Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[Pax]

TheOpenTheist:

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

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

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

1. 
   The idea that Jesus is not talking about the unity of all believers is patently absurd. Your scriptural connections concerning the unification of Israel and Samaria as the focus of Jesus prayers to the Father are as tenuous as the Mormon constructs which you mentioned. Please note the following verses:
   
   John 17:20-23
   “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, **so that the world may know that thou hast sent me ** and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.”
   
   There is nothing whatsoever in John 17 that lends itself to your interpretation. Jesus first prays for the apostles so that they will be one just as He and the Father are one. Jesus then prays for “all those who believe in him through their word” that they may be one. The apostles converted, by your own admission in earlier posts both Jews and Gentiles. These converts believed in Jesus through the word of the Apostles. Jesus wants them all to be one. This is a reference to all believers. Moreover, the reason for this unity that Jesus prays for is so that the “whole world” would know that the Father had sent him. The whole world wouldn’t have a clue if this only referred to the unification of Israel and Samaria.
   
   Your claims about John 17, like most of the others claims you have made, is utterly devoid of truth. I have once again checked four “Protestant” biblical commentaries and they all agree with the Catholic understanding of these verses except in one respect. None of them recognizes the Catholic Church as the visible Church of Christ. Other than that they all agree that the Chapter is refering to** all ** believers.
   
   Your contention is unique to Dispensationalists. It is not shared by the mass of Christendom either now or in any previous period in history.

 

[Pax]

TheOpenTheist,

You have written volumes and there is way too much to address. I have, however, selected something that can be quickly used to demonstrate how out of balance your view of Paul is vis-a-vis the other NT writers and what applies to us as Christians.

You said:
“Man, you need to pay closer attention to what you are reading, because the word foretold is not to be found in Eph 2. Neither is any word that means anything similar to the word “foretold”. And if it had said that there in Eph 2 then it would be contradictiing what follows immediately in Eph 3, which tells us that the mystery concerning the Body of Christ was a mystery and hidden in God until it was revealed to Paul…” You apparently believe that the mystery of the body of Christ was not known until it was revealed to Paul. You say this, as if only Paul knew what was going on. Are you serious?

Ephesians 3:1-5 says:

“FOR THIS reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles–assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this you can perceive my insight into the** mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;” **

Paul apparently has a whole lot of company in what has been revealed concerning the mystery of Christ and the Church which is his body. Many other things that you have said could be scrutinized in a similar fashion, but time does not allow me to address the lengthy and numerous posts which you have written.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TheOpenTheist-

The passage very simply says that God “treats the first as obsolete”. … Don’t say more than the text clearly says here, which is that the first covenant is becoming obsolete.

Im not saying more than what the text clearly says, it says “HE TREATS the First as OBSOLETE” it doesnt matter if its becoming obsolete or growing old, its how its TREATED NOW.
There are not two covenants going at once.

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

My past words were the old covenant did NOT fail, responding to your very words were “The old covenant failed”** (post421)**

Here is Heb 6:4-6 for everyone to read again. It clearly says that “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance”.
…
Could that passage be any clearer than it is?

That passage isnt that clear, in the very first verse in 6:1 says: let us leave the** elementary doctrine** of Christ and go on to maturity. That right there should be a sign that what we are about to read is not the same old baby formula (Cf 5:12-14) teachings.

And as for this Hebrews referring to New testament teachings, you must be unaware that **Jesus taught the Mosaic Law during His earthly ministry **(Matt 5:17-20). .

What? Matt5-7 is about the old commands being fulfilled and REPLACED. Infact in v20 it says: 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Thats proof right there that the old way of doing things via external rules and regulations was hollow, for the Pharisees were the experts at “following” the Law. Show me where Jesus teaches the same things as what the Law said. Look what it says a few verses down:31 "It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
When you see the words “But I say” that means the old way is not what Jesus is teaching.

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

There is a 4 Chapter difference between what you cited. Yet you combined two verses hundreds of words apart.
Compare what Paul said in Eph5: 3 But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Its the same type of warning as here. Does this mean that if one of the Christians does one of those they cant be forgiven?
I would also compare those Hebrew quotes with Rom6:3-13 This passage goes right along with Heb6 about dying to sin, partaking in the new life, tasting the good stuff. It also talks about this being a one time act that is not repeated. And it ends with a warning to stay clean.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Thats why the gospel that Peter preached … requires … obedience to much of the law.

