Baptism...

[TheOpenTheist]

RobNY said

It merely says there is one gospel, not one gospel in effect at any time.

The New Testament storyline indicates clearly that God made a change so that circumcision and obeying the law were no longer required. The gospel that was to be preached and taught since the start of Paul’s ministry is the gospel that Christ committed to Him. Not the gospel Christ earlier committed to Peter which required circumcision and obeying the law. The new information that God shares with Peter in Acts 10 confirms this.

Acts 10:9-15,28 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” 15 And a voice [spoke] to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Some of the Circumcision Believers, however, did not fully accept this new revelation from God and still promoted the gospel committed to Peter which required circumcision and keeping the law.

Acts 15:1,5 And certain [men] came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees WHO BELIEVED rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses."

The judaizers, or “men from James” as it refers to them in Gal 2, were among those “who believed”. They were Jews who had believed the message Peter preached, which included circumcision and keeping the law as part of its message. If Christ had taught Peter and the rest before Acts 10 that He was accepting Gentiles by faith without keeping the law or becoming circumcised, then there would be no surprise among them when Cornelius’ house received the Holy Spirit apart from any works including the work of water baptism. They received the Holy Spirit before being baptized with water. Before that, people first had to be water baptized and then they would receive the Holy Spirit.

Those who were teaching a different gospel to the Galatians, one which required circumcision and keeping the law, were still teaching the gospel committed to Peter which had been set aside so that Paul could preach the new gospel and set of “house rules” committed to him by Christ. A gospel and set of “house rules” that did not include circumcision as a requirement.

Gal 1:8-9 does not say that there has only been one gospel ever throughout all of history. If it did, then it would contradict what is revealed throughout both the Old and New Testament. And it would also contradict what Paul writes in the next chapter where he mentions that Christ committed to him the uncircumcision gospel and to Peter the circumcision gospel.

you claimed

Saying “Christ did not send me to baptize,” isn’t a repudiation of baptism.

“Repudiation”, no. Clear statement showing that water baptism is NOT a part of the gospel Paul preached, yes.

you go on

Indeed, Christ didn’t send him to baptize, he sent all the Apostles to baptize (contrast this with Paul’s specific position as “apostle of the gentiles”). Keeping in the context of the entire passage, Paul’s baptism is no more meritorious than Kepha’s baptism, or Apollos’ baptism because they all baptize to the same end. Because Paul wasn’t sent personally to baptize, there is no reason for him to insist that he baptize the people there, especially since they were causing division because of it.

So, if I understand your view on this correctly, you believe that Christ did not send Paul to water baptize those who believed his uncircumcision gospel in accordance with what Paul said in 1 Cor 1:17. Despite this fact, you still believe that water baptism performed by other members of the Body is somehow necessary for membership in the Body of Christ. Is that correct?

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you said

Obviously Apollos and Kepha were already baptizing, so he isn’t depriving them of baptism, they could be baptized by other people. He was just putting a stop to the division and disunity.

He is writing for the purpose of ending any factions among the Corinthians, yes. And along with that he revealed that Christ did not send him to water baptize, but to preach the gospel, which cannot be said of The Twelve. If the gospel Paul preached included “be water baptized for the remission of sins” as Peter’s did (Acts 2:38), then he could not have made such a claim. The uncircumcision gospel does not include water baptism for the remission of sins as part of its content.

you said

You are making an arbitrary distinction about “The Gospel of Circumcision” and “The Gospel of Uncircumcision.”

Arbitrary!?!? The requirement of circumcision is “arbitrary”!? Perhaps to you, far removed from the changes that occured in the middle of Acts, but not to Paul and the Circumcision Believers in Jerusalem according to Acts 10,11,15 and the entire epistle to the Galatians where Paul tells us explicitly that Christ committed to him the uncircumcision gospel and to Peter the circumcision gospel (Gal 2:7-8). I take that statement seriously, while you are trying hard to make it disappear.

you asked

But do you listen to Paul’s own words? "I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to 5 Paul… or “I belong to Kephas,””

I never claimed at any time that I belong to Paul or that I am of Paul. All I am saying is that the house rules we are to believe were given to Paul for us (Eph 3:2). And that the content of these house rules is different from that given to Peter inasmuch as the new revelation revealed to Paul in “the revelation of the mystery” (Rom 16:25; Col 1:26-27) is different.

you said

but we don’t belong to either of them

I never claimed that we do.

you go on

and we shouldn’t be making divisons and rivalries between the supposedly separate gospels of Paul and Peter. Not that there is another.

