Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[Catholic_Dude]

TheOpenTheist-

To start with, the great advantage of the new covenant over the old seems to be the enabling power it has when it is “written on their hearts” (Heb 8:10-11).

Stay in context sir:10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people…12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The “first is obsolete”, right here your argument fails. No greater proof.

…The old covenant failed “because they did not continue in” it.

The old one was fulfilled, not failed. If the old one failed then God lied.

The new covenant will succeed.

Which one? You seem to say the first one that Jesus established in the flesh failed. Christains, both Protestant and Catholic never believed such thing, to them there was always one new covenant.

If they turn from Him when they have that perfect knowledge, “it is impossible . . . . if they fall, to renew them again to repentance” (Heb. 6:4-6).

I dont agree thats what that passage means. For one it says if the commit “apostacy”. And goes on to make a metaphor for those who hear the word are like land receiving water, if they bring forth good fruit then they do good, if they bring forth thorns then they failed to change their ways. This is also talking about NT teachings, not the LAW.

And we read in Heb 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. The judgment is so severe because the knowledge is so complete.

If you read the context Jesus is the sacrifice they are talking about. So your assertion that this is a OT sacrifice is unfounded.

Do you believe, Dude, that this is the reality for those in the Body of Christ? That we have perfect knowledge of God and if we sin willfully, then we cannot be pardoned?

You made this up by a combination of two separate verses from two separate chapters, “sin willfully” and “cant be pardoned”.

Hebrews 8:13 shows us the status of these believers in relation to the old covenant. For them, it is still in effect. It is becoming obsolete, … but it has not yet vanished away. That is why James wrote that they will be judged by the law (James 2:12). …

Unfounded and out of context again. For one keep reading into Heb14:1 Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain stood a tent called the Holy of Holies, … into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. 8 By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as long as the outer tent is still standing 9 (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, … 11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
It is very clear that the Law is no more. No Jew would read this letter and believe in Jesus and keep doing the rules and regulaions of the Law.
About James2 read verse1. The stuff about them being judged under the Law is way out of context, it is clearly saying nobody can be justified by the Law, it says “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” It is clear that he is saying the old way doesnt work.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)

…I never ever claimed that Peter and Paul were at odds anywhere during Paul’s ministry. Did Peter have some confusion and a bit of a hard time understanding that God NOW was accepting Gentiles without their becoming circumcised and keeping the law? Yes! …

This is totally illogical. He didnt oppose a totally different Gospel that Paul was teaching? How did he accept Paul in the first place?

The ones who were in error were the judaizers. Peter spoke up for Paul and recognized that God was doing a new thing as Acts 10 and Acts 15 shows. You want to believe that I think Peter and Paul preached different messages until their deaths so that you can accuse me of God having two apostles preaching different gospels at the same time. I’ll have to disappoint you here and point out that I believe no such thing.

So what are you saying? Sofar what I see is you invalidating everyword that Peter has said and making Pauls words the only words. Ok, wait, I get it, they DID preach different gospels, just not at the same time. Unfounded.

No, Paul never says that he is concerned about the salvation of the Circumcision Believers. …

Why is he not worried? Maybe because there was nothing to worry about. However Paul always talks about the Jews who never came to Christ as people he prays for their conversion everyday.

No its not. Nothing interesting about that at all. Paul makes it clear that he loves to go to cities where there are Jews so that he can preach the mystery of the gospel to them in their temple.

Interesting, you just said Paul is not concerned about the salvation of the “Circumcision Believers” but then say Paul is concerned with the correct salvation of these non believing Jews?

Ananias and Sapphira sold their land, but Ananias kept back part and God killed him for keeping some of the money from the sale of their land (Acts 5:1-6). Do you think God would do that today if a member of the Body of Christ sold their possessions and kept a little bit for themselves instead of giving it all to the church leadership?

You misread that passage. Its about a conspired lie, not about how much they did or didnt give. They could keep as much as they wanted (v4-5). About God punishing people for doing evil, you should read what Paul had to say which was much much more serious 1Cor11:
29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
There is no punishiment like this in the whole NT. Sickness and Death for many…this was Paul talking.

Thats a cross-dispensational truth. Loving money, rather than God is wrong and the root of all evil. Are you implying that in this current “dispensation of the grace of God” that it could be the case that the love of money is not the root of all evil? Morals are absolute. It is never OK to murder or rape or love money or possessions more than God.
…
This is another cross-dispensational truth.

Cross-dispensational truth? What constitutes a c-d truth? And why is it not ok to do those things you mentioned, they are part of the 10 Commandments, which are OT.

What I do beleive and have clearly stated is that some Jews believed the Gospel of the Circumcision that Peter preached in early Acts and became part of a group that is not the Body of Christ. …
Where does this distinction in “body of Christ” come from then? And why did Paul not turn around and preach to those who held to the “gospel of circumcision”?
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

OK. This is good! You almost got it! Yes, it is true that today, in the Body of Christ God makes NO DIFFERENCE between Jew and Gentile. He also makes no difference between male and female and he makes no difference between slave or free. According to the Mosaic Law there were differences that God recognized between these groups.
No Paul also recognized a difference in these groups and preached men were head of the house and slaves were still subject to their masters. In both the OT and NT people are not to be mistreated as well.

So, you believe as I do that there was a change. That at some point in the Bible (more specificly, in the New Testament), God broke down these walls of division between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female. Here is the important question: WHEN DID GOD KNOCK DOWN THE WALL OF DIVISION SO THAT NOW THERE IS NO LONGER ANY DIFFERENCE?
Im not sure how to answer you. When was the wall knocked down? When Christ died on the cross (and the curtain ripped in half)? That seems right, but you seem to be saying there was a different time it was knocked down, sometime past Acts 8?

