Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[TheOpenTheist]

The Dude said

Physical beings and objects exist in space-time.

I agree. Do you also recognize that spirits, especially the Holy Spirit also exists and lives and moves in sequence from one moment to the next and will forever? If you do not agree that the Holy Spirit, which is God, exists NOW and possesses a life that will endure forever then how are we able to grieve the Holy Spirit as Paul tells us we can in Ephesians 4:30?

you asserted completely without any evidence the following statement

Space time was created by God * ex nihilo*, and because space-time is created by God, it is a thing.

The universe, including the space it occupies was created by God. There is no evidence at all that sequence began when God created the universe. Do you believe that there was “a time before time” You seem to think that your asserting your belief that God created time makes it so. Give some evidence if you can.

Space-time as we know it is now under the power of death, and death space-time is a temporal reality that is going to be destroyed by divine fire.

The creation itself will be burned with fire and made new, yes. But that has nothing to do with time or sequence existing prior to God creating the universe. Do you believe that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit began their give-and-take personal relationship at the moment God created the universe? Or do you believe that that relationship existed prior to creation?

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire!
2Pet. 10-12

This passage in no way says that God created time or that His experience of time is any different for Him than it is for us.

Did you know that there is time in Heaven? Yes, we will all still experience duration and sequence with God forever. Sometimes there is silence in Heaven for a period of time according to Rev 8:1

Revelation 8:1 When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Pax:

TheOpenTheist,

I have read the link you posted twice and I know what it says about Peter authoring Hebrews. IMHO and apparently the opinion Peter did not write the Book of Hebrews, and I did not find what you believe to be a scholarly work on the subject to be at all compelling. You have placed considerable weight on this theory about Peter to develop a highly speculative theory concerning the meaning of the Book of Hebrews. I find no logical or compelling reason to give weight to any of it.

My belief that the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to the Circumcision Believers and not the Body of Christ is not dependent upon Peter being the author of that epistle. All that is required is that

1. one of those who was part of James, Cephas and John’s ministry to the Jews (Gal 2:9) be the author.

and

1. that Paul is not the author of the epistle.

I have more than enough evidence from the references to doctrine and salvation (and permanent loss of salvation) in Hebrews to show that it could not have been written by Paul or anyone that had been a part of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles who preached the message committed to him.

 

[Matt16_18]

TheOpenTheist:

You seem to think that your asserting your belief that God created time makes it so. Give some evidence if you can. … This passage in no way says that God created time or that His experience of time is any different for Him than it is for us.

What physical evidence could I possibly give that proves God even exists, let alone that God created space-time, and that God is not subject to space-time? These are matters of divine revelation that are believed by receiving the supernatural gift of faith. Your idea that God is subject to time is not a Christian belief. If I believed that God was subject to time, I would bow down and worship time, since even God is subject to it.

The best argument based on physical evidence that I can give you is to merely point out that modern physics has long ago abandon your concept of an absolute time that exists independent of relativistic space-time. You need to define what you mean by time before the big bang.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

pax said

I did get the impression that you didn’t seem to think that Paul preached to the Jewish converts. The reason I said this is because of your statements concerning “the gospel of circumcision” and “Paul’s gospel of uncircumcision.” You have pressed the issue and belief that the Jewish converts are not part of the body of Christ and that Paul preaches to the body of Christ.
Now if I mistakenly drew the wrong conclusion then I apologize.

Thats OK. I realize that for you to understand my position that I must explain pretty much everything in detail since you are psychologically set against me because I do not the promote the exact same theology and answers that Catholic Answers does. Its natural that you would think that I am unaware of passages that show Paul saying that he will preach his gospel “to the Jew first” (Rom 1:16).

I do, however, find it difficult to imagine Paul preaching the same gospel to both Jews and Gentiles if he had two different gospels for two different groups.

I have explained this distinction in previous posts and will do so again for your benefit. NOWHERE did I ever claim that Paul preached two different gospels as you just claimed I did. He preached the same gospel to Jew and Gentile alike. Paul was sent to the Gentiles, the uncircumcised. However, whenever Paul ran into Jews in an area, he would preach to them first. There is an account in Acts 21:4-13 of Paul going to the Jews, because of his love for Israel (Rom 9:3), when he should have been going to the Gentiles. There is only one gospel in effect at any one time (Gal 1:8-9). Those Jews who believed the Gospel of Circumcision prior to the revelation of the mystery to Paul in Acts 9 are to live out their faith until their death as they vowed to do once they believed that gospel. And that requires obedience to the Mosaic Law.

you claimed without providing any evidence

Your theories are quite convoluted and don’t fit with scripture.