Its not supposed at all. Its clearly stated in Gal 2:7-8. The uncircumcision gospel that Christ committed to Paul is the only gospel that is to be preached and believed. The circumcision gospel is not another gospel that anyone can believe and be accepted by God. The Galatians do not have a choice between the circumcision gospel and the uncircumcision gospel. Neither do we.

you claimed

It seems to me that you are making an arbitrary separation between water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit-- they’re the same thing.

No, they are not. The reason why is because water baptism is a work. The uncircumcision gospel does not require that even one work be done in order to be “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph 1:6). As Paul tells us in Romans

Romans 4:4-5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness

you continue

When we are baptized with water, in the Trinitarian formula, it is a sacrament-- a visible sign that confers actual grace. This single verse doesn’t say anything that contradicts Catholic teaching…

Yes it does! No Catholic can say along with Paul that “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” because any informed Roman Catholic believes that water baptism is part of the gospel. If you need proof of this, look at any Catholic apologist’s arguments for justification by works, which includes water baptism (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet 3:21). Every bishop and priest will tell you that Christ called them and sent them to water baptize as part of the gospel message.

you asked

Did you miss my point? I apologize if my tongue in cheek joke was inappropriate.

I can pull out a verse or a part of a verse from its context, as in the 14th Psalm, and claim that it contradicts the Bible elsewhere. I believe that you are likewise pulling these verses out of context.

You believe I am doing the same, but you are wrong. My interpretation of Gal 2:7-8 is accurate and in agreement with the Greek text. My interpretation takes into account the context of the entire epistle along with the context of the plot and plot twists found in the New Testament. My interpretation of Scripture is in no way similar to taking part of Ps 14:1 and saying, “Look! The Bible teaches that there is no God!” Your comparison is degrading and a real cheap shot.

 

[RyanL]

TheOpenTheist:

The reality is, as has been experienced by and attested by many, is that the Catholic bishops and priests and popes have no more teaching authority than any other serious student of God’s Word and theological history.

Let’s see what God’s word has to say about this…
(NIV):

Acts16: 4As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the **decisions **reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.

Now, what’s interesting here is that the word translated ‘elders’ is πρεσβυτερων. What makes this interesting is that the word is later transliterated as ‘presbyter’ and then subsequently ‘priest’ (see Mark 15:1).

So…what you have said rejects the clear teaching of Scripture. Oh, wait, Acts wasn’t written by St. Paul so it obviously doesn’t apply anymore…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[TheOpenTheist]

RobNY said

Specifically, a man is not justified by circumcision. Duh.

Those Circumcision Believers in Jerusalem didn’t believe so.

Acts 15:1,5 And certain [men] came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees WHO BELIEVED rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses."

Why did they think this way? For one thing Christ taught obedience to the law as being a requirement (read Matt 5:17-20 before attempting to disagree with this point). And what they read about the necessity of circumcision in the Old Testament made it difficult to believe that people could be accepted by God without being circumcised.

Genesis 17:13-14 "He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 "And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

Being cut off from the believing community is a really bad thing, and those who held on to the Circumcision Gospel did not want anyone to be cut off unnecessarily or harm their own standing with God by not teaching the law. They did not want to be called least, but called great among those who did and taught God’s commandments (Matt 5:19).

And James, keeping in step with the circumcision gospel that he had once preached with Peter, wrote of the necessity for Circumcision Believers to keep the law which they would be judged by (Jam 2:8-12). They are justified by faith and works (Jam 2:24).

Those in the Body, on the other hand, are justified by faith apart from works (Rom 3:19-21; 5:1).

you claimed

Baptism is like circumcision only in that it is a prerequiste for salvation. It is not like circumcision because its effectiveness is not based on following the law, but on the grace of the Holy Spirit which is conferred on the receiver by baptism.

There is no prerequisite for salvation in the Body of Christ other than faith in Christ.

Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Notice the complete lack of water baptism as a prerequisite for salvation in that passage. Now notice the requirement of trusting Christ, having believed, in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In Him you also [trusted,] after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Trusting Christ, believing the gospel, is the only prerequisite to obtaining salvation.

you said

Baptism, in this regard, cleanses and purifies the soul 1Peter 3:21

Not for those in the Body of Christ.

you concluded

Baptism doesn’t have its effectiveness because it cleans the flesh (much in the way that circumcision only effected the flesh), but it has its effectiveness because it purges the soul from sin.

Not for the Body of Christ. There is no need because through faith, apart from any works like water baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit as a seal and are complete in Christ.

you claimed

Faith apart from works is dead. Obviously.

Not for us in the Body. Faith apart from works is how we receive “the righteousness of God”. To those of us “who do not work but believe on Him who justifies the ungodly, our faith is accounted for righteousness” (Rom 4:5).

you conclude

Why do you attempt to find contradictions where none exist?