Hold on! Nowhere in that section of Eph 2 that you cited did it say that any of these changes were “foretold” by anyone. …
It says right there it was foretold. Just because it was foretold doesnt mean people understood what was said or that that time had come. By mystery that just means no human knew the time, that doesnt mean that a OT prophet didnt make some kind of reference. eg paul says in Romans “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’” quoting from Hosea the OT prophet.

What Eph 2:20 is saying is that the household of God,** in this specific case** the Body of Christ, is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. … Eph 2:20 refers to the apostles and prophets that are members of Christ’s Body and are working with Paul and the rest of the Body of Christ…
Now your just grasping for straws. Changing definitions and words around. The Apostles were the same 12, there was no separate ones who were just working with Paul.

I never claimed that there was a “distinction of Bodies of Christ”. … There are Acts 28 Dispensationalists, which you may be responding to, that held to a 2 Body theory… Paul says clearly that there is ONE Body. The Circumcision Believers are part of Israel’s prophesied kingdom. Those in the Body are not. …
Why are there so many different types of dispensationalists? Acts8, Acts15, Acts28? I dont think there should be such confusion like that.
You make a distinction of kingdom and body which has no support. Israel’s prophesied messiah was Jesus though many though the messiah was a war lord type ruler. Not to mention is Eph5 it says:
5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Paul is talking to gentiles here. He says grave sins can cause you to not be part of the Kingdom. Not to mention that Col4:11 passage where the Kingdom is mentioned again. Paul mentions the Kingdom all the time.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I know what Col 4:11 says. I also know what it does not say. Paul tells us that these are the only members of the Body of Christ that aid him in his ministry (are “fellow workers”) that are Jews as he is. And thats all that it says. That they are Jews who believed the Gospel of the Uncircumcision and helped Paul with his ministry. The passage does not say that these guys are Circumcision Believers who had believed Peter’s Gospel of the Circumcision…
It doesnt say “Body” in that passage, it says “Kingdom”. Not to mention your problem again of, why did Paul ignore the Jews who were not holding to the new Gospel? That doesnt make sense, he should have written at least one letter to them.

The reason WHY God had Peter go to the Gentile Cornelius’ house was for Peter’s and the desciples in Jerusalem sake. God wanted to make it clear to Peter and the others that He was NOW accepting Gentiles without requiring them to become Jews through circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic Law. God needed to get this message across to them so that they would not be opposing Paul’s ministry and harming his new converts as the judaizers ended up doing to those in Galatia.
Again, totally unfounded, grasping for straws. And no Scripture support.

You will find communion or the Lord’s Supper in his epistles yes (1 Cor 11). But nowhere, do you find Paul teaching a message that says water baptism is necessary for the remission of sins or that water baptism should be practiced at all by those in the Body of Christ. …
Paul talks about Baptism in many places, egRm6:4, 1Cor1, Acts16, etc. And Titus3:
5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit
That is exactly what Baptism is. Paul never says Bapism has nothing to do with water, Paul even Baptized people in 1Cor and Acts16 with water.

…Gal 2:7. Thats an important passage because it refers to the gospels that were committed… Other passages that contribute to my view are any passage that refers to the revelation of the mystery directly by Christ to Paul, like Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:6-8; Gal 1; Eph 1:9; 3:2-9; Col 1:26-27 Any passage where Paul refers to being saved by grace through faith and apart from the works of the Law, like Rom 3:21,28; 4:4-6; 10:4; 11:6; Gal 2:16; 3:13; Eph 2:8-9; 2 Tim 1:9; Tit 3:5 and also passages that show the Circumcision Believers being shocked that God has began accepting Gentiles by faith in Christ apart from the Law, like Acts 10:14,17,28-29; 11:1-3; 15:1,5. …
No time does Peter preach save through works of the Law, nor does he say without grace. Thats slander, all through Peters Letters he talks about grace and even at the council in Acts15:
11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.
You left that off your citations list. You also forgot to mention the part where the Christian Jews praised God for accepting the Gentiles. Eg Acts11:
17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" 18 When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”

…Paul and his fellow workers would go to the Gentiles and James, Peter and John would go to the Jews. This dividing of groups was a natural fit that would work out the best for all.
What? Work out the best for all? Thats just your nice way of saying good bye 12 Apostles, hello Paul. Anyway, your statement is unfounded.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

… What if James and the rest did not give Paul and his fellow workers “the right hand of fellowship”? What if Paul had “run in vain” (Gal 2:2)? Would Paul then cease preaching the gospel that Christ committed to him? Not at all! Now, had they not been so receptive of Paul’s ministry and message, that would have hurt the success of Paul’s ministry. But, even if Paul did not get the right hand of fellowship from James and the other apostles who “added nothing” to Paul, Paul still would have gone on preaching Christ according to the revelation of the mystery.
Your makind up stuff with no Scripture support. Now you openly admit Paul really was separated from what the other Apostles were preaching and that their work was over. So why did the rest of the Bible get written if James, Jude, Peter, John, etc are nothing? How did you get a hold of personal private letters addressed to individuals like Timothy, Titus, and Philemon? You think the Bible fell from the sky.

If you are intellectually honest, you will admit that it is possible that the Timothy mentioned at the end of Hebrews is different then the one mentioned in Paul’s epistles.
Ha ha, look at this double speak. You just said I was intellectually dishonest for not being open to the fact it might NOT be the same Timothy. Look at yourself, you are NOT open to the fact Hebrews MIGHT have been written by Paul (and therfore Timothy is even more likely to be the one Paul wrote to).

So what!? A dude named Jesus who was also called Justus was a Jewish member of the Body of Christ. That doesn’t contradict my view in any way. .
Your biggest problem is that there are some Jews holding to an outdated Gospel and some holding to the current Gospel, yet this is never mentioned and no attempt is made to help them.

