people such as myself and you will unfortunately never speak the same thing 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJV.
 
D

Danoh

New member
heir said:
We have a different understanding because we recognize that things that are different are not the same while others continue to try to make them say the same when they don't.

This is why people such as myself and you will unfortunately never speak the same thing 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJV.
Click to expand...

By the same token, it may be the case that things you recognize as different are not but you are perceiving as being different.

More importantly, though, is that we each be willing to recognize what matters most when see different understandings as to the passages in question; different understandings that, admittedly, are not critical ones, and thus, no cause for biting and devouring one another over.

Admittedly, I cannot see even one of these different understandings as critical to our eternal security, nor to our service and or its loss of rewards in any way. If you can, point it out.

What is critical is how we deal with each other when we differ in our understandings, it is this mind that Paul often relates he wanted the saints to be of the same mind about; where their differences in understanding were not critical ones.
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
SaulToPaul said:
I don't have a problem with Paul being sent first to Jews and Gentiles who already believed in the one true God, and then later being sent again to everyone, including Jews and Gentiles who did not already believe in the one true God.

I am not sure why this is fought against?

It makes sense that the ones he was sent to first could look in the scriptures of the prophets and see that they could claim a promise from God. And the ones he was sent to later could have all of his epistles and see how the gospel got all the way to them. I can see how it got to North Carolina.
Click to expand...
I can think of a few reasons. Acknowledging the truth would mean junking some traditions of men and favorite teachers. And then there's swallowing some pride...
 
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
heir said:
I can think of a couple of reasons. Acknowledging the truth would mean junking some traditions of men and favorite teachers.
Click to expand...

I think many Acts 9 "right dividers" are already leery of being called hypers by the Acts 2 crowd, so the idea of rightly dividing Paul's epistles scares the daylights out of them....so they attempt to harmonize rather than accept the differences.

:rapture:
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
SaulToPaul said:
I think many Acts 9 "right dividers" are already leery of being called hypers by the Acts 2 crowd, so the idea of rightly dividing Paul's epistles scares the daylights out of them....so they attempt to harmonize rather than accept the differences.

:rapture:
Click to expand...
For sure! They compromise the truth for comfort.
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
SaulToPaul said:
I think many Acts 9 "right dividers" are already leery of being called hypers by the Acts 2 crowd, so the idea of rightly dividing Paul's epistles scares the daylights out of them....so they attempt to harmonize rather than accept the differences.

:rapture:
Click to expand...
I wonder if they've ever considered that it wasn't until one of the last (if not the last) epistles Paul wrote where he told Timothy to 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV! If this was just about rightly dividing God's word (as so many wrongly say), why didn't Paul say it in the beginning of his ministry?
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
I think many Acts 9 "right dividers" are already leery of being called hypers by the Acts 2 crowd, so the idea of rightly dividing Paul's epistles scares the daylights out of them....so they attempt to harmonize rather than accept the differences.

:rapture:
Click to expand...

I have begun to and aint nowhere near "there" yet (wherever "there" is), because there are differences within Paul's body of writing. I see how it leads some to 28 but i dont see that happening with me.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Danoh said:
By the same argument, brother, why is exploring its validity or not, so fought against?

And of all places; on a MAD forum?

You and I differ for example, on the sense of Romans 16:26's "scriptures of the prophets."

You understand it to refer to the Old Testament.

I understand it to refer to Paul's own writings.
Click to expand...
I think that you need to read that verse more closely.
Rom 16:25-27 KJV Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, (26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (27) To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
​
To be fully established, we have to understand both prophecy and mystery.
 
glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
I think that you need to read that verse more closely.
Rom 16:25-27 KJV Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, (26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (27) To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
​
To be fully established, we have to understand both prophecy and mystery.
Click to expand...

I think this is a very interesting point. It's at least causing me to wonder.... :think:
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
glorydaz said:
Perhaps that's not the case at all. It's possible they are quite willing to see, but are not really convinced. Comfort may not have anything to do with it. Just saying....
Click to expand...

Sadly, it is often the case. They do not want to suffer persecution for the cross or the doctrine.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Right Divider said:
I think that you need to read that verse more closely.
Rom 16:25-27 KJV Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, (26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (27) To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
​
To be fully established, we have to understand both prophecy and mystery.
Click to expand...

I see Romans 16:26's "and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God," I see that as...

This here - 1 Cor. 14: 37's "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

Even in the original language, its' word "scriptures" is a plural noun.

While its other word is in fact not only not plural, not "prophets," but is not even a noun.

It is in fact an adjective "prophetic."

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/16-26.htm
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Danoh said:
I see Romans 16:26's "and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God," I see that as...

This here - 1 Cor. 14: 37's "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

Even in the original language, its' word "scriptures" is a plural noun.

While its other word is in fact not only not plural, not "prophets," but is not even a noun.

It is in fact an adjective "prophetic."

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/16-26.htm
Click to expand...
Classic Danoh.

You should give us the 'Danoh Bible" so that we can study properly.
 
D

Danoh

New member
glorydaz said:
Perhaps that's not the case at all. It's possible they are quite willing to see, but are not really convinced. Comfort may not have anything to do with it. Just saying....
Click to expand...

Thanks for that one, GD :)

But nah, it must be the mind readers are right; it must be that those who voice a different view fear persecution :rotfl:

Some sure need to get over themselves :chuckle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top