Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[Church_Militant]

Originally Posted by Church Militant

The church. (Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus

sandusky:

Oh please. You’re twisting the passage to suit your interpretation.

Not so…Who does the verse say the message is addressed to?
It’s real simple…what does the verse say Sandusky?

holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation

That means these are believers…the church.
Pax tecum,

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

We’ve covered this a few times. Foreknown and predestined from Romans referred to the Israelites alone. That is a fact. You have chosen to extend the meaning of this verse to include all of the saved. I still haven’t been convinced of the validity of your reasons for doing so.

Yes we have covered this a few times. The foreknown and predestined of Rom 8 are not the Israelites alone; they are all of the elect.

Philthy:

And what, exactly, is God’s purpose? Is his “purpose” separate from his “wishes” or his “will”? I don’t think so - you must, however. Once again, if God is omniscient and omnipotent why would his “purpose”, his will and his wishes not all be the same thing? Tough question I know -this is the third I have asked you to answer it.

God’s purpose is to save those whom He has foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified in Rom 8. God’s wish for all men to be saved is not His purpose, which is to save those He has foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified.

Philthy:

Surely you jest - but I will comply with your “question”. Here is my paraphrase of 1Cor 10:25-27:
Athletes exercise discipline to win a perishable crown(the race), but we excercise it to win an imperishable crown (ie, eternal life). Therefore, I (Paul) do not run aimlessly nor do shadowbox. Rather, I drive my body and train myself (towards the eventual goal of winning the imperishable crown) because I fear that otherwise I might be disqualified(ie was qualified and has become disqualified) from winning the imperishable crown of eternal life.

I do not jest. The verses are actually in Chapter 9, which begins, “Am I not an apostle?”. The issue of disqualification has nothing to do with losing an imperishable crown. Notice in v26, Paul runs with “certainty,” and what he is talking about being disqualified from is “preaching” the gospel in v27. The verse is not about losing salvation, as Paul knows full well that the elect, of which he is a member, cannot lose their salvation. Again, the chapter is not about salvation, but Paul’s authority as an apostle.

Philthy:

Also, 1Cor10:12-13 “Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. No trial has come to you except what is human; God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out so that you may be able to bear it.”

One cannot lose his salvation, as is said, “God is faithful, and will not let you be tried beyond your strength.” Very clear. The elect cannot lose their salvation, because God is faithful.

Philthy:

Unfortunately the solution to the above dilemma within the confines of Calvinism has nothing to do with my personal beliefs.

That is the crux of the problem. That is why none of my answers make sense to you. You are Catholic; I am not.

Philthy believe what you will about God. In fact, God more than, “wishes,” all men to come to repentance, He has commanded that they should (Acts 17:30). If they don’t, they go down in flames.

Philthy:

Question B is: How can an omniscient,omnipotent God can wish something but not will it(or not effect it).

You are confusing an expressed desire of God, with a determined decree.

Philthy:

Question C is: How can God wish all men to come to repentance- yet predestine some for unrepentance- and still remain omniscient, omnipotent and righteous?

Again, God does more than wish for all men to come to repentance, He as commanded that they should.

This is the fifth time I have answered your questions, it is also the last time.

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

Not so…Who does the verse say the message is addressed to?
It’s real simple…what does the verse say Sandusky?
That means these are believers…the church.

It’s always real simple for you and yours. Run to the catechism, or to some website with canned answers. Your apologetic in action.

Do some work, man; do some work. There are not only believers being addressed here. There are three distinct groups being addressed in this epistle. Who are they?

 

[migurl]

Catholics do not rely on a handful of Bible passages to uphold our faith. We don’t remove books or add made up books, we take it how God have it to us, every word because, even though we may not like it, it is the Word of God. So tell me Sandusky, why is that certain books were removed (and don’t tell me that its because there isn’t a Hebrew translation, because #1 that doesn’t provide enough reason and most have them anyways) and why is that you rely on things like Rom 8 so much?

 

[cynic]

sandusky:

Do some work, man; do some work. There are not only believers being addressed here. There are three distinct groups being addressed in this epistle. Who are they?

maybe you’ve answered this before, but what is the point of preaching to those who are predestined to hell? Why would they be addressed at all? (assuming predestination…)

I also can’t undertand how you would live your everyday life, Go to work etc. believing what you do that there are those (the majority of whom you’ll see) who are destined for hell and there’s nothing that can change that. The walking dead.