There is no contradiction between Romans and James?? Apparently, you have no problem with logical contradictions.

 

[Mickey]

RyanL:

Let’s take a look at St. Paul’s “unique” gospel concerning Baptism…

Thank you Ryan. Well done.

The long obsessive rantings about Paul’s “uncircumcision Gospel” has got be one of the strangest revisionist interpretations I have ever seen on this forum. Just when you think you’ve seen it all…another strange doctrine is set forth. Lord have mercy.

**That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive. **Eph 4:14

**For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 2 Tim 4:3
**

 

[RobNY]

Those Circumcision Believers in Jerusalem didn’t believe so.

Acts 15:1,5 And certain [men] came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees WHO BELIEVED rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses."

Well, they believed falsely that circumcision was necessary. We obviously don’t agree with the interpretation about the “circumcision gospel” and the “uncircumcision gospel,” whereas I interpret it as it has always been… that Peter had a special ministry to the Jews and Paul had a special ministry to the Gentiles, you interpret it as there being two different gospels that apply to two different groups. We don’t agree on that fundamental, so we can’t go further.

Why did they think this way? For one thing Christ taught obedience to the law as being a requirement (read Matt 5:17-20 before attempting to disagree with this point). And what they read about the necessity of circumcision in the Old Testament made it difficult to believe that people could be accepted by God without being circumcised.

Well, the NAB has this footnote:

To fulfill the law appears at first to mean a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail: until heaven and earth pass away nothing of the law will pass (Matthew 5:18). Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22). Meanwhile, during Jesus’ ministry when the kingdom is already breaking in, his mission remains within the framework of the law, though with significant anticipation of the age to come, as the following antitheses (Matthew 5:21-48) show.

Of course, Christ also taught the law of love, which is the basis of all the law, and we are certainly bound by that tightly. I think I can see many ways to explain this, but I don’t think our conversation is going to convince either of us either way, eh?

TheOpenTheist:

There is no contradiction between Romans and James?? Apparently, you have no problem with logical contradictions.

Christians have harmonized Romans and James since as early as they could. Neither these Christians, nor most Christians since all of time have seen the “logical contradictions.” I know you’re quite adamant about this, but I’m just as adamant to the contrary.

I think this is why I’ve realized that we’ve just about started going back in forth in a “yes it is, no it isn’t” mode, so, I think I’ll drop it here.

God bless,
Rob

 

[TheOpenTheist]

pnewton asked

The correct translation? Which one do you think is divinely ordained?

None of them! No translation is “divinely ordained” or inspired by God. Only the original text is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16). The correct translation is to be sought out and discussed among those translating the text. The best argument for a translation is the one that we should accept.

you said

I also checked the NASB which gave it the same genitive use I quoted. The truth is that the genitive/ablative can have a myriad of nuances, one of which is yours.

If you have an intelligent argument against the correct translation of Gal 2:7-8 that I use, then present your case so I can be persuaded. My translation agrees with EVERY INSTANCE where the word gospel is used with the genitive (for example, gospel of the kingdom). Paul also uses the same construction to refer to “the word of truth”. Should/could it be the word to truth? The word for truth? Again, since EVERY similar instance is translated gospel of the burden is on the one claiming that Gal 2:8-9 should be the exception. So, if you have an intelligent argument that shows my translation to be wrong, then produce it.

you said

I would just not discount the words of my Savior based on such one such choice in one translation of one passage.

As I have pointed out before I do not base my view on this one passage alone. Its based on many passages. Most important is my understanding of the plot of the Bible, the big picture, which informs my view. The big picture comes first, and the details follow. Not the other way around.

you claimed

But then that is why Christ had to leave behind a church to steer away from wuch heresy as this dual gospel stuff.

The church does not help steer people away from heresy, at least not here in Northern Indiana. And the Catholics who hold to the Mid-Acts view object to your referring to their recognition of the circumcision gospel and the uncircumcision gospel as being heretical. Besides, the church does not need to steer anyone away from heresy since Catholic Answers is around

you asked

You believe that because you continue assume that if Paul preached the gospel and that [gospel] included baptism, he would also be baptizing. If you are so intent on it being bad, why, grammatically speaking is it?

Not so much that he would necessarily be baptizing with water, but that the content of his gospel would include water baptism as necessary for salvation as Peter’s did (Acts 2:38).