No its not. My beliefs are easily shown through many Scriptural proofs. None of my beliefs are far out or hard to substantiate as I have shown over and over again in great detail in several threads.

Another reason for calling the gospel committed to Paul the Gospel of the Uncircumcision is because this gospel does not require circumcision as the Gospel of Circumcision committed to Peter did. Peter’s gospel required circumcision (among other things) and Pauls’s gospel did not.

You have based a great deal on Galatians 2:7 to establish the idea of two different gospels. This clearly seems to be an error in understanding based on the way you interpret the KJV translation.

I am using the correct translation. Anyone familiar with Greek knows that the genitive case is translated of in this passage. Its not the gospel for or the gospel to the circumcision/uncircumcision. Gal 2:9 tells us which group Paul and James & Co were sent to.

The verse does not mean what you apparently think it does, and should be translated in modern English as follows:

– RSV Bible
“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.”

– NRSV Bible
“On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncirmcised.”

Please notice that none of these translations are of Catholic origin. The passage refers to the one gospel of Jesus being carried by two pillars of the Church to two different groups. It does not mean that the two men took different gospels to two different groups.

That Peter’s gospel is different from Paul’s gospel is vividly shown in Acts 10 with Peter having a problem eating the foods that were unclean according to the Mosaic Law. Had Peter had the exact same gospel that Paul did then he would have had no problem eating those animals. Likewise, there would have been no surprise to Peter or those in Jerusalem that God accepted Gentiles without their being circumcised or obeying the Mosaic Law had they been given and preached the same message that Paul did.

Also, the fact that Christ revealed to Paul NEW revelation which relates directly to the gospel he was committed with is major evidence that Paul’s gospel is different than Peter’s. The new revelation that Paul received explains why there was doctrinal tension between Paul’s ministry and message and Peter and the others ministry and message in Jerusalem. In other words, the teaching that God accepted Gentiles and also Jews by faith apart from the works of the Law was a new doctrine. The idea of the Body of Christ was unprophesied and unrevealed from before the foundation of the world until God revealed it to Paul.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Matt16_18:

What physical evidence could I possibly give that proves God even exists, let alone that God created space-time, and that God is not subject to space-time? These are matters of divine revelation that are believed by receiving the supernatural gift of faith. Your idea that God is subject to time is not a Christian belief. If I believed that God was subject to time, I would bow down and worship time, since even God is subject to it.

The best argument based on physical evidence that I can give you is to merely point out that modern physics has long ago abandon your concept of an absolute time that exists independent of relativistic space-time. You need to define what you mean by time before the big bang.

Since time is not a thing, is not an entity, then God is not subject to it. Its like sayiung since there has always been love, then taht means that God is subject to love. That makes no snese at all. It does not follow.

You should definitely not worship time. Saying that you ought to worship time because you somehow think that if there has always been time or duration in God’s relationships is extremely rediculous and does not follow.

It seems that who you ought to bow down to and worship are the physicists and scientists that you put your trust in to tell you about the universe’s origins rather than God’s explanation. Of course, the details of your scientists knowledge will change many times over the next 50 years, so you might not want to put your trust in those scientists who once thought the Bohr model was the best thing ever, but was proved to be inaccurate. They also used to believe that maggots spontaneously generated given the right conditions (using bad meat) and that was their proof that life could come about spontaneously.

Of course, I know scientists who agree with me, but I am sure you do not consider them real scientists whose views count. There was no big bang. God created the universe, not some rediculous “singularity” which completely goes against all the laws of physics and scientific research.

God has always had a loving relationship within the Trinity and because of that fact we can safely say that God has always experienced duration or sequence or as you love to refer to it time.

Also, are you claiming that God has revealed to us that He does not experience time or that He created time? Does that mean that you think people who realize that God experiences duration (that God has always been living and loving and relating and existing) do not have the gift of faith and are Hellbound?

 

[Matt16_18]

TheOpenTheist:

Since time is not a thing, is not an entity, then God is not subject to it. Its like sayiung since there has always been love, then taht means that God is subject to love. That makes no snese at all. It does not follow.