 

[Pax]

TheOpenTheist,

The article you referenced in no way proves your assertion that the book of Hebrews was written by Peter. The author of the article is more concerned with proving that Paul did not write Hebrews. Your statements that I took exception to are based, at least in part, on your contention that Peter wrote the epistle. The fact is that there is no certainty as to who wrote it and no respected commentary makes the exclusive claim that Peter wrote the epistle. Moreover, your reference is the first that I have seen that suggests that Peter authored it. I find this contention to be at best a minority assertion if not a unique one, or at least unique to dispensationalists.

You have further asserted that I somehow believe that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. I have never claimed such a thing and if you read my posts you will notice that I never addressed the authorship until you made the statement concerning Peter. Reading things into statements in this fashion does a disservice to all concerned. You also assume that I am not well read. While I make no claims or comparisons about myself, I find it hard to believe that you would have any clue as to how well read I am based upon my objection concerning your original “unequivocal” assertion that Peter wrote Hebrews.

It “appears” that you believe that Paul never preached the gospel to the Jews. This is simply not true. In Acts 13:14-43 we see where he and Barnabas did that very thing. In these passages it is clear that Paul preached the good news to the Jews and many of them converted. Then later passages show that there were many that did not convert and it is then that Paul went to the Gentiles. This is made quite clear in verses 44-48 where it says “The next sabbath almost the whole city gathered together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy, and contradicted what was spoken by Paul, and reviled him. And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, ‘I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth.’” And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Finally, in verse 51 there is this telling quote in response to the Jews that refused the good news and wished to persecute Paul and Barnabas. It says, “But they shook off the dust from their feet against them, and went to Iconium.” Apparently, some Jews were converted by Paul’s preaching and some were not, and at the same time many gentiles were converted. At Iconium Paul again went to the Synagogue to preach to the Jews. Likewise Peter went to the house of Cornelius, a gentile, and preached the gospel to him and his household. Cornelius became a Christian as well, and all are part of the body of Christ. This kind of thing can be expanded but these examples should be sufficient.

Please note that the gospel of Jesus was established and proclaimed by Jesus, and that this “same” good news was then preached by the apostles. There are no separate gospels for the Jews vs. the gentiles and all of the apostles preached the same gospel of Jesus. Paul tells us this very thing in the following passages:

Eph 4:4-6 “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.”

Galatians 1:6-7
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel–not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

The calling to preach to the Gentiles and the calling to preach to the Jews is not a reference to teaching a different gospel. Each has their gifts and call from God, but the gospel is the same. As I stated before….it makes no difference if you are a Jewish convert, a Hindu convert, or an atheist convert. All of the converts are members of the body of Christ.

It should also be noted that Peter and Paul apparently wrote to the same audiences at least in some overlapping fashion. Please note that in 2 Peter 3:15-16 it says, “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” Your theory about separate gospels simply does stand up to the scriptures or common sense.

 

[Pax]

TheOpenTheist,

You wrote:

Its impossible for the Bible student to not reach this conclusion that Paul is the only one who writes specificly to the Body of Christ. That his gospel and doctrine are what we are to follow.

This is absurd. Most Christians disagree with your position about Paul being the only one that writes specifically to the body of Christ.

You wrote:

The choices between Paul and Peter and the rest are easily decided. Is circumcision required or not required? If you said not required then thats from Paul’s gospel, not Peter’s, James’ or John’s. Are we to abstain from certain foods? If you said no, we can eat anything we like, then that is from Paul’s gospel, the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery (Rom 16:25). Is there one baptism today or more than one baptism? If you said just one then you are going with Paul’s gospel and not Peter’s who wrote of baptisms in Heb 6:2 (more evidence that Paul did not author Hebrews). Do we gain salvation from obeying the Mosaic Law? Or is the righteousness we obtain apart from the Law? If you said apart from the Law, then you are going with Paul.

For your information:

At the council of Jerusalem Peter addresses the issue of circumcision and settles the issue. Circumcision is not required according to Peter.