It is not necessary to suppose that Paul had written any epistles addressed specifically, and by name, to the persons to whom Peter wrote. It is rather to be supposed that the persons to whom Peter wrote (1 Peter 1:1) lived in the regions to which some of Paul’s epistles were addressed, and that they might be regarded as addressed to them. The epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians were of this description, all addressed to churches in Asia Minor, and all, therefore, having reference to the same people to whom Peter addressed his epistles.

** And keep in mind, that Peter and Paul wrote about similar topics and doctrines that they had in common.** They could make use of the majority of Paul’s writings just as we can make use of the majority of the teaching found in the Circumcision Epistles (Hebrews - Revelation) while making distinctions between the things that differ between the two gospels.
Lord have mercy! What kind of crazy talk is this? One second you say there was not 2 Gospels going at the same time, now you cite Peter and Paul writing to different members of the same local churches different instructions on different Gospels. Your position is a bunch of twists and tangles.
This is pure pure crazy. They teach the same stuff, they dont teach the same stuff, they address the same people, they dont address the same people, there is one Gospel, there is more than one Gospel.

Im begging you to think logically about your position. Its unheard of in history and illogical. Go to any protestant church and get Baptized if you havnt already, I beg you.

Im tired!

 

[dennisknapp]

Matt16_18:

In your theology, even God is subject to something that is greater than he is – God is subject to time. Your God is not omniscient, he something like a very good bookie that knows the odds on a given situation.

You need to start another thread if you want to continue to discuss this, because this has nothing to do with the God of Calvinism (nor the God of Christians, for that matter).

AMEN!

Start a new thread.

Peace

 

[Pax]

…continued
…
…
The Circumcision Believers are part of Israel’s prophesied kingdom. Those in the Body are not. In fact, the Body of Christ was never prophesied or written of in the Old Testament or the Gospels. It was a secret hidden in God until it was revealed to Paul no earlier than Acts 9. Paul says twice in Eph 3, so that you don’t miss this important fact, that this present dispensation of the grace of God (Eph 3:2) was a mystery or secret until God revelaed it to him.
…

In Chapter 17 of John’s gospel Jesus prayers for unity among the apostles. He then prays for unity of all future believers that come to faith through their word. The unity is to be the same as that which Jesus shares with the father. This is a beautiful set of passages that really is addressing the body of Christ which is made up of all believers. There is no distinction between Jew or gentile.

 

[Pax]

Please forgive my slip in grammar and rhetoric. The first sentence of my last post should read: In Chapter 17 of John’s gospel Jesus prays for unity among the apostles.

I guess it’s just another mental lapse in my old age

 

[TheOpenTheist]

matt16_18 said

In your theology, even God is subject to something that is greater than he is – God is subject to time. Your God is not omniscient, he something like a very good bookie that knows the odds on a given situation.

First of all, time is not an “thing”. Its not an entity. If anything exists then it experiences some amount of duration. Otherwise, it cannot be said to have existed at all. Since God has always existed, God has always experienced duration. God has been in a loving relationship that exists between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If God has always existed (which he has) then there has always been “time” or sequence. Time just expresses God’s enduring reality. Its not something that has power over anything or anyone. There is no power exercised by the non-entity which we call “time”.

And I’d rather worship a God who is more like a bookie than your god who is a prisoner to His knowledge of future events and unable to change anything that He knows will occur, ever. Your view of God has God subject to His unchanging knowledge, making God into some sort of a demiurge.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Catholic Dude said

Stay in context sir:10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people…12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The “first is obsolete”, right here your argument fails. No greater proof.

The passage very simply says that God “treats the first as obsolete”. The very next sentence says that the first covenant is “becoming obsolete and growing old” and is “ready to vanish”. At the time Hebrews was written the first covenant was not yet completely obsolete and had not yet vanished away. If it were then the statements in Heb 8:13b would be false. Don’t say more than the text clearly says here, which is that the first covenant is becoming obsolete.

you said

The old one was fulfilled, not failed. If the old one failed then God lied.

I never said that God failed concerning the covenant. If you look at what I said you will clearly see that Israel failed to keep their part of the covenant.

you asked

Which one [covenant]? You seem to say the first one that Jesus established in the flesh failed. Christains, both Protestant and Catholic never believed such thing, to them there was always one new covenant.

I never claimed that the New Covenant failed. God always keeps His end of the deal. The majority of Israel, who the New Covenant was for according to what God tells us about it in the Bible, did not even begin to enter into the New Covenant since they rejected Christ in early Acts. Those Circumcision Believers who did enter into the New Covenant through accepting Christ at the preaching of Peter in early Acts were responsible for doing what God required of them in order to eventually enter into eternal life. Their salvation was not secure like ours is, we being sealed with the Holy Spirit until the Day of Redemption. Those Circumcision Believers who sinned willfully, for example, ended up being worse off then they were before they ever came to faith. Those who “fell away” or committed a “sin unto death” had only Hell to look forward to.

you said

I dont agree thats what that passage [Heb 6:4-6] means. For one it says if the commit “apostacy”. And goes on to make a metaphor for those who hear the word are like land receiving water, if they bring forth good fruit then they do good, if they bring forth thorns then they failed to change their ways. This is also talking about NT teachings, not the LAW.

None of what you said contradicted anything that I said about Heb 6:4-6. Are you somehow implying that Heb 6:4-6 does not tell us that those who became apostate were unable to be forgiven for that sin? Here is Heb 6:4-6 for everyone to read again. It clearly says that “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance”.

For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put [Him] to an open shame.

Could that passage be any clearer than it is?

And as for this Hebrews referring to New testament teachings, you must be unaware that Jesus taught the Mosaic Law during His earthly ministry (Matt 5:17-20). The New Testament teachings of Jesus during His earthly ministry are the Mosaic Law! Christ added one new law for His desciples to obey. Just one added to the Mosaic Law, which Christ gave to Moses (John 15:12).

you asserted

If you read the context Jesus is the sacrifice they are talking about. So your assertion that this is a OT sacrifice is unfounded.