God IS love - God is not subject to some external law of love that he must conform himself to. God is love - that is a deep mystery of the Faith that has been divinely revealed to mankind. It is not a mystery of the Faith that God is time, or that God is subject to time.

You should definitely not worship time.

I know that, and that is why I object to your theology!

God created the universe, not some rediculous “singularity” which completely goes against all the laws of physics and scientific research.

What scientist agrees with you that the big bang model cosmological model “goes against all the laws of physics and scientific research”? And how does the “big bang” contradict the Christian belief that God created the space-time of the physical universe ex nihilo?

God has always had a loving relationship within the Trinity

What is that supposed to mean? God doesn’t have a relationship within the Trinity - the Trinity is God!

… are you claiming that God has revealed to us that He does not experience time or that He created time?

I am saying that God created time, and that God is omniscient - he knows everything about what he has created.

I am also saying that man truly has free will, which is something that you seem to believe, although you reject that God knows how we exercise our free will in space-time. Your God is not omniscient, as far as I can tell.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TheOpenTheist:

I have more than enough evidence from the references to doctrine and salvation (and permanent loss of salvation) in Hebrews to show that it could not have been written by Paul or anyone that had been a part of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles who preached the message committed to him.

So what do you think of this:Heb13-1 Let brotherly love continue. 2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. 3 Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them; and those who are ill-treated, since you also are in the body. 4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous. 5 Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said, “I will never fail you nor forsake you.” 6 **Hence we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid; what can man do to me?” 7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. **8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. 9 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods … 12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. 13 Therefore let us go forth to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured. 14 For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come. 15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. 16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you. 18 Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honorably in all things. 19 I urge you the more earnestly to do this in order that I may be restored to you the sooner. 20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, 21 equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in you that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 22 I appeal to you, brethren, bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly. 23 You should understand that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom I shall see you if he comes soon. 24 **Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings. 25 Grace be with all of you. Amen. **

Brother Timothy is mentioned here, I thought Timothy was working with Paul? What happened? The only person who mentions Timothy is Paul and he mentios him about 15 times all through his letters. Unless you think that Peter and Paul joined forces, which Im totally in favor of. Also whats this talk about Italy, isnt that Gentile grounds?
If Paul didnt write this letter, all I can say is that there is probably a third dispensation none of us know about where a person similar to Paul was entrusted with both the circumcised and uncircumcised Gospel!!

But anyway compare the above to the last Chapter16 of 1Cor:3 And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. … 10 When **Timothy **comes, see that you put him at ease among you, for he is doing the work of the Lord, as I am. 11 So let no one despise him. Speed him on his way in peace, that he may return to me; for I am expecting him with the brethren. 12 As for our brother Apol’los, I strongly urged him to visit you with the other brethren, but it was not at all his will to come now. He will come when he has opportunity. 13 Be watchful, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 14 Let all that you do be done in love. 15 Now, brethren, you know that the household of Steph’anas were the first converts in Acha’ia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints; 16 I urge you to be subject to such men and to every fellow worker and laborer. … 20 All the brethren send greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss. 21 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. 22 If any one has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come! 23 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. 24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.

 

[migurl]

That is so creepy

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Matt said

God IS love - God is not subject to some external law of love that he must conform himself to. God is love - that is a deep mystery of the Faith that has been divinely revealed to mankind. It is not a mystery of the Faith that God is time, or that God is subject to time.

What does loving without sequence or duration look like? There is no such thing as timeless love. Anything that is timeless or without an enduring existence is not a thing because it does not actually exist. God did not become living at the moment He created the universe. Do you believe that God became the living God when He said “Let there be light” on the first day?

The Father loving the Son and the Son loving the Father is something that occurs in sequence which means there is time. There is a give-and-take relationship that God enjoys and has always enjoyed. God made us in His image so we could love like He does.

Also, I never ever claimed that God is time. Keep it straight.

What scientist agrees with you that the big bang model cosmological model “goes against all the laws of physics and scientific research”?

Do you know what a singularity is? Check out the definition here dictionary.reference.com/search?q=singularity

you asked

And how does the “big bang” contradict the Christian belief that God created the space-time of the physical universe ex nihilo?

First of all, it is completely devoid of any biblical explanation or admission that God had anything to do with it. The big bang has nothing to do with a creator. It is posited and believed in place of a creator. The “big bang” theory is for atheists and naturalists, not Christians.