The issue of abstaining from certain foods is also settled by Peter through God’s revelation to him prior to his meeting with Cornelius.[See Acts Chapter 10]

The issue of more than one baptism is clearly something you misunderstand and erroneously attribute to Peter. Be advised that we discuss more than one baptism as Christians today. In scripture we read about the baptism of John and we read about the baptism instituted by Jesus. Learning and discussing these things doesn’t mean that the letter of the Hebrews is exhorting the listeners to adhere to more than one baptism. You are simply reading way too much into the text.

Peter never suggests that we are saved by practicing the Mosaic Law and never indicates in his letters that his audience should follow it. This line of thinking is simply confusion on your part. Furthermore, even as a Christian Paul did not abandon all of the Jewish practices. We see this clearly in Acts 21:26 where it says, “Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them.” Does this mean that Paul somehow feels that he must follow the Mosaic Law for Salvation? Of course not, and neither did Peter, James, John, or any of the other apostles.

You also wrote:

*See how simple that is! *

I say, “you are simply mistaken.”

 

[Pax]

sandusky:

I’ve gone around with you before Pax, and it is not worth it. There are three separate groups addressed in this epistle, and I am not going to go into detail, because you’ll ignore what I say.

Sandusky,

Please be advised that I have never ignored what you say…that is at least on the threads in which we have been mutual participants. If I have done something to offend you then please bring it to my attention and I’ll make every attempt to remedy my methods and manners.

If you believe that my disagreements with you indicate that I ignore what you say, then you are simply mistaken. I could not disagree and then present a reasoned response without carefully considering what you’ve presented.

Please understand that I am actually impressed with the way you handle yourself. Your positions are generally well articulated, and I would not bother to engage you in discussion if I thought otherwise.

 

[Pax]

sandusky:

It’s always real simple for you and yours. Run to the catechism, or to some website with canned answers. Your apologetic in action.

Do some work, man; do some work. There are not only believers being addressed here. There are three distinct groups being addressed in this epistle. Who are they?

I find this very interesting. Please find one time when I have engaged you with a quote or reference from the catechism. I consider myself one of the “yours” of the “you and yours” that you make reference to. I have always engaged you and almost everyone else on these forums with references from scripture, non-catholic bible commentaries, and the early church fathers.

Now let’s get to the crux of the issue with Hebrews. Please show me from the book itself why you are certain that the author is talking to three different groups. I am eager to learn about this because I simply don’t see it.

 

[Pax]

Please be advised that the last sentence of my post #326 should read: " Your theory about separate gospels simply does not stand up to the scriptures or common sense." Sorry about the typo.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

pax said

The article you referenced in no way proves your assertion that the book of Hebrews was written by Peter. The author of the article is more concerned with proving that Paul did not write Hebrews. Your statements that I took exception to are based, at least in part, on your contention that Peter wrote the epistle. The fact is that there is no certainty as to who wrote it and no respected commentary makes the exclusive claim that Peter wrote the epistle. Moreover, your reference is the first that I have seen that suggests that Peter authored it. I find this contention to be at best a minority assertion if not a unique one, or at least unique to dispensationalists.

Do you really believe that Paul contradicted himself? Tell me, are the following passages contradictions or not and if you beleive they are not EXPLAIN how they are not.

Paul informs us in Galataians that he did not receive his gospel or knowledge of Christ from any man, but directly from Christ

Galatians 1:1,11,12,16 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), 11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood

The author of Hebrews tells us that he had his message confirmed by those who heard of Christ’s salvation during His earthly ministry, which is the opposite of what Paul said in Galatians 1

Hebrews 2:3 How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him.

These statements are not compatible at all. They are contradictions. So, it is clear that Paul could not be the author of Hebrews, based on that fact alone.

you said

You have further asserted that I somehow believe that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. I have never claimed such a thing and if you read my posts you will notice that I never addressed the authorship until you made the statement concerning Peter. Reading things into statements in this fashion does a disservice to all concerned. You also assume that I am not well read. While I make no claims or comparisons about myself, I find it hard to believe that you would have any clue as to how well read I am based upon my objection concerning your original “unequivocal” assertion that Peter wrote Hebrews.