I never said any such thing! I never anywhere claimed that any sacrifice done in the temple could take away the Circumcision Believers sins. I read the entire chapter of Heb 10 and am very much aware that the sacrifice referred to there is Christ’s sacrifice. I am not anywhere close to being biblically illiterate as your claim implies. I have demonstrated so far that I am much more biblically literate than yourself as anyone reading this conversation will attest.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you claimed

You made this up by a combination of two separate verses from two separate chapters, “sin willfully” and “cant be pardoned”.

Heb 6:4-6 and Heb 10:26-27 are both referring to the exact same thing!! Once the Circumcision Believers had “fell away” or “sinned willfully”, then there is no way that they can be forgiven. Here is what the author of Hebrews writes

Hebrews 10:26-27 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

This is not the made up Catholic doctrine of mortal sin, which says that some sins will result in your going to Hell unless you confess your mortal sin to a priest through the rite of confession. These passages tell us that there is nothing that these former Circumcision Believers can do to receive repentance and rejoin the community they were once a part of. These passages are absolutely unambiguous. If you do not recogniz that these passages mean what they say, then what do you think they are saying other than the obvious meaning taken from the text?

you claimed

Unfounded and out of context again. For one keep reading into Heb14. It is very clear that the Law is no more. No Jew would read this letter and believe in Jesus and keep doing the rules and regulaions of the Law.

I never said that the Circumcision Believers were expected to follow the sacrificial laws that were done in the temple or any of the laws concerning atonement, since all of those sacrifices and ordinances foreshadowed Christ’s sacrifice. Many passages declare, however, that they still rightly required circumcision and abstaining from certain foods that were regarded as unclean. Thats why the gospel that Peter preached is referred to as The Gospel of the Circumcision - because it requires circumcision of the flesh and obedience to much of the law.

The author of Hebrews is writing about the sacrifical laws of the first covenant because the temple is about to be destroyed and will show them all that God no longer wants anything to do with sacrifices presented in any temple. This also includes any church building (including your catholic church or any other catholic church) or alleged holy container.

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, [which are] copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

you said

About James2 read verse1. The stuff about them being judged under the Law is way out of context, it is clearly saying nobody can be justified by the Law,

You need to read more of James if you think that since James says that the Circumcision Believers were justified by works along with their faith. Works are required in order for these Circumcision Believers to be justified.

James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

you said

it says “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” It is clear that he is saying the old way doesnt work.

No, it is not at all “clear” that he is saying that. In fact, it is highly unlikely that he is saying that given the context of this verse (Jam 1:25; 2:12,24). All that James is pointing out here is the fact that if you break one law, then you have broken the entire law since breaking one law makes you a sinner worthy of God’s wrath. Nowhere does James say that his audience, the Circumcision Believers (Diaspora Jews in this specific case), are to not be concerned about keeping the Law. If he had said that then he would be contradicting what Christ commanded him and the Circumcision Believers to do, which is to keep the law and not break or teach anyone to break one of the least of the commandments (Matt 5:17-20).

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Catholic Dude claimed

This is totally illogical.

What I am saying is not at all illogical. And you have yet to show one instance of me saying anything illogical thus far. When you have actually demonstrated that I have set forth any idea or the like that is illogical then you will be able to claim such a thing. Just saying that my view is illogical does not make it so.

you asserted

He didnt oppose a totally different Gospel that Paul was teaching? How did he accept Paul in the first place?

Wow! Is this a serious question? After having read through all that I have posted you still don’t understand how Peter came to accept Paul’s message and ministry? This is astounding! Here is how God helped Peter to accept the ministry and message that He gave to Paul

1. 
   *]God showed Peter that He was NOW accepting Gentiles by faith without requiring them to do the works of the law in Acts 10
   *]The Holy Spirit oversaw the entire transition from Peter’s ministry to Israel which required circumcision to Paul’s ministry to all people (Jew and Gentile) which did not require circumcision (Acts 15:28).
   *]Paul wisely met with Peter privately to communicate the gospel committed to him (Gal 1:18; 2:2), because he knew that Peter would listen and not try to throw him out or regard him as a filthy sinner for associating with “unclean” Gentiles.
   
   you said
   

   So what are you saying? Sofar what I see is you invalidating everyword that Peter has said and making Pauls words the only words.

   The preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery does not “invalidate” everything that Peter thought, said and wrote. Just some things, like requiring circumcision and abstaining from unclean animals to be accepted by God. There are a few other things as well. I will list the similarities and differences between the two gospels very soon.
   
   you said
   

   Ok, wait, I get it, they DID preach different gospels, just not at the same time.

   Thats correct.
   

   Unfounded.

   That is incorrect. Rom 16:25; Gal 1:8-9;2:7-8; Eph 3:2-9; Col 1:26-27 and many other passages make an extremely secure foundation that supports my view.
   
   you said
   

   Why is he [Paul] not worried [about the salvation of the Circumcision Believers]? Maybe because there was nothing to worry about.

   In a sense, that is correct. Since Paul did not preach the Gospel of the Circumcision and have a part in their conversion, he is not accountable to them at all. There is nothing for him, personally, to worry about. Their obtaining salvation is in their hands, not Paul’s or even Peter’s. They have perfect knowledge of God’s law and are to obey the commands they were given.
   
   Even though Paul ought not to be concerned with the salvation or the Circumcision Believers, I found out recently that the Jews that Paul addresses in Rom 2 might possibly be of the Circumcision Believers in Rome who are still having a hard time understanding his gospel and message. James D. G. Dunn alluded to something very much like this in his commentary on Romans 9-16. I can definitely see a Circumcision Believer say of Paul’s gospel of grace “Let us do evil that good may come.” (Rom 3:8).
   
   you said
   

   However Paul always talks about the Jews who never came to Christ as people he prays for their conversion everyday.

