How Many Dispensations Are There In The New Testament Period?

[The_Augustinian]

Finally, against your citation of biblical texts supposedly showing that God changes, I say that “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor the Son of Man, that He should change His mind.” (Num. 23:19)

God appears to change His mind in order to make Himself comprehensible to us finite beings, but in reality He is the unmoved, and we are the movers, moved by His grace. For, if our free will was not prompted by the grace of God, then we would earn our salvation! You’re not a Pelagian, are you?

 

[TheOpenTheist]

** **Peter and Paul were responsible to reach one segment of the population in the central part of the Roman Empire: Peter the circumcised (Jews), Paul the uncircumcised (Gentiles). The others of the twelve also did evangelistic work, as did the Seventy. (Luke 10)
One God gave one gospel through two apostles, to two different ethnic groups.

Orthodox study Bible for Gal 2:7-8

That study Bible is wrong. That Paul’s gospel contained different content is shown in those passages that say God revealed to Paul the mystery which “from the beginning of the ages had been hidden in God” (Eph 3:9). Since Paul preached “Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery” his gospel MUST have new content that Peter’s gospel did not have when Christ committed the Circumcision Gospel to Peter before He ascended to Heaven in Acts 1.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Ephesians 3:1-10 (NIV)

1For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— 2Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

7I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. 8Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Note that this mystery has now been revealed by the Spirit to the apostles and prophets (plural) not St. Paul alone. Moreover, the great “mystery” is not that St. Paul has not a separate calling for a dispensation, but that the Gentiles have been grafted into the present church.

 

[Mickey]

TheOpenTheist:

That study Bible is wrong.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif
With all due respect TOT, I got a good laugh out of this because I expected your response. Whenever someone teaches and believes revisionist theology–then comes face to face with Orthodox teaching–the only response available is: “That study Bible is wrong.”

Since your profile says “Orthodox leaning”, I would suggest that you purchase this Bible and study it often.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

It’s quite odd that you use this, and 2 Timothy to show that there was some sort of Judaization of the Church.

I never claimed that these passages show that there was an effect by the judaizers. Only that many departed from Paul’s message. Since most people were Greek and not Jews, the main source behind false teachings and heresies would have been that which came from Neo-Platonic philosophy. For example, Greeks believed that God could not change in any way, so reading that God became flesh made it very difficult for them to hold that belief and also accept that Jesus is the same God who created the universe. Augustine came to this bridge and basicly went with Neo-Platonism when interpreting the many passages that show God repenting and responding to His creation.

you said

Neither of these reference creeping legalism or corruption per se.

I never claimed that they did.

you go on

Indeed, there were many different sects, especially Gnostic sects, which lured Christians away.

That is true.

you claimed

Moreover, this turning away could also refer to apostasy under Roman persecution.

Sure, it could. Nothing convinces me that Paul is referring to that though.

you claimed

It is more likely that there was a de-Judaization, especially after the triumph at the Council of Jerusalem.

It went beyond that to anti-semitism.

you said

Paul had an enormous impact on the Church; if he preached that water baptism was not necessary, you would think that some churches would preserve that rule! And yet, water baptism was universal.

As far as you can tell its universal. Of course, with such a small amount of written information available to us, its difficult to make such a claim about a belief as being “universally” held. They could very well just be the belief held by that local congregation or church, and not by all congregations.

you said

Even when Arianism reared its ugly head there was a sizable remnant of Orthodox believers, including the Bishop of Rome! And yet this mysterious Judaization revived water baptism universally among the Christians.

I never claimed that the judaizers won the argument that water baptism had to be practiced, though I am sure they would make such a claim based on what Jesus taught in Mark 16:16 and what Peter preached in Acts 2:38.

you claimed

The trouble with your theological beliefs, from what I know of so-called “Grace” believers, is that you do not practice baptism at all

We do not practice water baptism. All of us have been baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) and that is effective for salvation. Its more than enough. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16) and that gospel does not include water baptism (1 Cor 1:17). We’re baptized by the Holy Spirit and its a baptism “without hands” just as our circumcision is “without hands” as Paul writes in Col 2.

Colossians 2:11-14 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with [Him] through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you ALL trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Those in the Body are complete in Christ and the work that is effective to salvation is the work that God alone is able to do.

you go on

and claim that the Body of Christ did not practice baptism. And that is nonsense.

Well, of course its nonsense! Paul says in 1 Cor 1 that he did water baptize some and that others in the Body practiced water baptism. When you run out of arguments, you erect some straw dunny like this to knock down. And I remind you that you are not dealing with what some other Grace Believers claim, but with me.

you asked

Show me historical evidence of one sect, one sect! that believed the same as you do. And don’t regurgitate the same verses at me. You quote verses at me, I quote verses at you, and the Devil laughs at our folly.