Catholics believe generally, despite the glaring contradiction between Heb 2:3 and Gal 1, that Paul authored Hebrews. I know this from experience and from my research on the matter. So, it is not wrong at all for me to anticipate that you believe that Paul authored Hebrews. The fact that you are so unaware of the scholarship that shows evidence for Peter’s authorship of Hebrews is my basis for claiming that you are not that well-read on the subject of the authorship of Hebrews. A person cannot calim to be well-read on the subject of the authorship of Hebrews and at the same time make claims like “you can’t even establish that Peter wrote this epistle and yours is the first time I have ever heard anyone make such a claim” and “A plain reading of this book denies what you claim. An exegetical study of the book denies what you claim. Every biblical commentary I have ever read denies your claim. There is simply no basis for your conjecture.” I must cone to the conclusion after reading those statements of yours that you are indeed not well-read on this subject.

There is good evidence that Peter did in fact author Hebrews. Read over it again in the link I provided. And if not Peter, then who? James? John? Jude? Which Circumcision Believer authored that epistle in your mind? What problems do you have with the evidence in the article that shows Peter was very likely the author of Hebrews? Where do you think these scholars are wrong and as a result come to the wrong conclusion?

you claimed

It “appears” that you believe that Paul never preached the gospel to the Jews.

Oh yeah? What have I said that gives such an appearance or impression that I believe that Paul never preached the Gospel of the Uncircumcision to the Jews? Where did I say anything that can be extrapolated into the belief that Paul did not ever preach Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, to Jews during his ministry. Do you really think I am ignorant of the passage that says “to the Jew first”? I said NOTHING about whether or not Paul preached his gospel to Jews. All I discussed was who wrote Hebrews, and the evidence shows clearly that it could not have been Paul.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you said

Likewise Peter went to the house of Cornelius, a gentile, and preached the gospel to him and his household. Cornelius became a Christian as well, and all are part of the body of Christ. This kind of thing can be expanded but these examples should be sufficient.

You are damaging your argument by even bringing up Acts 10. Thanks for the help God sent Peter to Cornelius to help them understand that God had cast away Israel (Rom 11:15) and decided to save the world without Israel’s participation. This is not some proof text that shows Peter and the other Circumcision Believers having a ministry to the Gentiles.

First of all, there are some very important details to this story. The first big one is the fact that Peter was in Joppa (Acts 10:5), the same city that Jonah had been at prior to his being sent to Nineveh, a nation of Gentiles (Jon 1:3). God informs us by this connection, this similarity, that He is going to the Gentiles and offering them salvation! The nest big detail is the fact that Peter is extremely hesitan to eat these unclean foods that were laid before him that God told him to eat. Now, if it is not the case that the Circumcision Believers rightly followed the Gospel of the Circumcision which required abstaining from the foods listed in the Mosaic Law, then this account of Peter’s reaction to the unclean food is extremely strange. Had Christ taught His desciples in His 3 year ministry up to His ascension that it was OK to eat these foods, then God could not have made the point He did by commanding Peter to eat these unclean animals. This shows that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision or the revelation of the mystery revealed to Paul is where the doctrine of eating anything you like comes from. The third detail is the great surprise that Peter experienced in this account as well as the astonishment of those Circumcision Believers in Jerusalem. What had occured was clearly not a part of the plan that they had been told to follow in Acts 1:8, since they had not even converted Jerusalem at that time. Had things gone as planned, they would have went to the Gentiles after they had converted Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

you said

Please note that the gospel of Jesus was established and proclaimed by Jesus, and that this “same” good news was then preached by the apostles.

Yes, it was preached by The Twelve and Christ’s desciples in early Acts. The content of this gospel, which you do not seem willing to admit, is not only faith in Christ but also keeping the Mosaic Law including circumcision and the dietary laws. The content of the gospel committed to Paul is different because it does not require that anyone who trusts Christ for salvation become circumcised or abstain from the foods found in the Mosaic Law. How is it that you do not recognize this fact? The entire Body of Christ recognizes that there was a doctrinal change somewhere in the New Testament that made it so circumcision and keeping the dietary laws are no longer required as they were in the past. Why do you not agree with every Catholic priest which recognizes this truth? And if you doubt this, ask the priests you know and they will tell you that we are no longer required to keep the Mosaic Law. Ask your bishop.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you claimed

There are no separate gospels for the Jews vs. the gentiles and all of the apostles preached the same gospel of Jesus.