   Yes, Paul prays for and desperately wants the remaining mass of unrepentant Jews to know Christ and become members of Christ’s Body. Did you have a point here?
   
   you said
   

   Interesting, you just said Paul is not concerned about the salvation of the “Circumcision Believers” but then say Paul is concerned with the correct salvation of these non believing Jews?
   
   That is not interesting at all dude. The Circumcision Believers are not “nonbelieving Jews”, or Jews that reject Christ.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Catholic Dude claimed

You misread that passage [Acts 5:1-6]. Its about a conspired lie, not about how much they did or didnt give. They could keep as much as they wanted (v4-5).

They lied in order that they could keep part of the profit that came from selling his land. Just because they lied in order to attempt to withhold some of the profit from the group there in Jerusalem, does not mean that he “could keep as much as he wanted”. We know this because Jesus commands His followers to sell EVERYTHING

Matthew 13:44 " Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.

you said

About God punishing people for doing evil, you should read what Paul had to say which was much much more serious 1Cor11

There is no punishiment like this in the whole NT. Sickness and Death for many…this was Paul talking.

It may be the case that God supernaturally brings about sickness and death to those who come to the Lord’s Supper and do not act as they should when coming together as Christ’s Body. It still does not diminish the fact that the Circumcision Believers were required to sell everything and come follow Christ as the above passages declare.

you said

Cross-dispensational truth? What constitutes a c-d truth? And why is it not ok to do those things you mentioned, they are part of the 10 Commandments, which are OT.

You really don’t understand why these are cross-dispensational truths? You gotta be kidding! I will suffer you a bit longer and explain.

Morality does not change. Its always wrong to break any of the 10 commandments.

you asked

Where does this distinction in “body of Christ” come from then?

Paul alone refers to the Body of Christ and makes use of it as an analogy. The Body of Christ was a mystery hidden in God until it was revealed to Paul. Since it was first revealed to Paul, it could not have been revealed until Acts 9 or some time shortly thereafter. There are important doctrinal differences for the Body of Christ compared to every other church or congregation or group of believers mentioned in the Bible.

you asked

And why did Paul not turn around and preach to those who held to the “gospel of circumcision”?

The reason why Paul did not preach to those who believed the Gospel of the Circumcision before Christ gave him his message and ministry is because of one simple principle that Paul mentions in Romans 11

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God [are] irrevocable.

I do not get the impression anywhere that the Circumcision Believers were “graced in” at some later point and became members of the Body of Christ. Had they been, then why would the author of Hebrews, Peter and John write to them that it was possible for them to fall away and become unable to be forgiven (Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-27; 2 Pet 2:20; 1 John 5:16)? This is contrary to the “house rules of the grace of God” given to Paul (Eph 3:2) in which those who believe the gospel are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body (1 Cor 12:13) and are sealed with the Holy Spirit until the Day of Redemption (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:14; 4:30). This is just one difference between the Body and the Circumcision Believers that gives me the impression that those who Peter preached to and converted did not become members of the Body of Christ later on either automatically or through Paul’s ministry.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Catholic Dude said

No Paul also recognized a difference in these groups and preached men were head of the house and slaves were still subject to their masters. In both the OT and NT people are not to be mistreated as well.

When it comes to salvation, becoming a member of Christ’s Body, there is NO DIFFERENCE between Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female. This concerns salvation of being accepted by God. This does not refer to the relationships between husband and wife, master and slave, Jew and Greek.

you said

Im not sure how to answer you. When was the wall knocked down? When Christ died on the cross (and the curtain ripped in half)? That seems right, but you seem to be saying there was a different time it was knocked down, sometime past Acts 8?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. When Christ died, or rose, or ascended is not when the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile was knocked down. Otherwise, Christ would have taught Peter and the others the lesson He did in Acts 10 prior to sending them off to convert the nation of Israel (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 1:8), which Christ hoped would result in Israel bearing the fruit of repentance (Luke 13:9) so that He could return very soon in the apostles lifetime (Matt 10:23; Matt 16:28). Since Israel did not repent, God cut down Israel or cut them off probably at the end of Acts 7 where it mentions Christ standing in judgment over Israel.

Whatever the case of the exact timing of Israel’s being cut off, we know that when Israel fell, the Gentiles benefited. In other words, when Israel fell, the Body of Christ came into existence as the following passage tells us

Romans 11:11-12 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation [has come] to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall [is] riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

you said

It says right there [somewhere in Eph 2] it was foretold.

Man, you need to pay closer attention to what you are reading, because the word foretold is not to be found in Eph 2. Neither is any word that means anything similar to the word “foretold”. And if it had said that there in Eph 2 then it would be contradictiing what follows immediately in Eph 3, which tells us that the mystery concerning the Body of Christ was a mystery and hidden in God until it was revealed to Paul as do many other passages (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:6-7; Eph 1:9; Col 1:26).

you said

Just because it was foretold doesnt mean people understood what was said or that that time had come.

The Body of Christ is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Search all you want, you won’t find anything describing the Body of Christ where the difference between Jew and Gentile have no bearing on a person’s relationship with God.

you claimed

By mystery that just means no human knew the time,

No, that is not what the Greek word musterion means. The word, as it is used often in Paul’s writings, refers to God’s secret purpose or counsel. The word breaks down into two words that mean shut and mouth. Literally to shut the mouth, which results in the information or knowledge not being communicated. There is actual content to what God keeps secret. Nowhere did God tell an Old Testament prophet “I am going to build something I call the Body of Christ where there is no difference between Jew and Gentile sometime. I just can’t tell you when.”

you said

that doesnt mean that a OT prophet didnt make some kind of reference.

Yes, that is precisely what it means. God never said a word about the Body of Christ from creation all the way to raising up Paul.

you claimed

eg paul says in Romans “Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,” quoting from Hosea the OT prophet.

