Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"
Rick Warren, "You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand."
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. . If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." Where is this verse" Is it in the New Testament?
What is the doctrine of Christ? It is the doctrines stated in the New Testament.
I believe Amos 3:3 in context means God walks with us because we have agreed to walk with Him. Therefore we reap the consequences of not walking with Him after we agreed to do so.
"What is the Doctrine of Christ?"
Do you mean what Christ taught?..or What the New Testament teaches about Christ?
"I believe Amos 3:3 in context means God walks with us because we have agreed to walk with Him. Therefore we reap the consequences of not walking with Him after we agreed to do so.
"What is the Doctrine of Christ?"
"Do you mean what Christ taught?..or What the New Testament teaches about Christ?"
Yes, we walk with God when we are in agreement with him, and also we walk with other believers when we are in agreement with them.
Fellowship with God the Father, with Christ. with the Spirit and with other believers follows from agreement on the doctrines of Christ.
What Christ taught and what the New Testament writers - all of them - taught for and about Christ are also the doctrines of Christ. What Paul taught are the doctrines of Christ because he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
chevy74
"Galatians 1:8,9
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
I agree Galatians 1: 8-9 fits in with Amos 3: 3 and II John 9-10.
The Gospel Paul taught was different in part from the Gospel taught by theologies at the present time. A little leaven leavens the whole loaf. I Corinthians 5: 6
"Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Saducees." Matthew 16: 6 There are modern day Pharisees who teach theologies which do not agree in part with the Gospel Paul is talking about in Galatians 1: 8-9
I see Jesus teaching under the Law to the Jews under the Law.
I see Paul teaching under Grace to the Gentiles under Grace.
These teachings are different but not in conflict."
In order to hold to the belief that God has two different peoples, with whom he deals in different ways, the Jews by the law, and the Gentiles
by grace, you have to deal with a number of New Testament scriptures that do not support this division because "Israel mine inheritance" was transformed into Israel born again in Christ where there is neither Jew nor Gentile. I am not going to cite some of these Scriptures here because I have cited some of them before on this forum.
What you seem to be moving to is a doctrine that disagrees in part with the Gospel Paul was talking about in Galatians 1: 8-9.
Study the Gospel of John. John in 3: 1-5 shows that Nicodemus, a Pharisee and who you would admit is under the law and believes that entry into the kingdom of God is by genetics - we have Abraham to our father - is told by Christ that he must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. This is a sure indication of the transformation of ethnic or physical Israel. The Rapture Cult has got this wrong.
In addition, look at the number of times in the Gospel of John that he uses the word "believe" is used. It sometimes appears as
believed, believest, or believing, but its the same word.
Get a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and look up "believe" in the Gospel of John and see how many times the word appears.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." This is in the Gospel of John. It does not say that whosoever obeys the law will not perish but have everlasting life. It says whosoever believes will have everlasting life. This is grace, not law. And this is a statement where Jesus is talking to a Jew, Nicodemus. Its not Paul teaching the Gentiles.
In the early Jewish Christian community there was an apostasy of some of the believing Jews of going back to the law in part as shown in Acts 15.
Acts 15: 5 also says the Christians should keep the law of Moses, meaning that more than circumcision was involved in this rebellion against grace and an attempt to return to the law.
In saying or insinuating that Jews are under the law while gentile Christians are under grace the Rapture Cult is engaged in a subtle way in a similar rebellion against grace. What they seem to be saying is that grace is OK for Gentile Christians but Jews are under the law, even though Paul clearly says there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ, and they imply or say outright that Jews, saved or unsaved, are still the chosen people. This is their rebellion against grace. I know that some followers of the cult have moderated this belief somewhat, knowing that its original statement disagreed with Scripture. But still many follow the original Rapture Cult teaching that Jews are under law and Gentiles under grace.
Some of the believing Pharisees as recorded in Acts 15: 5 said that Christians must be circumcised and the implication from verse 15: 1 is that they must be circumcised in order to be saved. This is a trait of the Pharisee, then or now. He wants to impose his false doctrine on others. He is also self-righteous.
I appreciate your indepth answer, however, I do NOT believe God now has two different seperate people, ie: the Jews dealt with by Law and the Gentiles dealt with by Grace. Scripture is clear: They are one in Christ.
Was Jesus (during His earthly ministry) called to teach Jews or Gentiles?...Jews
Was Paul (during his eartly ministry) called to teach Jews or Gentiles?....Gentiles
Did Jesus teach before or after the cross?...before
Did Paul teach before or after the cross?...after
Did Jesus teach under the Old or New Covenant? ....Old
Did Paul teach under the Old or New Covenant? ....New
*I doubt you need scriptures to back any of this up, but they can be supplied.
Good scripture examples, but have you thought out the implications of them?
Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
The whole idea of NOT following the law had never been discussed. They had to call a meeting, at which a big argument ensued. Peter had to finally stand up to put an end to the dispute by reminding them that it was his decision, and why.
The Apostles were in the Temple daily, but had never considered not adhering to the law. There is a lot written about this in secular history as well. It is interesting that it took an outsider (Paul) to bring it to their attention. I am sure they knew the law did not save, but we are creatures of habit.
I do not believe that when the writers of the New Testament refer to Scriptures they are referring to the NT. There was no NT at the time. I believe the early Church looked to these letters as they were circulated among the Churches as the teachings of the Apostles and they were instructional. Therefore any reference in the NT to Scriptures is always a reference to the OT.
Furthermore, the Gospel of Jesus was not the Gospel of MT thru Jn but was the Gospel of the Messiah as fulfilled by Jesus according to the Scripture of the OT. The doctrine of Christ would have been the teachings about Him found in the OT that were passed on and explained by the writers of the letters to the churches, some of which became the NT. The NT never actually speaks of itself as a whole anywhere in the Bible and it is wrong to assume that any teaching about Christ originated there but rather they are taught from the OT prophesies about Him and conclusions are drawn or explained further in the NT.
So the Doctrine of Christ came from the OT. Whether they are the teachings of Jesus Himself or the teachings about Him in the OT everything that is taught about Him had to originate with the prophesies in the OT. Even the New Covenant is a fulfillment of OT prophesy. There is nothing "new" in the new Covenant in that sense.