Paul disagrees

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

There are at least two gospels found in the New Testament and the difference is obvious. One requires circumcision and the other does not.

Paul tells us this very thing in the following passages:

Eph 4:4-6 “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.”

This indeed is the case for the Body of Christ. It was not the case for the Circumcision Believers that the author of Hebrews wrote to

Hebrews 6:2 of the doctrine of baptisms…

It cannot be true at the same time that there is only one baptism and there is at the same time more than one baptism for the Body of Christ. To say that would be to say that A = -A

You gave as a proof text that there is only one gospel in the New testament

Galatians 1:6-7
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel–not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

This is a true statement. There can only be ONE gospel in effect at any moment in history. The gospel of the circumcision was no longer in effect once God cast away Israel and decided to save the world through Paul’s ministry. From that point on (Acts 9 on) the Gospel of the Uncircumcision was in effect. The Judaizers or men from James did not understand well what Paul new, which is that the planned route that Christ gave at the end of the Gospels and in Acts 1 had ceased and God was taking a different route in order to achieve His eternal purpose, the Body of Christ. Galatians is all about the difference between the Gospel of the Uncircumcision and the Gospel of the Circumcision. That no one had to follow the Law in order to be accepted by God. Now it occurs through faith apart from the Law (Rom 3:21; Eph 1:6; 2:8-9).

You said

The calling to preach to the Gentiles and the calling to preach to the Jews is not a reference to teaching a different gospel. Each has their gifts and call from God, but the gospel is the same. As I stated before….it makes no difference if you are a Jewish convert, a Hindu convert, or an atheist convert. All of the converts are members of the body of Christ.

That is true for those who are members of the Body who respond to the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. It is NOT true concerning the Gospel of Circumcision committed to Peter. According to the gospel committed to Peter you MUST follow the Law, including circumcision and the dietary laws. In other words, you had to become a Jew, a member of the nation of Israel.

It should also be noted that Peter and Paul apparently wrote to the same audiences at least in some overlapping fashion. Please note that in 2 Peter 3:15-16 it says, “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

It is true that some of Paul’s Jewish converts who came to faith through his gospel came into contact with other Jews who came to faith through Peter’s gospel and continued to live out their requirement of obedience to the Mosaic Law until they died. Peter makes the above statement for his converts benefit, so that they will not go and cause trouble for Paul and do what the men from James did in Galatians.

Your theory about separate gospels simply does stand up to the scriptures or common sense.

Yes, it does stand up. And I just showed that it did in these posts. Thank you for admitting it finally

Gal 2:7 is the most direct statement that shows us that God committed two different gospels to Peter and Paul, but you have chosen to ignore that passage. And by the way, common sense has nothing to do with what God requires of those who trust Him at any time. Common sense had no part in Noah building the ark, Abraham sacrificing his son or Moses leading Israel through the wilderness for 40 years. That you believe we can decipher God’s will for us by using common sense shows that you were, at the very least, not thinking about how God has dealt with His people throughout history when you typed that statement.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

pax said

TheOpenTheist,

You wrote:

Its impossible for the Bible student to not reach this conclusion that Paul is the only one who writes specificly to the Body of Christ. That his gospel and doctrine are what we are to follow.

This is absurd. Most Christians disagree with your position about Paul being the only one that writes specifically to the body of Christ.

This is true. Most in the Body do not agree with me that Paul is the only person in the Bible that addresses the present-day church, communicating the “house rules” that were given to Paul by God specificly for us (Eph 3:2-9). Despite this reality, practically the entire Body of Christ does agree with my conclusions - that is, that circumcision and obeying the Mosaic Law are NO LONGER REQUIRED by God in order for us to be accepted by Him as was the case throughout the Gospels and the first 9 chapters of Acts. That is why I was able to claim that it is practically impossible for the Bible student to not recognize that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision committed to Paul, with its specific house rules (Eph 3:2), are what we are to follow today. In other words, its easily understood that we are no longer required to follow the Gospel of the Circumcision with its strict requirements including abataining from certain foods and circumcision.

you noted

For your information:

At the council of Jerusalem Peter addresses the issue of circumcision and settles the issue. Circumcision is not required according to Peter.