This passage, along with every other Old Testament passage about the Gentiles relationship to a future redeemed Israel, has nothing in mind that is like the Body of Christ. According to Old Testament prophecy, the Gentiles benefit from Israel’s rise, not Israel’s fall (Rom 11:11-12). And according to prophecy, the Gentiles remain Gentiles and the Jews remain Jews who keep the law perfectly. There is a real difference between Jews and Gentiles according to the prophetic outline.

Remembering the following will help:

PROPHECY and MYSTERY are OPPOSITES

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you said

Now [concerning the apostles and prophets that Paul refers to in Eph 2:20] your just grasping for straws. Changing definitions and words around.

It is no grasp. And I did not change any definitions or words at all. I have the passage I am commenting on right above me, for crying out loud! And you, who have also read Eph 2 (though not carefully), erroneously claim that Paul says within the chapter that the Body of Christ is “foretold”. Admit that you are in error or show me where in Eph 2 Paul says the Body is foretold.

you claimed, without giving any evidence to back up your claim

The Apostles were the same 12, there was no separate ones who were just working with Paul.

You don’t know that to be so at all. You lack the humility to admit what you do not know for certain, which will make it hard to ever experience correction. The fact is, there were other apostles besides The Twelve and Paul mentioned in the New Testament. If you knew what the Bible said better you would know this fact.

One of the most explicit references is to Barnabas. He was an Apostle that ministered with Paul

Acts 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this

So, it is conceivable that Paul refers specificly to the apostles and prophets that were a part of his ministry. But even if James, John and Peter were among the apostles that Paul mentions here in Eph 2:20, that does not mean that The Twelve preached Christ according to the revelation of the mystery as Paul did. This is because the foundation had Christ as the cornerstone, and the reality of Christ crucified and as Savior is present among both Peter’s and Paul’s gospel.

you asked

Why are there so many different types of dispensationalists? Acts8, Acts15, Acts28? I dont think there should be such confusion like that.

There are no Acts 8 people. There are Acts 9, Acts 13, Acts 15 and Acts 28. The differences are very minor, except for the differences between the Acts 28 view and the other views. The Acts 28 view says that there were 2 Body if Christ’s and that the only Scripture addressed to us are Paul’s prison epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy) Each view comes to the same general conclusion about the Body of Christ.

you claim yet again without providing any evidence

You make a distinction of kingdom and body which has no support.

No, it has a lot of support. Primarily the fact that prophecy and mystery are opposites. The fact that the Body of Christ could not have begun until God revealed to someone that He was building it. And the fact that there are some very significant differences between the gospels that Peter and Paul preached.

you said

Israel’s prophesied messiah was Jesus though many though the messiah was a war lord type ruler.

Yes, and that is important, since many of these people were Pharisees who had to study Scripture for 40 years before becoming a Pharisee. They knew their Bible well they thought, just as the church fathers you so adore also thought after many years of study.

you said

Not to mention is Eph5 it says:
5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom

of Christ and of God.

Paul is talking to gentiles here. He says grave sins can cause you to not be part of the Kingdom.

You greatly misunderstand what Paul is saying in these passages. He is not saying that if a member of the Body of Christ commits fornication or covets a neighbor’s car or the like that they will go to Hell or not inherit the kingdom. Once a member of Christ’s Body, we are not identified as sinners anymore, including those types of sins. 1 Cor 6:11 shows this after Paul lists a much more extensive list of sins in verses 9 and 10

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were

some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Nothing, including future sinful acts, can separate us from the love of Christ (Rom 8:35-39). Members of the Body are sealed by the Spirit until the Day of Redemption (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:14).

you said

Not to mention that Col4:11 passage where the Kingdom is mentioned again. Paul mentions the Kingdom all the time.

So what? The difference between the kingdom for Israel and the kingdom for the Body is that Israel’s is earthly (Is 19:23-25 Is 14:1-3 Is 60:1-6 Joel 3:1 Is 2:1-3 Ro 11:24-26 Zech 8:3-23 14:16-19 Gen 17:8 2Sam 7:16 Is 9:6-7 Jer 23:5,6 Ps 25:13 37:9-12 Ez 37:21-22 Ps 101:8 Ez 47:13-48:35 Dan 2:35,44 7:14 Heb 4:1-11 (cf. Ps 95:1-11)) and the Body’s is heavenly (Eph 1:18 2 Co 12:1ff Eph 1:3 2:6; Phil 3:20).

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Catholic Dude said

It doesnt say “Body” in that passage, it says “Kingdom”.

So what? The word kingdom simply refers here to those that God has authority over. A kingdom is the territory subject to the rule of a king. In this case, it is the Body of Christ, or “the church which is His Body”.

you said

Not to mention your problem again of, why did Paul ignore the Jews who were not holding to the new Gospel? That doesnt make sense, he should have written at least one letter to them.

Paul is never shown writing to unbelievers of any sort, whether Jew or Gentile. He is much more effective preaching to the lost in person. Once a congregation has been established, then Paul will send them a letter to instruct and correct.

you said

[Concerning my explanation why God sent Peter to gentiles in Acts 10] Again, totally unfounded, grasping for straws. And no Scripture support.

I did not cite any passages because I thought that it was completely obvious why God sent Peter to Cornelius’ house. If God did not send peter to Cornelius’ house for the sake of making the transition from saving the world through the nation of Israel to saving the world through Paul’s ministry, then what other reason could God have had for sending Peter to a Gentile’s house?

And here is your evidence that shows that God sent Peter there in order to help him and the others in Jerusalem to understand the change that was going on.

Acts 10:13-16,28 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” 15 And a voice [spoke] to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”** 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. 28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Acts 11:1-3 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, "You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!"

These passages show the shock and surprise that Peter and those in Jerusalem experienced when they had heard that Gentiles were no longer unclean and were being accepted by God without becoming Jews.