God doesn’t have a relationship within the Trinity - the Trinity is God!

When I say that God has a relationship within the Trinity I am saying that there is a relationship between the members of the Trinity - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

So, Matt, tell me if you believe the Father loved the Son before the creation of the universe.

I am saying that God created time

Then did God begin to exist at the first moment He created the universe? or did God exist before that moment?

and that God is omniscient - he knows everything about what he has created.

I agree completely. The only difference is that I recognize that the future God knows completely exists as partly settled and partly unsettled. There are inevitabilites and there are possibilities and probabilites that God knows of. Many possibilities, or choices, have yet to be determined by the men making those choices. Once they have been made then God will know those actions as certainties. In my view God knows MORE since only one of several possibilities comes about. God knows all of the possibilities that did not come about. That is why God is able to respond to our actions and not do what He said He would do if the situation warrants it. That is what God has revealed about His relationship to His creation in many passages.

I am also saying that man truly has free will, which is something that you seem to believe

That is correct.

although you reject that God knows how we exercise our free will in space-time. Your God is not omniscient, as far as I can tell.

I rightly reject such a belief because God shows Himself responding to our actions which were not determined by Him beforehand. They are indeed our actions, our choices, not God’s. God does not exercise omnicausality. He made man with the ability to make decisions.

Here is a simple proof that I am correct. When God says that He will destroy Nineveh in 40 days, were he to know for certain that He would not destroy Nineveh in 40 days when He makes that statement, then that would be a lie. However, since God does not know for certain if Nineveh will repent from hearing Jonah’s preaching within the next 40 days when He makes that statement, He is not telling a lie. Get it?

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Dude asked

So what do you think of [Hebrews 13]?

Not much. I never said that there were not many similarities between the Gospel of the Circumcision and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. There are indeed many similarites, but there are some extremely important differences too. Like requiring circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic Law. One requires it, the other doesn’t.

you said

Brother Timothy is mentioned here, I thought Timothy was working with Paul? What happened? The only person who mentions Timothy is Paul and he mentios him about 15 times all through his letters. Unless you think that Peter and Paul joined forces, which Im totally in favor of. Also whats this talk about Italy, isnt that Gentile grounds?

Rome is in Italy where many of the Circumcision Believers fled to in order to escape the destruction of Jerusalem. Who said that the Circumcision Believers and the Body of Christ were not allowed to work with and help each other? I never said that anywhere or even thought that! In fact, Paul tells us that he took a collection of money from members of the Body in Corinth so that they could help the Circumcision Believers in Jerusalem

1 Corinthians 16:1-3 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first [day] of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. 3 And when I come, whomever you approve by [your] letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem.

Those in Jerusalem needed financial assistance since they had SOLD EVERYTHING and lived together as Jesus taught them to do. Have you sold everything, including your car and house and other possessions yet? I hope not, since that requirement was unique of the Gospel of the Circumcision.

That Circumcision Believers and those in the Body of Christ helped to promote Paul’s ministry and message should come as no surprise. Paul’s gospel is the only one in effect, that is to be preached and believed, the Gospel of the Circumcision having ran its shortened course with Israel’s corporate rejection of Christ. So, it makes sense that Peter and the others should help out Paul and those who “speak the mystery of Christ” (Col 4:3) since that is the only legitimate message around. Of course, the most helpful thing that James, Cephas and John could do was to keep the Circumcision believers in check so that Paul’s gospel could go forth without error. That error being the imposition of the works of the law that the “men from James” sought to burden Paul’s converts with as Galatians tells us so clearly.

you said

If Paul didnt write this letter, all I can say is that there is probably a third dispensation none of us know about where a person similar to Paul was entrusted with both the circumcised and uncircumcised Gospel!!