Not just according to Peter, but according to the leadership in Jerusalem and the Holy Spirit. And it was according to God first, who then told Peter after raising up Paul and giving Paul the Gospel of Uncircumcision.

Ask yourself this question pax. Why did this discussion occur in Acts 15? Why not in the Gospels? Or in early Acts just before Christ ascended?

The answer should be pretty obvious to you by now, if you have been paying attention to what I have written so far.

The reason why this meeting of two different and independent ministries met in Jerusalem in Acts 15 is because God had decided to put His plans of converting the world through the nation of Israel’s agency in Acts 9 and instead save the world through Paul’s ministry. This is shown through God’s revealing to Peter and the rest in Jerusalem that He now accepted people without requiring that they become Jew by getting circumcised and obeying the Law. It is also shown through God raising up Paul in Acts 9 and giving him a new message that had been hidden in God since the world began (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 3:2-9; Col 1:26). It was news to the Circumcison Believers in Jerusalem that God was now accepting non-Jews. They had been told by Christ prior to His ascension that they would follow a specific plan - convert Jerusalem first, then Judea and then Samaria and finally, after doing all that, convert the Gentile world (Acts 1:8). In Acts 9-15 they had not even converted Jerusalem. To this day, Jerusalem has not repented.

you said

The issue of abstaining from certain foods is also settled by Peter through God’s revelation to him prior to his meeting with Cornelius.[See Acts Chapter 10]

Before going to Cornelius’ house yes, but after Christ raised up Paul in Acts 9. Paul goes on with his ministry and then years later he meets with those in Jerusalem in Acts 15. Paul’s ministry and message went forth independent of Peter or any other man or apostles acceptance.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you claimed

The issue of more than one baptism is clearly something you misunderstand and erroneously attribute to Peter.

You have yet to show this. Your asserting it does not make it so.

Be advised that we discuss more than one baptism as Christians today. In scripture we read about the baptism of John and we read about the baptism instituted by Jesus.

We discuss them indeed. The thing is, John’s baptism was not in effect when Jesus’ baptism was. They were not both being practiced at the same time. John says that he prepared the way for Jesus. John’s baptismal practice and ministry ended, or more accurately, faded out once Jesus’ baptism came into being.

you go on

Learning and discussing these things doesn’t mean that the letter of the Hebrews is exhorting the listeners to adhere to more than one baptism. You are simply reading way too much into the text.

That is your explanation!?!? That teaching the Circumcision Believers about “the doctrine of baptisms” is just teaching them that there was the baptism of John and then the baptism of Jesus and so on? Tell me this is not what you are saying, please, so I can take you seriously.

When the author of Hebrews refers to “the doctrine of baptisms” he is not saying “We will cover the history of baptisms”. The doctrine he refers to is a doctrine that his audience is to learn of so they can apply that doctrine to their lives.

Also, if you believe that the author of Hebrews has in mind all the different baptisms that occured in Israel’s history, then why not claim that Paul is saying that there has only been one baptism always? Why limit Paul’s statement in Ephesians to the Body of Christ and not extend it to other groups of believers, other churches that existed from Gen 1:1 through Acts 8?

Peter never suggests that we are saved by practicing the Mosaic Law and never indicates in his letters that his audience should follow it.

Yes he does. Peter says exactly this in this passage

1 Pe 3:21,22. “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, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.”

Water baptism is part of the Mosaic Law. Peter’s teaching is in keeping with Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels

Mat 19:16-22 says. “Now behold, one came and said to Him, Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? 17 So He said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to Him, Which ones? Jesus said, You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and your mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 20 The young man said to Him, All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack? 21 Jesus said to him, If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.”