If you want to see what response a group of Jewish people have when they hear this sort of talk without being prepared by God for it, all you need to do is read the account found in Acts 22:21-22

Acts 22:21-22 "Then He said to me, ‘Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.’ " 22 And they listened to him until this word, and [then] they raised their voices and said, "Away with such a [fellow] from the earth, for he is not fit to live!"

Paul talks about Baptism in many places, egRm6:4, 1Cor1, Acts16, etc. And Titus3:5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration

and renewal in the Holy Spirit.

None of these references to baptism concern water in any way. Water baptism is clearly a work and evidence from Num 19 and Ezek 36 show that it is a “work of the law”. In Tit 3:5 Paul excludes the work of water baptism immediately prior to using the term baptism. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done (including the work of water baptism), but by his mercy”. And the Holy Spirit is what washes over us and makes us clean. That is what the “washing of regeneration” is referring to. Water baptism is nowehere in the context and is excluded within the same passage. You just see the word washing and immediately assume that it must be referring to water as the washing agent. It isn’t. The regeneration brought about by the Holy Spirit is what does the washing, not water.

you claimed

That is exactly what Baptism is.

No. Water baptism doesn’t help anyone to become regenerate today. Holy Spirit baptism does (1 Cor 12:13).

you claimed

Paul never says Bapism has nothing to do with water

He doesn’t need to since he has so many times indicated that it is the Holy Spirit that baptizes those in the Body. There is no justification for throwing in water baptism in places where Paul mentions baptism.

you said

Paul even Baptized people in 1Cor and Acts16 with water.

Yes, and he thanked God that he water baptized so few people, since he proclaimed “Christ did NOT send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” Paul preached a gospel that did not include water baptism as a part of it.**

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you claimed

No time does Peter preach save through works of the Law

Water baptism is clearly a work of the law and Peter does write that water baptism saves the Circumcision Believers

1 Peter 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us – baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

you claimed

nor does he say without grace.

I never claimed that anyone was saved apart from God’s grace. You only accuse me of believing such balogney because you so desperately want to discredit me and write me off as some sort of nut. Such attempts only demonstrate your lack of thought used to deal with my views honestly.

you claimed

Thats slander, all through Peters Letters he talks about grace and even at the council in Acts15

Again, I love to disappoint you here, and I will gladly keep on disappointing you by maintaining what I always have - that no one was ever saved apart from God’s grace.

you said

11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will. You left that off your citations list.

Thats because no one can be saved apart from God’s grace you dork. I never asserted that anyone can be saved without God’s grace.

you said

You also forgot to mention the part where the Christian Jews praised God for accepting the Gentiles. Eg Acts11:17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" 18 When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”

Are they supposed to be mad or angry that God is accepting Gentiles?? This passage greatly supports my view by showing that well after Acts 9 those in Jerusalem are concluding that “God has granted repentance unto life” to the Gentiles. If the Body of Christ had started at the beginning of Acts then they would have known that then. The reason why they are having this discussion as late as Acts 15 is because God revealed the mystery to Paul no earlier than Acts 9.

I gotta quote myself here for this next one. I said the following

Paul and his fellow workers would go to the Gentiles and James, Peter and John would go to the Jews. This dividing of groups was a natural fit that would work out the best for all.

you responded with this weak, juvenile response

What? Work out the best for all? Thats just your nice way of saying good bye 12 Apostles, hello Paul. Anyway, your statement is unfounded.

Well, Acts pretty much does a great job of saying “goodbye 12 apostles, hello Paul” with Peter and the gang fading out and Paul dominating the last 2/3 of Acts.

And no, it is not at all unfounded that the arrangement they agreed upon worked out the best for all. If you think through things a bit you’ll see why the arrangement they agreed upon was the best for all and would result in the best results.

Paul went to the Gentiles and presented himself to them as Paul instead if his original Jewish name, Saul. Paul did not have a reputation of following Jesus AND keeping the Law among the Jews. He was just a zealous Jew, who did not follow Jesus until Acts 9.

On the other hand, The Twelve, Peter, James and John especially DID have a reputation among the Jews in Judea and even beyond that area since Pentecost occured during the feast days at the time when dispersed Jews were visiting Jerusalem. Had James, Cephas and John changed their message to that of Paul’s and gone to the Gentiles after having attempted to win over Israel through faith in Christ and keeping the law, then no Jew would take them seriously.

So, I believe that James, Cephas and John going to the Jews was a great fit because they could go to them and preach Christ, the same as Paul did for the most part, and not have to convince those Jews that they did not need to obey the Mosaic Law since they were already following it. They could still follow the law as long as they did not do it as a means of being justified by works (as James says the Circumcision Believers do in Jam 2:24).

And again, I maintain that James, Cephas and John’s most helpful service was not in preaching the gospel committed to Paul, but in explaining to those Jews who heard Paul’s gospel that what Paul was preaching was from God and that the Gentiles were not to be encouraged to become circumcised or keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved. In other words, those three were very helpful representatives of Paul to the Jews wherever he was preaching and building the Body of Christ.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Catholic Dude said

Your makind up stuff with no Scripture support.

I have plenty of support. First of all, Paul tells us quite bluntly that hsi ministry and message was given directly by Jesus. No man passed along info or gave him the OK to do what he was doing. Even those who “seemed to be pillars” did not add anything to him. So, had he “run in vain”, which he admitted was a possibility, then he would have adapted to the lack of acceptance by the “pillars” and done the best he could with God’s help. And I am sure that God would have continued to try and reach Peter and the others to help them understand that Paul’s ministry and message was legitimate.

you said

Now you openly admit Paul really was separated from what the other Apostles were preaching and that their work was over.

I never said that the surviving members of The Twelve’s work was over. Only that their ministry changed as a result of God cutting off Israel and starting the Body of Christ. Since they were no longer trying to convert Israel so that the nation could save the world their goal and message had a corresponding change which was compatible with Paul’s message and ministry.