I dont see how “much of the Law” will work, its not a pick and choose Law, its all or nothing.

No, it is not at all “clear” that he is saying that. In fact, it is highly unlikely that he is saying that given the context of this verse (Jam 1:25; 2:12,24).

First of all that “law” your reading is not The Law. The law your reading is the newly implanted word 1:21 which is following the Gospel. Also in Ch2 you left out a lot, for one Abraham is mentioned twice, and he didnt go by the Law. James even references the same verse as Paul in Rom4:3.

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

1. 
   1)God didnt just show, he made Peter the one to do it. You brush this off, yet I guarantee if it was Paul the first to do it I wouldnt hear the end of it. No, it was Peter.
   2)UnBiblical, Peter says himself in that chapter that circumcision was a burden nobody could bear. Also your separation of Israel vs. Jew&Gentile is unBiblical, who is Israel and where is Peter restricted to there? Peter was all over, especially in Antioch.
   3)“filthy sinner”? I showed you in that other thread you started of “where does Paul fit into the authority” where I just posted passage after passage which you either havnt had the chance or ignored what I put. Here is that thread, Im interested in what you have to say.
   

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

   Rm16:26 says that those things were foretold by the prophets.
   Gal1:8-9, read v7 where it says there is only one Gospel, and compare to what you said of there being such a thing as two Gospels. There is one Gospel, not two.
   Read Gal1:
   6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
   There is one Gospel, now when Paul says “gospel, gospel” in 2:7-8 he DOES NOT MEAN THERE ARE TWO GOSPELS.
   Col1:26, read what 26 says it says: the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints. This does not support the Paul alone view at all. There is nothing secure about these passages. You said they did preach two different Gospels, I said unfounded, you showed no support. What has been shown is that: The Gospel was foretold by the prophets (who were Jews) and no indication of your position. I have shown in Gal1 there is only one Gospel. In Eph has already been covered. Col1 shows multiple people entrusted with the good news, which there is only one good news.
   (cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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

** Romans11:17-25 is a very powerful case** that the Gentiles were joining an already established Church that already had Jewish members. They were part of the same tree. Not to mention verses like 21 which say Gentiles can easily be cut off from that tree of life.

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

Your misunderstanding what Im saying. The words “Body of Christ” were never mentioned in the OT just like the name “Jesus” was never mentioned in the OT. That doesnt mean they werent mentioned according to some characteristic, eg Rom15:9,10,21,etc.

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

Here is what you said again, with no justification:Eph 2:20 is saying is that the household of God,** in this specific case** the Body of Christ, is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. … Eph 2:20 refers to the apostles and prophets that are members of Christ’s Body and are working with Paul and the rest of the Body of Christ
Where do you get “this specific case” and how do you know v20 “apostles” is excluding the 12?

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

One of the most explicit references is to Barnabas. He was an Apostle that ministered with Paul Acts 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard thisSo, it is conceivable that Paul refers specificly to the apostles and prophets that were a part of his ministry. But even if James, John and Peter were among the apostles that Paul mentions here in Eph 2:20, that does not mean that The Twelve preached Christ according to the revelation of the mystery as Paul did. .

There is not one reference that the 12 Apostles or even the extended ones are not what Paul is talking about. Your the one who lacks the humility to be open to that fact. Barnabas was not the only apostle, and infact he was first appointed by the original Apostles in Acts4, not to mention given as a right hand to Paul by the Apostles. You said yourself there are other “apostleS” yet you list only 1, Barnabas. Not to mention you say “one of the most explicit references”? What do you call all the references of the original 12 ? Non explicit?

The truth is the evidence is highly in favor of the Apostles being the 12 plus recent important men like Barnabas.

Now your last part is totally unfounded again and grasping for straws. Where do you get the idea that they can be part of the Body yet somehow irrelevant or preaching a different song? Totally bogus and unlikely. The Apostles were who all Christians know them to be as well as preaching the same thing.