No. Again, there is only one gospel in effect at any given time. You just have a hard time following a simple timeline like the following

Gospel of the Circumcision | Gospel of the Uncircumcision
*** Matthew 1:1 - Acts 9 *** |*** Acts 9 - The Present ***

When James, Cephas and John agreed to go to the Jews in Galatians 2:9 this did not mean that they were allowed to promote the Gospel of the Circumcision as they had previous to the revelation of the mystery since the gospel Peter preached was no longer in effect. The only gospel that God wanted preached from the raising up of Paul in Acts 9 until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in is the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery.

you said

But anyway compare the above to the last Chapter of 1Cor

I did. There are some similarities, but there are also some glaring differences. The biggest one being where Paul tells us that he wrote the epistle with his own hands. That is not found in Hebrews. Likewise, there are some similarities to what is found in Paul’s epistles (someone named Timothy [Was there only one guy named Timothy? There is another Jesus mentioned in Col 4] helped out both Circumcision Believers and members of Christ’s Body), but there are also differences. And those similarities are not anywhere near compelling enough to come to the conclusion that someone in Paul’s camp was addressing Jewish members of the Body of Christ. Hebrews is a much better fit theologically with the Circumcision Epistles written by Peter, James, John and Jude.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TheOpenTheist-

I never said that there were not many similarities between the Gospel of the Circumcision and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. There are indeed many similarites, but there are some extremely important differences too. Like requiring circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic Law. One requires it, the other doesn’t.

It looks like your playing both sides of the aisle. You start off saying how there are many similarities, but then end by saying one requires to keep the law the other doesnt? Can you really claim similarities? Last I checked Hebrews dindnt say anything about keeping the Law, infact it says in CH10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin. 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. 4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. 5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me; 6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure. 7 Then I said, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,’ as it is written of me in the roll of the book.” 8 When he said above, “Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Lo, I have come to do thy will.” He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
That doesnt sound like someone who is following the Law, infact he just said in light of the work of Christ the Law does nothing for us.

Rome is in Italy where many of the Circumcision Believers fled to in order to escape the destruction of Jerusalem. Who said that the Circumcision Believers and the Body of Christ were not allowed to work with and help each other? I never said that anywhere or even thought that! In fact, Paul tells us that he took a collection of money from members of the Body in Corinth so that they could help the Circumcision Believers in Jerusalem

What are you saying here? Whats the point of working together if one is preaching a correct Gospel and the other is in error? It doesnt make sense, they are not working together at that point, but are at odds. Yet if you look does Paul seem to be worried about the other camp’s salvation?

Also about Rome, we know that Paul did end up there. Interesting that he stopped at the a major hub of Gentiles and Jews.

Also another point is that both letters tell the reader to devote themself to the work of the saints, kind of interesting how there is no distiction there.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Those in Jerusalem needed financial assistance since they had SOLD EVERYTHING and lived together as Jesus taught them to do. Have you sold everything, including your car and house and other possessions yet? I hope not, since that requirement was unique of the Gospel of the Circumcision.

I think your going overboard on the selling everything, the didnt sell the clothes off their back nor did they sell their food or all their houses. Think about what your saying, no clothes, no food, no shelter? Does this make sense? No wonder according to you they failed.

Both the writings of Hebrews says keep free from the love of money, nothing wrong with that, at the same time Paul tells Timothy that “the love of money is the root of all evil”.
Both Peter and Paul said to keep free from the love of money at the same time they didnt tolerate sitting around.
2Thess3:10-“If any one will not work, let him not eat.”

That Circumcision Believers and those in the Body of Christ helped to promote Paul’s ministry and message should come as no surprise. Paul’s gospel is the only one in effect, that is to be preached and believed, the Gospel of the Circumcision having ran its shortened course with Israel’s corporate rejection of Christ. So, it makes sense that Peter and the others should help out Paul and those who “speak the mystery of Christ” (Col 4:3) since that is the only legitimate message around…

Wow, you make such a distinction? The circumcision were not in the Body of Christ?
Eph2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.
There is no sense of division among the Jews and Gentiles, this passage is very clear the Jews were entered in first and the Gentiles second who are now “FELLOW citizens”. The "wall of hostility was broken down and a peace has resulted. This was foretold by the PROPHETS and BUILT on the FOUNDATION of the APOSTLES with Christ as the cornerstone. Your version of the Gospel has the foundation which Christ was the cornerstone in ruins.
Eph3:4 When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ… that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.
There is no distinction of Bodies of Christ, there is but one, and the Gentiles are FELLOW HEIRS of the SAME body. How can Paul claim to be the least of these when you put him as holding the golden ticket?
Also I dont want to forget your reference to Col4, where a few verses down Paul starts naming names and concludes:
“These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God” .