Now, it is very clearly laid out in Galatians that Paul operated his ministry apart from Peter and the rest in Jerusalem. Look at what he tells us and tell me whether or not this shows that he did what he did regardless of what those in Jerusalem thought.

Galatians 1:16-19 …I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those [who were] apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

Galatians 2:1-2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with [me.] 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.

Paul tells us that he did what he did for 3 years before meeting Peter in person. Then he kept on preaching and building the Body before visiting Peter and James the Lord’s brother another 14 years later. So, in 17 years Paul had an extremely brief amount of contact with the leadership of the Circumcision Believers.

you asked

So why did the rest of the Bible get written if James, Jude, Peter, John, etc are nothing?

I never ever said those epistels are “nothing” as you accuse me of. In fact! I said before that we can use and benefit from most of those writings, yet later on in this response of yours you criticize me for affirming that those in the Body can make good use of the majority of what is found in the circumcision epistles. You want to criticize me both ways, just as long as you can get your kicks out of criticizing a guy with a very reasonable and well-defended view.

How did you get a hold of personal private letters addressed to individuals like Timothy, Titus, and Philemon? You think the Bible fell from the sky.

No, I do not believe the Bible fell from the sky. I believe that God preserved and orchestrated the Bible that we have today through the obedience of faithful men. These writings were accepted and read ny the church long before they were varified as being canonical. I do not thank the current catholic church for the Bible. I thank the men who put it together. I will not kiss any catholic’s butt because of their claim that I owe them gratitude for putting together the Bible.

you claimed

Ha ha, look at this double speak. You just said I was intellectually dishonest for not being open to the fact it might NOT be the same Timothy. Look at yourself, you are NOT open to the fact Hebrews MIGHT have been written by Paul (and therfore Timothy is even more likely to be the one Paul wrote to).

No informed person believes that Hebrews could ahve been written by Paul because of several good reasons. The most important of which is the fact that Heb 2:3 contradicts what Paul says in Gal 1.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you claimed

Your biggest problem is that there are some Jews holding to an outdated Gospel and some holding to the current Gospel, yet this is never mentioned and no attempt is made to help them.

Its only a small amount of Jews and it only lasted until the end of their generation. Thats not a problem at all. They believed the Godpel of the Circumcision and obeyed it until their death as they were supposed to.

you blathered

Lord have mercy! What kind of crazy talk is this? One second you say there was not 2 Gospels going at the same time, now you cite Peter and Paul writing to different members of the same local churches different instructions on different Gospels. Your position is a bunch of twists and tangles.

You did not pay attention to my response, but I understand why since you are so intent with charging me with error instead of finding out the truth. What I said was, since Paul and Peter both wrote to converts who lived in the same areas, each others writings would easily get into the hands of the other. For example, a circumcision believer who read Paul’s epistle to the Galatians would testify that what Paul wrote in Galatians was indeed hard to understand. I have never said that Paul specificly addressed the Circumcision Believers and I have also consistently said that Peter and the others never specificly addressed their writings to the Body of Christ.

you claimed without giving any evidence to support your claim

This is pure pure crazy. They teach the same stuff, they dont teach the same stuff, they address the same people, they dont address the same people, there is one Gospel, there is more than one Gospel.

As I have said over and over again, there are many similarities between the two gospels. That are some differences as well. Where they share similarities both groups can benefit from reading each others epistles. This is not a hard concept to understand, unless you believe that those in the Body kept their letters in safes making it available for only those in the body to read or some strange secrecy like that. The Body did not practice such secrecy, so their sharing their letters with many makes perfect sense.

you said

Im begging you to think logically about your position.

I have. Further I have defended my position successful againt you and others criticisms. All who read these disussions will conclude that I am the one who demonstrates the most logic in my responses.

you claimed

Its unheard of in history and illogical.

Its not in any way illogical to those who are informed. Its not unheard of because Paul taught this view as I have demonstrated.

you demanded

Go to any protestant church and get Baptized if you havnt already, I beg you.

I already took a shower this morning. No need to take one in a church since they cannot provide more of the Holy Spirit in my life through their plumbing system. I am already COMPLETE IN HIM (Col 2:10) and have no need to do anything else other than trust in Him in order to have all the grace I need.

Im tired!

You would be

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Pax:

In Chapter 17 of John’s gospel Jesus prayers for unity among the apostles. He then prays for unity of all future believers that come to faith through their word. The unity is to be the same as that which Jesus shares with the father. This is a beautiful set of passages that really is addressing the body of Christ which is made up of all believers. There is no distinction between Jew or gentile.

When you see the world all in a sentence in the Bible you cannot determine who the all is referring to through what you desire it to mean alone. That is what you did here.

As any careful student of the Bible will explain to you concerning this passage in John 17, the ununified parties that Jesus prays will become unified are

1. 
   *]Judah
   *]Israel
   
   In Jesus’ time you basicly have Israel and Samaria. Christ gave His desciples a plan to convert Israel eventually after converting Jerusalem and Judea. And Jesus’ well-known statement to the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 shows that God had the uniting of Israel with Samaria in His plans.
   
   If you know your Old Testament then you know that there is a prophecy that appears which concerns the divided nation of Israel coming together in the future. Its the prophecy about the two sticks that Mormons always use as evidence that one of the sticks refers to the people in America that Jesus visited and the Book of Mormon. Blech!
   
   Jesus never mentions the Body of Christ during His earthly ministry. We know this because we are told that the Body was a mystery hidden in God before the world began (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:4-9; Col 1:26). So, Jesus cannot be referring to those in the body of Christ no matter how much you want Him to be referring to the Body. Prophecy and mystery are opposites.
   
   Now, Paul does pray that we all be unified and grow into the perfect Man, that the Body of Christ is to become. This is a more detailed explanation of how the Body is to reach maturity.
   
   Ephesians 4:11-16 And He Himself gave some [to be] apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head – Christ – 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.