My reasons why Paul did not preach water baptism as a requirement for membership in the Body of Christ are:

1. 
   *]Rom 10:9-10 would include water baptism or some reference to it. Eph 1:13-14 would also include a reference to receiving the Holy Spirit as a seal after believing and being water baptized. Both say nothing about water baptism being necessary to receive the Holy Spirit. We are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ when we believe.
   *]Paul tells us again and again that those in the Body are saved through faith in Christ apart from any works (Rom 3:19-26). Water baptism is a work and is excluded from being a requirement for salvation.
   *]Those in Cornelius’ house received the Holy Spirit before being water baptized in Acts 10. Prior to that experience, the order was reversed. The believer would be water baptized first and then as a result he would receive the Holy Spirit. God gave them the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism to show us that a change had occured - that the work of water baptism was no longer necessary in order to receive the Holy Spirit.
   
   you said
   

   Yes, I have concluded, based on reading the Bible for years before I became Catholic. I believed the Bible to be the sole source of truth at the time.

   OK then. If you did indeed come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that Christ instituted the Catholic Church with peter being the first pope, and that Peter was to have a successor that would perpetuate to the present time, then give me your rendition of the plot of the Bible. Present to me your big picture that results with the Catholic Church being established in the New Testament.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

pnewton said

I agreed with Paul that in salvation there is no difference between Jew or Greek. I refuse to discount the teaching of Jesus in some bizarre mini-dispensationlistic spout of theology.

You already “discount” part of what Jesus taught in the Gospels and committed to Peter and the rest before He ascended. You don’t believe that anyone need to obey the law of Moses in order to be saved (Matt 5:17-20). You don’t believe that we are supposed to give the gift that Moses commanded as an offering when we recover from a sickness (Matt 8:4). You don’t believe that we must sell everything we possess in order to follow Christ and be saved (Luke 18:22). And you certainly “discount” Christ’s teaching to “not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans” (Matt 10:5).

So, you have some sort of dispensational view that you hold to, even if it differs in some points with the one that I hold to.

you asked the following question

If I were to go that far, why not just dicount the teaching of Paul as being for those specific churches to which he wrote?

Excellent question! The main reason why we read and apply much of what we find in Paul’s epistles and some of what is found in other parts of the Bible is given in 2 Tim 3:15-17.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Within this truth, we in the Body of Christ specificly benefit from giving preference to that Scripture addressed specifcly to us. All Scripture is for us, but not all Scripture is to us. We give preference to those epistles addressed to the Body of Christ, which all of Paul’s epistles are. That’s why, for example, we believe that we are not required to keep the law of Moses (Rom 3:19-26 is believed over Matt 5:17-20). Or why we are not required to only associate with Jews (Rom 10:12 and Eph 2:11-19 is believed over Matt 10:5; 15:22-26).

Bottom line, because everyone Paul addressed was a member of the Body (with the possible exception of the Jews in Rom 2 who could be Circumcision Believers) we can relate to the advice and commands that Paul gave to those in Rome, Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus, Colosse, Phillipi, Thessaloniki and to Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Mickey

Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement, Origen and Cyprian are indeed correct in their interpretation of John 3:5. However, they commit the same error that many today are guilty of - they interpret that passage as if the revelation of the mystery to Paul had never occured.

Other errors that the church fathers believed and wrote of because of their not recognizing the significance of the revelation of the mystery are:

1. 
   *]Anti-semitism
   *]Unification of the church and the government
   *]The idear that the church is Israel
   *]The idear that the church obey the New Law.
   
   The (name removed by moderator)ut from the church fathers can be helpful at times. But, the church fathers are not the best guides when it comes to interpreting Scripture in my experience.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Mickey:

Here is the reality.

Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church.

(St Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

None of that means that any specific bishop cannot be mistaken about any of the views that they hold.

 

[Writer]

blackstone:

Just so that you do not get confused. No one is born again or saved by baptism. People will throw verses at you and say that proves it. The first verse is John 3:5 and says “born of water”
The other is Titus 3:5 which says " the washing of regeneration" Neither one means baptism.
I want you to see that Heb.4:12 says "for the word of God is alive and active. Read now Ephesians 5;25-26. Notice how God Sanctifys and cleanses his church (individual people) “by the washing of the water of the Word”. It is the Word of God that is alive and active that changes a heart so that they become born again. Titus 3:5 also says he saved us , not the works that we have done.

God Bless

I understand “born again” to mean what Catholics often call the “second conversion” or kerygma. It’s a term which simply reflects when the decision is made consciously to follow Christ and turn one’s back on the world. Let’s not hit the new Christian over the head with our church semantics!

 

[catsrus]

Singinbeauty, congratulations and welcome to the family of God.
I feel as though I have to shout very loudly for you to hear me over all the arguement going on above me here!

 

[TheOpenTheist]

They are works. Thats all the similarities needed in order to demonstrate that water baptism is not a requirement for the Body of Christ.