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)

No. Again, there is only one gospel in effect at any given time. You just have a hard time following a simple timeline like the following

Gospel of the Circumcision | Gospel of the Uncircumcision
*** Matthew 1:1 - Acts 9 *** |*** Acts 9 - The Present ***

When James, Cephas and John agreed to go to the Jews in Galatians 2:9 this did not mean that they were allowed to promote the Gospel of the Circumcision as they had previous to the revelation of the mystery since the gospel Peter preached was no longer in effect. The only gospel that God wanted preached from the raising up of Paul in Acts 9 until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in is the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery.

So Acts 9 is the official cutoff point? Others have told me Acts15. Remember it was one Chapter later Ch10 where PETER was entrusted with brining the Gentiles into the Body. You will see that teachings like Baptism and Communion are fully present in what Paul was teaching.
Your whole version of the gospel hinges on Gal2:9 which is a huge distortion of what thats saying. 2Peter3 warned us about:So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 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.
Now here is Gal2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; 10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.
Do you see a division among the Apostles here? NOTICE WHO GAVE WHO the RIGHT HAND OF FELLOWSHIP. All that its saying by “we to the gentiles, they to the circumcised” is that there were different roles to be played to teach the same Gospel.

The biggest one being where Paul tells us that he wrote the epistle with his own hands. That is not found in Hebrews. Likewise, there are some similarities to what is found in Paul’s epistles (someone named Timothy [Was there only one guy named Timothy? There is another Jesus mentioned in Col 4] helped out both Circumcision Believers and members of Christ’s Body), but there are also differences. And those similarities are not anywhere near compelling enough to come to the conclusion that someone in Paul’s camp was addressing Jewish members of the Body of Christ. Hebrews is a much better fit theologically with the Circumcision Epistles written by Peter, James, John and Jude.

Its safe to say there was only one guy named Timothy, by the way if you read Col4 in context you will see:11 and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God
That man was going by a different name, but even more importantly Paul calls him one of his FELLOW WORKERS. Look what Peter said in 2Pt3:16, he says “our brother Paul wrote to you” and considers Pauls work Scripture.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Catholic Dude said

It looks like your playing both sides of the aisle. You start off saying how there are many similarities, but then end by saying one requires to keep the law the other doesnt? Can you really claim similarities?

Yes, thats very plainly shown in the New Testament record. The Gospel of the Circumcision required keeping the Mosaic Law and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision did not require keeping the Mosaic Law. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If not, then I guess you’ll have to join me in “playing both sides of the aisle” then.

Last I checked Hebrews dindnt say anything about keeping the Law, infact it says in CH10:1-10

Reference snipped to stay under the 5000 character limit for a post

That doesnt sound like someone who is following the Law, infact he just said in light of the work of Christ the Law does nothing for us.

If you were to selectively quote some passages of Hebrews, then yes, you could conclude from a few passages that the audience that is being addressed is not to be concerned with following the Mosaic Law. Unfortunately, there are passages in Hebrews that make such a conclusion impossible (some in Heb 10).

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). Jeremiah 32:40b gives another facet of the enabling power, that is, fear of God. The old covenant failed “because they did not continue in” it. The new covenant will succeed. Since He will put His laws in their minds, write them on their hearts, and put His fear in their hearts, they will have perfect knowledge of the Lord. That is WHY the punishment for faithlessness is so severe. 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). 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.

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?

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, [palaiouvmenon, present participle], and growing old, [ghravskon, present participle], but it has not yet vanished away. That is why James wrote that they will be judged by the law (James 2:12). We can see from the context, James 2:8-13, that the law of liberty is the Mosaic law.

You said

What are you saying here? Whats the point of working together if one is preaching a correct Gospel and the other is in error? It doesnt make sense, they are not working together at that point, but are at odds.

Are you even trying to understand? 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! But, did Peter oppose Paul and his message when Paul came to Jerusalem or Galatia? Not at all!

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. Even though if I did believe that you would then have an easier time rejecting my position, which is what you seem to want more than anything.

you asked

Yet if you look does Paul seem to be worried about the other camp’s salvation?

No, Paul never says that he is concerned about the salvation of the Circumcision Believers. The author of Hebrews expresses concern though in Heb 6 and Heb 10.

You said

Interesting that he stopped at [Rome] a major hub of Gentiles and Jews.

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.

You asserted

Also another point is that both letters tell the reader to devote themself to the work of the saints, kind of interesting how there is no distiction there.