You greatly misunderstand what Paul is saying in these passages. He is not saying that if a member of the Body of Christ commits fornication or covets a neighbor’s car or the like that they will go to Hell or not inherit the kingdom. Once a member of Christ’s Body, we are not identified as sinners anymore, including those types of sins. 1 Cor 6:…

Again totally bogus and unBiblical. He is clearly talking to his people and warns them. 1Cor doesnt mention “Christ’s Body” it mentions the Kingdom. Just because your not identified as a sinner doesnt mean you cant commit those sins later in life. Also as I have shown in places like Ch11 there can be the death penalty for abusing the Body and Blood.

Nothing, including future sinful acts, can separate us from the love of Christ (Rom 8:35-39).

Unfounded, that is talking about outside attacks, not inside sins. See Ch11:21 where it is possible to be cut off from the tree.

So what? The difference between the kingdom for Israel and the kingdom for the Body, Israel’s is earthly…and the Body’s is heavenly

Totally unfounded. Not to mention you didnt make one reference of Jesus talking. Jesus uses the term “Kingdom of Heaven” which you can be sure is the same as “Kingdom of God” and other similar titles in Scripture. Interesting that Jesus would be talking about a different Kingdom of Heaven than Paul.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So what? The word kingdom simply refers here to those that God has authority over…

So What? Your the one twisting and inventing Kingdoms, Bodies, Churches, etc. Im just keeping you consistant.

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

Still Unfounded, bogus, no Scripture support. Infact the evidence is in the opposite court, in favor of Peter’s authority. Go read that thread you made and see all the time I put in.

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

Peter didnt show shock, he was there when it happened, He commanded the Baptism. When the Jew-Christians saw they accepted and praised God.

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

Dont forget v16 where it clearly shows Baptism washing away sins. But anyway, for some context, that was a shorthand of what happened. As you can see he was in the dog house on both sides of the aisle, the Jews saw his as a turn coat, not the Christians thats where you might be mixed up. It was the radical non-Christian Jews who were after Paul. The Christians were scared of him as v20 gives a hint. Paul was basically told to get out of town and stay away for a while which he did.

None of these references to baptism concern water in any way.

Not true, Acts16:33 says Paul took them outside in the middle of the night and Baptized them.

In Tit 3:5 Paul excludes the work of water baptism immediately prior to using the term baptism. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done (including the work of water baptism), but by his mercy”

It doesnt say that at all. Your grasping for straws, even Martin Luther said this was talking about Baptism.

And the Holy Spirit is what washes over us and makes us clean. That is what the “washing of regeneration” is referring to. …

The Holy Spirit is at work in Baptism, eg Jn3:5. There is no support for non water Baptisms. That was made up recently. All through Acts, including when the Gentiles were first received in Acts 10 (and 16) WATER is used.

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

Thats just a theological look at Baptism, it joins us all into one body. Everytime a group of people are ready to join the Church they are Baptized (in water). Paul said himself in the first Chapter he did Baptize a few of them. Your case is unfounded.

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

And here you admit you have no support. Jesus said to Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from the early days of the Church. Would you argue the Holy Spirit is not part of this? There is one Baptism, it is done in water, it is explained what is happening on the spiritual level.

People were being Baptized by water long before the complete Bible was around. They did as they learned from the Apostles and pastors.

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

Unfounded. Nowhere does the Law say to Baptize as Jesus showed. Do you even know what the Law is?
The whole “antitype” thing was that Baptism was foreshadowed by Noah’s ark.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So what? The word kingdom simply refers here to those that God has authority over…

So What? Your the one twisting and inventing Kingdoms, Bodies, Churches, etc. Im just keeping you consistant.

If God did not send peter to Cornelius’ house for the sake of making the transition from saving the world through the nation of Israel to saving the world through Paul’s ministry, then what other reason could God have had for sending Peter to a Gentile’s house?

Still Unfounded, bogus, no Scripture support. Infact the evidence is in the opposite court, in favor of Peter’s authority. Go read that thread you made and see all the time I put in.

None of these references to baptism concern water in any way.

Not true, Acts16:33 says Paul took them outside in the middle of the night and Baptized them.

In Tit 3:5 Paul excludes the work of water baptism immediately prior to using the term baptism. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done (including the work of water baptism), but by his mercy”

It doesnt say that at all. Your grasping for straws.

And the Holy Spirit is what washes over us and makes us clean. That is what the “washing of regeneration” is referring to. …

The Holy Spirit is at work in Baptism, eg Jn3:5. There is no support for non water Baptisms. That was made up recently. All through Acts, including when the Gentiles were first received in Acts 10 (and 16) WATER is used.