Actually, the person being baptised is not doing anything at all. The person doing the baptising is “acting”, yes, but just as a physical tool by which the grace flows through. Just as a carpenter making a chair would use a hammer. “Being saved” by “declaring Jesus Christ your personal Lord and Saviour” is an action you yourself make. So in essence, the baptised person is not actually doing ANYTHING, not even knowingly receiving the saving grace. If you say that they need to know they are receiving that grace in order for it to be valid, then that is an action that you are requiring of the person being saved in order for God’s grace to work. In all actuality, the Catholic view of being saved - baptism - requires absolutely zero works, it is freely given by God. Yours on the other hand, requires an action – a WORK – from you before the grace can be received, which is actually a contradiction with your “no works” philosophy.

First of all, faith is not a work. Otherwise Paul could never write “to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Rom 4:5).

Secondly, water baptism in the New Testament is just as much a work as the work of water baptism was in the Old Testament (Nym 19; Ezek 36).

Thirdly, water baptism is done for the sake of righteousness. Christ said that He was being baptized “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt 3:15). Peter used the term “works righteousness” to refer to the works done for righteousness that the Circumcision believers performed and that he imagined the Gentiles would also perform (Acts 10:35). Thankfully, the Holy Spirit fell on them before anyone had a chance to baptize them with water. This is how we receive the Holy Spirit today.

Fourthly, Catholic doctrine says that the grace that those being water baptized receive is as a result of “the work worked” or “the work done”. The latin phrase for this is ex opere operato. This position became official at the Council of Trent (1545 - 63). Canon VIII of the seventh session opposed the view that “grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace.”

 

[RyanL]

TheOpenTheist:

First of all, faith is not a work. Otherwise Paul could never write “to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Rom 4:5).

I’m afraid I’m going to have to look at what St. Paul says about this as well…

Rom. 2:7,10 - to those who by patience and good works will be granted glory and honor and peace from the Lord.

Rom. 2:13 – for it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Paul is referring to the “law of Christ” in Gal.6:2, not “works of the law” in Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2,5,10; and Eph. 2:8-9. The “law of Christ” is faith in Christ and works based on grace (God owes us nothing) and “works of the law” mean no faith in Christ, and legal works based on debt (God owes us something).

Rom. 4:5-6 – to him who does not work but believes, his faith is accounted to him as righteousness, like David, who was righteous apart from works. Here, Paul is emphasizing that works must be done in faith, not outside of faith. If they are done outside of faith, we are in a system of debt (God owes us). If they are done in faith (as James requires), we are in a system of grace (God rewards us). Hence, Paul accepts the works performed under God’s forbearance (grace) in Rom. 2:7,10,13 (see also Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:12-17; and 2 Corinthians 5:10) which lead to justification and eternal life. These verses have nothing to do with “faith alone.” Paul uses the word “alone” three times in Rom. 4:12,16,23, but never uses it with “faith.” Certainly, if he wanted to teach “faith alone,” he would have done so.

Rom. 6:16 - obedience leads to righteousness. Obedience is a good “work,” an act of the will, which leads to righteousness before God.

2 Cor. 9:8 - Paul teaches that God will bless us so that we may provide in abundance for “every good work.” Good works are encouraged to complete our faith.

Eph. 6:8 - whatever good anyone does will receive the same again from the Lord. God rewards good works done in grace.

Phil. 4:17 – Paul says “I seek the fruit which increases to your credit.” Fruits (good works) increase our justification. Paul says these works increase our “credit,” which is also called “merit.” These merits bring forth more graces from God, furthering increasing our justification as we are so disposed. But the fruits, works, and merits are all borne from God’s unmerited and undeserved mercy won for us by Jesus Christ.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are excellent and profitable to men (just like the Old Testament Scriptures in 2 Tim. 3:16). Good deeds further justify us before God. This verse should be contrasted with Titus 3:5, where we are not saved by works of righteousness “we have done.” As further discussed below, in this verse what “we have done” refers to a work of law or obligation for which we seek payment. But verse 5 also says the “washing of regeneration” in reference to baptism saves, which is a work of grace, for which we are rewarded by God in Christ. There is a distinction between “works of law or obligation” and “works of grace.”

Works of Law versus Good Works

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10; Eph. 2:8-9 - many Protestants err in their understanding of what Paul means by "works of the law” in his teaching on justification. Paul’s teaching that we are not justified by “works of the law” refer to the law of Moses or to any legal system that makes God our debtor. They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ. This makes sense when we remember that Paul’s mission was to teach that salvation was also for the Gentiles who were not subject to the “works of the law.” Here is the proof:

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 - Paul’s phrase for “works of the law” in the Greek is “ergon nomou” which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent (“hrvt ysm”) meaning “deeds of the law,” or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use “ergon nomou.” He uses “ergois agathois.” Therefore, Paul’s “works of the law” and James’ “works” are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.