No, its not interesting at all.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Catholic Dude said

I think [you’re] going overboard on the selling everything, the didnt sell the clothes off their back nor did they sell their food or all their houses. Think about what your saying, no clothes, no food, no shelter? Does this make sense? No wonder according to you they failed.

OK. You’re just being idiotic here, and showing how desperately hard you are trying to come up with criticisms of my view. They sold everything but the clothes on their back, kept enough food for that day and sold their houses and land except for the one place where they were all staying. There, I spelled out what they sold in detail. Of course, that idiotic objection you raised was brought up as a diversion meant to remove the fact that they sold close to all they possessed so that you do not have to think about whether or not God wants you to act just as they did. Perhaps you can consider their following Christ’s command to sell and leave all behind to follow Him and determine if God wants you to d the exact same thing or not. I won’t hold my breath waiting for a serious response from you in this anytime soon though.

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?

Both the writings of Hebrews says keep free from the love of money, nothing wrong with that, at the same time Paul tells Timothy that "the love of money is the root of all evil

".

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.

Both Peter and Paul said to keep free from the love of money at the same time they didnt tolerate sitting around.
2Thess3:10-"

If any one will not work, let him not eat."

This is another cross-dispensational truth. It has nothing to do with whether or not keeping the law was required or not.

Wow, you make such a distinction? The circumcision were not in the Body of Christ?

You show your misunderstanding of my position again.

First of all, I did not say that there were no Jews in the Body of Christ. And I did not ever say that Jews were unable to become members of Christ’s Body. So, why did you claim that I believe that? In an effort to find fault with my view, you are claiming that I believe things that are contrary to Scripture which I not only do not believe, but have clearly stated that I reject in several posts in these forums.

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. I did not ever say that once God revealed to Paul the mystery that Jews were not allowed to become a part of the Body. I do believe as Scripture teaches that Jews, or the circumcision, can become members of Christ’s Body. Referring to Jews as the circumcision or the circumcised is one thing. Referring to those Jews that believed the Gospel of the Circumcision is another thing. They are not synonymous.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

…continued

You referenced Eph 2:11-20 and then claimed

Eph2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.
There is no sense of division among the Jews and Gentiles, this passage is very clear the Jews were entered in first and the Gentiles second who are now “FELLOW citizens”. The "wall of hostility was broken down and a peace has resulted.

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.

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?

You said

This was foretold by the PROPHETS and BUILT on the FOUNDATION of the APOSTLES with Christ as the cornerstone.

Hold on! Nowhere in that section of Eph 2 that you cited did it say that any of these changes were “foretold” by anyone. They were not foretold by any prophets or by Jesus during His earthly ministry. Had this stuff been foretold prior to God revealing it to Paul then what Paul says about the timing of it being revealed in Eph 3:4-6,8-9 would be a lie. Because there he tells us that the Body of Christ is an idea that was kept a secret (mystery) or hidden in God until it was revealed to Paul.

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. And yes, God did give the gift of prophecy to some in the Body of Christ as well as the gift of apostleship as Paul writes in Eph 4:11. 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 to bring about the “perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13).

Your version of the Gospel has the foundation which Christ was the cornerstone in ruins.

No it doesn’t. You may claim that, but have not provided any evidence with which to substantiate that claim. Its your misunderstanding of my position that you claim has the foundation in ruins.

You referenced Eph 3:4-8 and said

Eph3:4 When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ… that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs

, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.
There is no distinction of Bodies of Christ, there is but one, and the Gentiles are FELLOW HEIRS of the SAME body.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

…continued

I never claimed that there was a “distinction of Bodies of Christ”. I never came anywhere close to saying that anywhere. There are Acts 28 Dispensationalists, which you may be responding to, that held to a 2 Body theory. I do not. Paul says clearly that there is ONE Body. 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.

you asked

How can Paul claim to be the least of these when you put him as holding the golden ticket?

Paul’s claiming to be the least of all the saints has nothing to do with the fact that God revealed the mystery, which had been hidden in God before the foundation of the world, to Paul.

Also I dont want to forget your reference to Col4, where a few verses down Paul starts naming names and concludes:
"

These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God

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. Is that what you were asserting Paul is saying in this passage? If so, there is nothing in the passage that warrants such a conclusion.

You asked

So Acts 9 is the official cutoff point?

Yes. Its the best way to reference the change in the route God took to bring about the Body of Christ. Acts 9 is where we read of Christ confronting Paul on the Damascus Road and giving him directions to follow so that he can fulfill his ministry to “Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel” (notice the order).