All I need to do is show that water baptism is not a part of the gospel Paul preached and not necessary for salvation and I have done that over and over again. There is no need to find some group in the past that wrote down the same exact beliefs I hold.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

As for your equivocation of water baptism and circumcision, I say yes, they are similar, because they are signs of the covenant.

The true sign of the New Covenant is the Lord’s Supper. That is the ultimate sign that we practice and in the process we show the Lord’s death until He comes. And the New is different from the Old, so they are not signs of “the covenant” but of two different covenants.

you go on

However, the perfect (baptism) has replaced the imperfect (circumcision).

Water baptism is not perfect at all. No sign is perfect at all. Otherwise they would not be signs. Your assertion that water baptism is “the perfect” is unfounded.

you claimed

Circumcision and the works of the law could save no-one. It only saved through the faith of the person.

Salvation is always that way. The just live because of their faith in God, through God’s grace. The person having faith has always been a necessity.

you claimed

Baptism has power in and of itself, through Christ Himself.

Such a claim is contrary to all experience. God exercises power through the Holy Spirit upon belief. Never through water baptism. No one testifies of God’s power in their life by saying “Once I got water baptized God changed me and my life turned around dramatically for the better!” Its when they believed the gospel, when faith was exercised in response to the gospel that God demonstrated His saving power in their lives.

you go on

When we are baptised we are washed with the Blood of Christ. That is the washing of regeneration and the Holy Spirit.

Yet, another unfounded claim! Here is what the part of Tit 3:5 that you referenced says

Titus 3:5 …through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit

The washing comes from being regenerated. And the renewing comes from the Holy Spirit which God pours out on us and gives us and seals us with. It does not say that we are washed by the blood. It does not say that the washing occurs from being washed in water through water baptism.

you go on

Yes, water baptism is a work. But whose work is it? Not of man, should he boast, but of God!

If it takes anything other than faith, then its a work. You need to tell a Catholic, preferably a priest, that you want to be water baptized which gets him involved in this work. Then he needs to bring the holy water, not just any water mind you. And then he must use a correct formula when baptizing you. Its definitely a work, just as much as circumcision of the flesh is.

you said

The Lutherans (of all people) have a great explanation of this at the LCMS site: Faith and Baptism

Imagine a desert. You are a lost traveler, dying of thirst. Suddenly a man comes with a canteen of water. He offers you the water, and you take it. Now, did you conjure up the water, or dig a well? Did you buy the water from the good man, or take it from him by force? No: he offered it to you, and you trusted him, so you took the water. In the same way, Christ Jesus offers us His living water in the form of baptism to us wanderers in the desert of this world. Amen.

The same thing can be said of the child that gets circumcised on the 8th day. He didn’t do anything, he just laid there as an adult cut off his foreskin. All that the 8 day old baby contributed to the procedure was the flesh and a lot of crying afterwards.

What can be said of water baptism can also be said of circumcision, which is why even RC apologists equate the two. Thankfully, God inspired His word to refer to the gospels that Peter and Paul preached in relation to circumcision (Gal 2:7-8). Peter’s required circumcision and other works. Paul’s does not require circumcision and other works, but faith only.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian asked

Turning to St. Ignatius:

Now, if this referred to St. John’s baptism, then why does it say that His Passion (which occurred after the death of the Baptist) purified the water?

It could refer to the previous water baptism in much the same way that Christ’s passion was affective upon those who had died prior to His work being done. Even though the once for all act to bring redemption had not yet occured, Abraham and Moses and David and the others could still be considered atoned for through the work that God was to accomplish one day.

you go on

The Epistle of Barnabas was written in the first century, and asserts baptism while at the same time emphasizing the end of Jewish practices such as keeping the Sabbath and circumcision.

That’s the view of the person who authored the Epistle of Barnabas, which is in no way binding since it is not God-breathed Scripture. Its just another spurious work that states that authors opinions.

you claim

So, the writer is neither, according to your definition, in the camp of the Kingdom Believers or the camp of the Body of Christ!

I do not claim such a thing. He could very well be a member of the Body, though we have no way of proving that at all. During the time that author lived the Circumcision Believers were no longer around. So, his only options were to be 1. Lost OR 2. a member of the Body of Christ.

you conclude

Indeed, if Christian baptism is a work of the law, and to be rejected along with the works of the Judaizers, then why are do the writings of all these anti-Judaizers implicitly accept Christian baptism?