 

[RyanL]

Rom. 3:29 - Paul confirms that works of the law in this case refer to the Mosaic law by rhetorically asking “Or is God the God of the Jews only?” It does not mean “good works.”

Rom. 4:9-17 - Paul provides further discussion that righteousness God seeks in us does not come from Mosaic law, but through faith. But notice that Paul also never says “faith alone.”

Rom. 9:31-32 - righteousness is pursued through faith, not works of the law. Again, “works of law” does not mean “good works.”

Rom. 11:6,11 - justification is no longer based on “works” of the law, but on the grace of Christ. Why? Because salvation is also for the Gentiles.

Rom. 15:9-12 - Paul explains that Christ also saves the Gentiles. Therefore, “works of law” are no longer required.

Therefore, faith must be behind every good work in order for it to be a work of grace. If not, it is a work of debt, and we cannot obligate God to do anything for us. Rom. 4:3-4 - Paul refers to works apart from God’s grace. We do not obligate God to give us grace like an employee obligates his employer to pay wages. Faith in Christ must be behind our good works in order for it to be considered a work of grace; otherwise, it is a work of law or obligation.

Rom. 6:23 – this is why Paul says the “wages” of sin is death. Eternal life is a free gift from God. We cannot obligate God to pay us for our works; otherwise, we are in a system of law, not a system of grace.

Rom. 11:6 – Paul says that if justification is now based on grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.

Rom. 11:35 - it is impossible to obligate God for payment, and sinful to think we can. We cannot do “works of the law” to obligate God. We are not in a debtor/creditor relationship with God. He owes us nothing. Instead, we are in a Father/child covenant relationship with Him, and He will reward us for being faithful.

Rom. 8:14-17; Heb. 12:5-11 - these texts further emphasize our father/son relationship with God. Our relationship is familial, not legal.

Rom. 7:6 - we are now discharged from the “law,” that is “works of the law.” We now serve God in faith working in love.

Rom. 10:4 - Christ is the end of the “law.” We are now justified by faith in Christ, not faith in the law.

Rom. 13:8,10 - loving one another is fulfilling the new law of Christ. This is internal and personal, not external and impersonal.

Gal. 2:16 - again, man is not justified by “works of the law.” Again, Paul is referring to the Mosaic law and anything which views God as a debtor to us.

Gal. 2:19,21 - justification “through the law” means justification through the Mosaic law or a legal system that makes God a debtor to us.

Gal. 3:10 – shows that “works of the law” refers to the “book of the law” which was the strict and impersonal Mosaic law of the Old Testament.

Gal. 3:17 - this “law” came 430 years after Abraham. So “works of law” here clearly refer to the Mosaic law, not “good works.”

Gal. 5:4,14; 6:2 - the “law” is of no use. The new law is the law of Christ, which is faith working through love.

Eph. 2:8-9 - we have been saved by grace through faith, not because of “works,” lest anyone boast. This much-quoted verse by Protestants refers to the “works” of the Mosaic law or any works performed in a legalistic sense, where we view God as a debtor to us, and not as our heavenly Father. Paul is teaching us that, with the coming of Christ, we are now saved by grace through faith, not by Mosaic or legal works.

This is why Paul refers to “works of ourselves” and so we can’t “boast.” Paul says the same thing about “works” Rom. 4:2,4 – if Abraham was justified by “works,” he would have something to “boast” about. Here, the wages are not counted as grace, but debt. “Boasting” does not attribute works to God, but to oneself. But good works done in faith are necessary for justification (James 2:24, etc.) because we receive rewards by grace, not by legal obligation, and we attribute these works to God, not ourselves.

...

Should I go on? I can…

There is ONE Gospel. To actually read it, you may want to visit www.scripturecatholic.com.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[TheOpenTheist]

RyanL said

Let’s see what God’s word has to say about this…[references Acts 16:4]

Now, what’s interesting here is that the word translated ‘elders’ is πρεσβυτερων. What makes this interesting is that the word is later transliterated as ‘presbyter’ and then subsequently ‘priest’ (see Mark 15:1).

The word translated elder or presbyter is never translated as priest. Mark 15:1 says the following

Mark 15:1 Immediately, in the morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council; and they bound Jesus, led [Him] away, and delivered [Him] to Pilate.