A good case can be made that says God cut off Israel after Stephen was stoned at the end of Acts 7 because it shows Christ standing, apparently in judgment of Israel. But, since Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, its best to reference the beginning of the Body of Christ at Acts 9.

You claimed

Remember it was one Chapter later Ch10 where PETER was entrusted with brining the Gentiles into the Body.

Thats a poor use of words dude. I know that you so badly want to believe that Peter was entrusted with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision as Paul was acording to Gal 2:7. But Peter was not entrusted with that gospel. He was entrusted with the Gospel of the Circumcision (Gal 2:8).

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.

You claimed

You will see that teachings like Baptism and Communion are fully present in what Paul was teaching.

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. In fact, Christ tells us that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Water baptism is not a part of the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. Paul tells us that there is one baptism and that it has nothing to do with water. We are baptized into the Body by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13), a baptism made without hands (Col 2:11-12). And once we are in Christ we are complete in Him (Col 2:10).

 

[TheOpenTheist]

You claimed

Your whole version of the gospel hinges on Gal2:9 which is a huge distortion of what thats saying.

No it doesn’t. My view of the gospel that Paul preached has nothing to do with Gal 2:9. Part of my conclusion about the content of Paul’s gospel comes from Gal 2:7. Thats an important passage because it refers to the gospels that were committed to Peter and Paul by refering to circumcision or the lack thereof. 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. There are other passages that support my view, but this brierf listing of three categories of passages showing a difference between the gospel committed to Paul and the gospel committed to Peter ought to be sufficient.

And no, I am not at all distorting what Gal 2:9 says. That passage is very clear and easy to understand.

you said

2Peter3 warned us about:

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 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.

This wanring has nothing to do with my view or explanation of how the Body of Christ came into being through Christ revealing the mystery to Paul.

There are examples in Scripture of Paul’s teachings, which are according to the house rules of the grace of God that God gave to Paul for us Gentiles (Eph 3:2), being twisted. One that comes to mind sounds very much like a Roman Catholic objecting to salvation by grace through faith alone. In Romans 3:8 Paul mentions the following twisting of his teaching of salvation through faith apart from works.

Romans 3:8 And [why] not [say,] “Let us do evil that good may come”? – as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

You wrote

Now here is Gal2:

9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; 10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.

Do you see a division among the Apostles here?

Yes. The groups of people that they could minister to was divided, very intelligently, between the Gentiles and the Jews. 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 said

NOTICE WHO GAVE WHO the RIGHT HAND OF FELLOWSHIP.

Consider this 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.

you said

All that its saying by “we to the gentiles, they to the circumcised” is that there were different roles to be played to teach the same Gospel.

That is true. Gal 2:9 says nothing about Peter and Paul being committed different gospels. That truth is stated in Gal 2:7-8.

But, what you say is true. Paul, James, John and Peter and anyone else for that matter were to be preaching the gospel Christ committed to Paul. They were all to preach the exact same gospel to those who were lost.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you said

Its safe to say there was only one guy named Timothy

How do you figure dude? Oh, is it safe to say that there is only one guy named Timothy because you so desperately want the Timothy mentioned in Hebrews and the one mentioned in Paul’s epistles to be the same Timothy? Cause that seems to be the sole driving force behind your making such a statement which you can never even come close to proving.

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. We have more than one James mentioned in the New Testament. We also have more than one guy whose mother name their son Jesus. We have more than one Ananias in Acts alone! The first one is killed by the Holy Spirit in Acts 5. The second Ananias is a righteous Circumcision Believer who lays hands on Paul in Acts 9 to restore his sight.

you said

by the way if you read Col4 in context you will see:

11 and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God

That man was going by a different name, but even more importantly Paul calls him one of his FELLOW WORKERS.

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.

you said

Look what Peter said in 2Pt3:16, he says “our brother Paul wrote to you” and considers Pauls work Scripture.

Yes, there were members of the Body who lived in the same areas as some of the Circumcision Believers.

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.

 

[Matt16_18]

TheOpenTheist:

… the future God knows completely exists as partly settled and partly unsettled. There are inevitabilites and there are possibilities and probabilites that God knows of. Many possibilities, or choices, have yet to be determined by the men making those choices. Once they have been made then God will know those actions as certainties.

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).