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

Thats just a theological look at Baptism, it joins us all into one body.

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

And here you admit you have no support. Jesus said to Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from the early days of the Church. Would you argue the Holy Spirit is not part of this? There is one Baptism, it is done in water, it is explained what is happening on the spiritual level.

People were being Baptized by water long before the complete Bible was around. They did as they learned from the Apostles and pastors.

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

Unfounded. Nowhere does the Law say to Baptize as Jesus showed.

… well after Acts 9 those in Jerusalem are concluding that “God has granted repentance unto life” to the Gentiles. If the Body of Christ had started at the beginning of Acts then they would have known that then. The reason why they are having this discussion as late as Acts 15 is because God revealed the mystery to Paul no earlier than Acts 9.
Unfounded, bogus, unScriptural. You make it sound as if there was an official handing over of authority during this moment when you dont have a shred of evidence. The Christian-Jews praised God because its no longer about nationality, but brotherhood. You have zero proof of this handoff you keep claiming.

And no, it is not at all unfounded that the arrangement they agreed upon worked out the best for all…
…
…
…
…
… Paul’s message and ministry.

7 paragraphs and NO SCRIPTURE proofs.

I never ever said those epistels are “nothing” as you accuse me of. In fact! I said before that we can use and benefit from most of those writings, yet later on in this response of yours you criticize me for affirming that those in the Body can make good use of the majority of what is found in the circumcision epistles. You want to criticize me both ways, just as long as you can get your kicks out of criticizing a guy with a very reasonable and well-defended view.
What you say has zero Scripture proof and doesnt even make sense. What a way to confuse people, what do they do at Church pick up the letter of James and read only bits and pieces? There is no foundation for your assertion that parts of letters were read, parts were ignored, some truths applied to them, etc all the while they also had the Letters of Paul which were perfect and didnt require selective reading.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

No, I do not believe the Bible fell from the sky. I believe that God preserved and orchestrated the Bible that we have today through the obedience of faithful men. These writings were accepted and read ny the church long before they were varified as being canonical. I do not thank the current catholic church for the Bible. I thank the men who put it together.
And who were these men? There has to be historical records of these men. We would hope they held orthodox views as well. I agree they were read in Church, but not all churches accepted the same things, eg Hebrews was questioned by many as was Revelation.

No informed person believes that Hebrews could ahve been written by Paul because of several good reasons. The most important of which is the fact that Heb 2:3 contradicts what Paul says in Gal 1.
The truth is no author is listed. But many people for many years have said Paul. There are no glaring contradictions that say otherwise.

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

What I said was, since Paul and Peter both wrote to converts who lived in the same areas, each others writings would easily get into the hands of the other.

…

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

Why were they both writing if only one gospel was in effect? Why were they writing two separate teachings yet on the same team? Why did they write to the same churches with memberes believing in different things?

Your position is unfounded Scripturally as well as historically. You paint a picture of confusion because two separate groups are meeting at the same place sharing writings that they dont fully accept and teach different gospels.

 

[migurl]

Forgive me if I am off topic or repeating something that was already said. I was saying my rosary last night and saw a lamp on in someones house across the street and it made me remember a passage I read in the Bible Mt 5:14-15

" You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Men do not light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket. They set it on a stand where it gives light to all in the house."

I know that Matthew wasn’t thrown out by the Calvinists because they have quoted from it before. So my question is this, why would Jesus say this if predestination was true? I mean, do the blind need lamps? No, so why do those who have not been chosen need a light? And if those who are predestined to heaven, why do they need a light if God has already picked them to light there own?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

migurl:

Forgive me if I am off topic or repeating something that was already said. I was saying my rosary last night and saw a lamp on in someones house across the street and it made me remember a passage I read in the Bible Mt 5:14-15

" You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Men do not light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket. They set it on a stand where it gives light to all in the house."

I know that Matthew wasn’t thrown out by the Calvinists because they have quoted from it before. So my question is this, why would Jesus say this if predestination was true? I mean, do the blind need lamps? No, so why do those who have not been chosen need a light? And if those who are predestined to heaven, why do they need a light if God has already picked them to light there own?

Thats one thing I have noticed too, with Calvinism many of the theachings of Jesus dont make sense anymore.