 

[TheOpenTheist]

James, who was a part of Peter’s ministry, said the same thing in slightly different words

Jam 1:22-25; 2:8-24 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty [The Mosaic law.] and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does. Jam 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law [The Mosaic law.] according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, [The Mosaic law.] and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, [in the Mosaic law.]****“Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder. ” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law [The Mosaic law.]. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty [The Mosaic law.]. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? [after he was circumcised and the covenant of circumcision was made with him by God.] 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which said [before he was given the covenant of circumcision], “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. ” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Do you believe these passages addressed to the Circumcision Believers that they had to do works in order to be saved? Or do you continue to not believe these exceedingly clear words?

you said

This line of thinking is simply confusion on your part.

I’m confused!? You are the one that doesn’t believe what Jesus, James and Peter said! I do believe those statements and recognize that they were addressed to the Circumcision Believers. The reason you have trouble accepting those statements that say Jews are saved and justified by works is because you are trying to mix Paul’s gospel and doctrine that is for the Body of Christ (Eph 3:2) with that of the Circumcision Believers who were saved according to the Gospel of the Circumcision.

you said

Furthermore, even as a Christian Paul did not abandon all of the Jewish practices. We see this clearly in Acts 21:26 where it says, “Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them.” Does this mean that Paul somehow feels that he must follow the Mosaic Law for Salvation?

Good grief! Are you serious!? The reason why Paul did the purification ritual in the temple is only so he could communicate and save the Jews there. Paul explains this in 1 Corinthians

1 Cor 9:19-20 For though I am free from all [men,] I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews;

to those [who are] under the law, as under the law, that I might win those [who are] under the law;

Paul clearly did not do what he did in Acts 21 as a requirement for salvation.

you said

You also wrote:

See how simple that is!

I say, “you are simply mistaken.”

I’m not mistaken here. It is a simple question with simple answers. Are we required to become circumcised in order to be accepted by God? Are we required to abstain from certain foods in order to be accepted by God? The simple answer is no, not anymore, because the righteousness of God apart from the law is NOW revealed through the revelation of the mystery

Romans 3:21 But NOW the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed…

Romans 7:6 *But NOW we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not [in] the oldness of the letter [the letter is the Mosaic Law].

Colossians 1:26 THE MYSTERY which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but NOW has been revealed to His saints.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I’m still waiting to know what questions I haven’t answered

 

[The_Augustinian]

You’re being off topic, OpenTheist. Take your discussion to another thread.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have tried to follow the open theist stuff, here is what I have to say:

First of all you keep mentioning Gal2:7-7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised

In places like Acts16 it says:1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Ico’nium. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

 

[Matt16_18]

Catholic Dude:

I have tried to follow the open theist stuff …

Open Theism is nothing but the heresy of Process Theology. In this schema, God is subject to time, not the creator of time, and God is not omniscient since the future is obscure even to God. If Open Theism was true, we should all worship space and time, since that would be the ultimate ground of all being, even God’s being. Open Theism & Process Theology

One of the leading spokesman of open theism, Clark Pinnock, in describing how libertarian freedom trumps God’s omniscience says, “Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God. They are potential–yet to be realized but not yet actual. God can predict a great deal of what we will choose to do, but not all of it, because some of it remains hidden in the mystery of human freedom … The God of the Bible displays an openness to the future (i.e. ignorance of the future) that the traditional view of omniscience simply cannot accommodate.” (Pinnock, "Augustine to Arminius, " 25-26) ….

Having been taken captive by modernity, process theology is an intellectually driven system of pure philosophical speculation which has endeavored to co-opt historic Christianity by recasting it into the image of its own complex flights of metaphysical fancy. Holds that reality [including God] is becoming rather than being - in process rather than static. In its near take over of most major seminaries this heresy is a wholesale turning away from the true biblical gospel to a pseudo-gospel, a human invention and a parody of the truth. Instead of household gods carved out of wood, these new idolaters carve them with their unaided intellects. While claiming to represent the historic faith, process theology has become its bane. …. Most Process theologians also embrace the idea that God is in some sense dependent on the universe to be complete and, like the Mormon god, believe God can actually improve, so they reject the biblical notion of God’s ASEITY. It is more philosophically than biblically based but attempts to co-opt biblical terms to process concepts. While this carefully crafted system certainly has its place in the world of philosophic speculation, it has no place within the realm of historic Christianity and clearly belongs alongside the pagan pantheon of the false deities that Christ came to overthrow. Process theology is the modern inheritor of the Gnostic mantle.