This passage shows that the chief priests (archiereus) are the chief priest. The elders are the elders. The scribes are the scribes. And the whole council is the whole council. It does not give any support suggesting in any way that elders can then be referred to as priests. The New Testament uses the terms bishop, elder and presbyter interchangeably, but this term does not translate into the idea of a “priest”. Besides, the Levitical priesthood is not something that carried on or exists in the Body for our benefit. Those gifts given to members of Christ’s Body for the building of the Body are listed in Eph 4:11 and none of them are referred to as priests.

you said

So…what you have said rejects the clear teaching of Scripture. Oh, wait, Acts wasn’t written by St. Paul so it obviously doesn’t apply anymore…

God Bless,
RyanL

Hold on a second! Don’t jump to conclusions about what I believe so fast. I interpret Scripture intelligently, in historical order, so that I can understand what God is doing at a specific time and for what reason and how that effects my life and those around me.

The decree that “the apostles and elders” in Jerusalem wrote was done to help Paul and his ministry to go forth without the roadblocks of the judaizers who taught that circumcision and keeping the law were a requirement. This letter was one of the best things that Peter, James and the others in Jerusalem could have done to help promote the gospel Christ committed to Paul. The credibility of those in Jerusalem who wrote the letter increased the credibility of Paul’s message and ministry among the Jews where they preached “Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery” (Rom 16:25).

By the way, I am a little over 60 miles SE of Notre Dame. I will be in the area soon. What do you say we do lunch when I come up there? At a dorm cafeteria would be fine. Let me know what ya think about that

 

[TheOpenTheist]

RobNY said

Well, they believed falsely that circumcision was necessary.

Thats not quite fair. They were just doing what Jesus told them to do, which is to obey and teach the greatest and least commandments. Circumcision is one of the greatest commandments for Jews because if you do not become circumcised then you have broken God’s everlasting covenant according to Gen 17.

We obviously don’t agree with the interpretation about the “circumcision gospel” and the “uncircumcision gospel,” whereas I interpret it as it has always been…

Thats primarily because you do not know Greek and reject the correct translation of that passage. The translation I use is the one that is in agreement with EVERY other appearance in the New Testament of the word “gospel” with the genitive case. Its gospel of the uncircumcision or the uncircumcision gospel just as the gospel of the kingdom is the kingdom gospel, etc.

you said

that Peter had a special ministry to the Jews and Paul had a special ministry to the Gentiles, you interpret it as there being two different gospels that apply to two different groups. We don’t agree on that fundamental, so we can’t go further.

They did indeed have a special ministry, but there are some significant differences in how they dealth with Jew and Gentile according to the gospel message that Christ entrusted to each. According to the “house rules” that Paul was given (Eph 3:2), according to “the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery” (Rom 16:25), whether a person is Jew or Gentile is of no consequence. According to the Gospel of the Circumcision committed to Peter, the difference between Jew and Gentile was of serious importance. They were taught the teaching Christ gave them (Matt 10:5) which said they were not to go into the way of the Gentile or a Samaritan and they obeyed it (Acts 10:28; 11:2-3) until God revealed that He had made Gentiles “clean” in Acts 10.

There are clearly two different gospels. One committed to Peter which requires circumcision and obeying the law and one committed to Paul which does not require circumcision or keeping the law. To ignore this is to ignore the significance of the revelation of the mystery revealed to Paul and communicated to us through his ministry (Eph 3:1-11; Col 1:26-27).

you said

Well, the NAB has this footnote:

To fulfill the law appears at first to mean a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail: until heaven and earth pass away nothing of the law will pass (Matthew 5:18). Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22). Meanwhile, during Jesus’ ministry when the kingdom is already breaking in, his mission remains within the framework of the law, though with significant anticipation of the age to come, as the following antitheses (Matthew 5:21-48) show.

This uninspired footnote which is the opinion of the NASB translating team seems to be saying that we are currently in the new and final age that Isaiah describes as the “new heavens and new earth”. This belief is untenable for the following reasons:

continued…

 

[TheOpenTheist]

1. 
   *]The child shall die one hundred years old (Is 65:20). This is not the case during this age.
   *]The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, The lion shall eat straw like the ox (Is 65:25) This is not the case in this age.
   *]For behold, the LORD will come with fire And with His chariots, like a whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire. 16 For by fire and by His sword The LORD will judge all flesh; And the slain of the LORD shall be many. 17 “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, [To go] to the gardens After an [idol] in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD. 18 " For I [know] their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory. (Is 66:15-18). Quite obviously, this has not yet occured.
   *]" For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall remain before Me," says the LORD, "So shall your descendants and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass [That] from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me," says the LORD. 24 “And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” (Is 66:22-24). This has not happened yet and is not currently happening.
   *]And most importantly, Paul refers to this age as “this present evil age” (Gal 1:4). We are not yet in the “age” where the entire creation is reconciled to God and living in peace.
   
   you claimed
   

   Of course, Christ also taught the law of love, which is the basis of all the law, and we are certainly bound by that tightly.

   The phrase “law of love” is not in the Bible. Anyways, we are not under any law. Those who are under the law are guilty before God. And those in the Body of Christ are not guilty, but accepted (Eph 1:6) and justified (Rom 5:1).
   
   Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
   
   Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
   
   you said
   

   I think I can see many ways to explain this, but I don’t think our conversation is going to convince either of us either way, eh?

   Well, if you insist contrary to what Paul wrote, that we are under one or more laws then I can’t go against Paul’s gospel on that basis. However, if you do recognize that those of us in the Body are not under law, then that explanation could make sense.
   
   you claimed
   

   Christians have harmonized Romans and James since as early as they could.

   Not so. They have tried to harmonize them, but have failed miserably The reason why they have failed is because they are not meant to be reconciled…
   
   you claimed
   

   Neither these Christians, nor most Christians since all of time have seen the “logical contradictions.”

   I don’t think so. Many have recognized the differences and have tried hard to explain both sets of doctrines as being compatible. We may not have the writings of every Bible student who has addressd these differences, but that does not mean they did not recognize obvious differences like requiring to be circumcised and obey the law and not being required to circumcise and keep the law. Thats a pretty big difference that is hard to ignore.
   
   you said
   

   I know you’re quite adamant about this, but I’m just as adamant to the contrary.

   Sadly though, you lack the abundance of evidence that I include within my posts.
   
   you claimed
   

   I think this is why I’ve realized that we’ve just about started going back in forth in a “yes it is, no it isn’t” mode, so, I think I’ll drop it here.
   
   God bless,
   Rob

   You may have argued in a “yes it is, no it isn’t” mode, but I clearly have not. For example, I gave evidence based upon Greek syntax WHY Gal 2:7-8 ought to be translated as “gospel of” instead of the inaccurate “gospel to” or "gospel for. All you did was reference a translation that happened to agree with you, but is still wrong according to the normative rules of translating the Greek text.

 

[RyanL]

TheOpenTheist:

The word translated elder or presbyter is never translated as priest.

Let’s pull out the ol’ Greek bible for a minute…

---

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 15 1και ευθυς πρωι συμβουλιον ποιησαντες οι **αρχιερεις **μετα των πρεσβυτερων και γραμματεων και ολον το συνεδριον δησαντες τον ιησουν απηνεγκαν και παρεδωκαν πιλατω

You’re right, I’m wrong. Presbyter was translated ‘elder’ here as well. I went too fast in my reading (I’m still fairly new to Greek). I was incorrect in citing Matt 15:1. Mea Culpa.

In Catholicism, the parish priest fulfills the role of the presbyter, which is distinct from the role of the bishop. I should have considered this, and made my point accordingly. I would disagree with you, however, that the NT uses the terms *interchangeably *(IOW, I would like to see proof for the assertion that bishop = elder = presbyter). My assertion is that (as in Catholicism), all bishops are priests/elders, but not all priests/elders are bishops. I *believe *the NT will bear this out as well (although I admit I have never tested this - it’s not an objection I’ve heard before). Extra credit reading: Presbyterorum****Ordinis.

You never answered, BTW, whether or not your church has Bishops…and if not, why not follow 1 Tim 3? It should apply…

Besides, the Levitical priesthood is not something that carried on or exists in the Body

I will readily agree that the Levitical priesthood has passed on. I would assert, however, that there is a new priesthood of the order of Melchizadech, of which Christ is the High Priest (who allows others to share in his priesthood - Hebrews 7:12).

Those gifts given to members of Christ’s Body for the building of the Body are listed in Eph 4:11 and none of them are referred to as priests.

Eph 4:11 also includes ‘Apostles’, which you would deny are here any longer (or their successors). Also, I would make the point that we are all members of the “priesthood of all believers”, so to deny that the NT teaches that there is a priesthood contradicts the clear teachings of 1 Pet 2…er…wait…that doesn’t count. That was Peter. I need to cite Paul. How about Heb 3:1 or Rev 1:6, 5:10 (…wait…do you believe Revelations applies to us…)?

%between%As for lunch…sure! I don’t have much time between classes, but we could meet for a quick bite and a little Irish atmosphere. Let me know which day you’ll be here, and I’ll try and get ahead.

God Bless, and GO IRISH!

RyanL

 

[RyanL]

OH! I also forgot to ask if anyone believed what you are advocating for the first 1500 years of Christianity. If your answer is yes, could you please say whom?

God Bless,
RyanL