Consider why churches that do not require water baptism for salvation baptize their members today. Its a form of legalism that churches practice in order to be accepted by those in their congregation and make themselves feel like they are accepted by God. When people get water baptized its either 1. Done because of an error in interpretation OR 2. Done as a result of the weakness of a person’s relationship with God. Its a weakness of the flesh, its doubting God’s promise of salvation and redemption through faith. And 3. It is sometimes done so that those in the congregation will regard the person as a serious believer, someone willing to take action and make things better through their work.

Even in the best churches, there is legalism to deal with. Times when members feel like they need to do something in order to be in good-standing with God and the congregation. As if they can improve on the righteousness of God that has been given to them as a free gift, through God’s grace alone, and in spite of what they deserve.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Circumcision is a kind of sign of the bloody sacrifices that the Jews practiced. Our Lord’s death abolished the bloody sacrifices, thus abolishing circumcision. Baptism is the application of the sacrifice of our Lord in an unbloody manner, as is, in a more substantial way, the Holy Eucharist.

St. Peter and the apostles preached to the Jews, who were already circumcised. I have no idea how you interpreted that they required circumcision as a prerequisite of salvation. If St. Peter commanded them to circumcise converts and children, then that would make sense to me. But, he did not. So, how exactly is being circumcised a prerequisite for salvation according to St. Peter?

You define a work as something apart from faith. That’s the kind of “work” that St. James was referring to when he wrote: “faith without works is dead.” I define a work as something apart from grace; in other words, something that we do in order to get God to give us something, rather than a totally free gift of God. That is what St. Paul refers to as a “work.” I believe that we are totally saved by the grace of God alone, that it is impossible to please Him outside of His grace. I believe that baptism is a part of God’s grace, because if it weren’t, we would just be taking apart in a hollow ritual with no effect. We can never cause God to be obligated to us in any way. However, God can work through us by His grace, encouraging us to do good works, including baptism.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

You implied that Christ did not have full knowledge and emptied Himself as God. In other words, He denied his omniscience, etc.

That I did. Because to “increase in wisdom” (Luke 2:52) necessitates that you do not yet possess all wisdom. To “learn obedience” (Heb 5:8) shows that there is obedience of which is not known prior to having learned it.

you claimed

This is not scriptural; Philipians 2:7 read in context does not imply that Christ limited Himself essentially but rather “emptied Himself” by taking on lowly human flesh. This website explains in detail the flaws of such kenotic theology. Like I wrote before, Christ increased in knowledge as a human being, not as God, who is always perfect in knowledge.

The bottom line is that Christ chose to limit Himself to that of a common man, for the sake of identifying with man, so that He could sympathize with our “weaknesses” and truly conquer sin and death through the cross. The Father and the Holy Spirit possessed omniscience (knew everything knowable as it actually exists). The Son decided to not possess omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence during His incarnation up to His resurrection, at the very least (Matt 28:18).

you said

As for the patience of God, patience is accidental, based upon the actions of others. We are made impatient by others for various reasons, some justified, and some unjustified. God is perfectly patient, because His patience is absolutely dependent upon His justice and mercy, which are like two halves of the same coin. Indeed, if He never became impatient, then He would not be just, because then He would let all the injustice in the world continue unabated.

So, you agree then that God’s patience is not infinite. Good.

you claimed

God does indeed micromanage the universe.

Prove it. Many passages demonstrate that He does not micromanage the universe.

you go on

He sustains all being in the cosmos, and we can only act if permitted by Him.

He sustains creation yes, but that is not the same thing as God determining which choices we make and so on. That’s what I mean by “micromanage”. Its also called meticulous providence.

you said

If God truly rested, then we would blink out of existence.

God chose, at the time of His creating the universe, that He would let men enter into true relationships with Him. God freely and soverignly chose to limit His power on us for the sake of entering into genuine give-and-take relationships. God has indeed rested from His original work of creation, which set up the rules for the relationships we are able to participate in.

you claimed

I find this more sensible and even comforting than a god who is blind to the future and does not know where his own creation is going!

God must work with a future that is not exhaustively knowable if He is to grant us the freedom to say YES to Him and it come through our freely choosing to love Him. The only way that God can truly possess exhaustive definite foreknowledge is if He chose to determine every single detail continually. God could conceivably do this, but it would make genuine relationships impossible. Since “God is love” He has chosen to enter into genuine give-and-take relationships which results in the future being made up of inevitabilities, probabilites and possibilities. As partly open and partly settled, not as completely closed/settled.

 

[The_Augustinian]

TheOpenTheist:

It could refer to the previous water baptism in much the same way that Christ’s passion was affective upon those who had died prior to His work being done.

1. 
   *]If God is bound in time, then how could His grace have a retroactive effect on St. John’s baptism?
   *]St. John said that his baptism was mere water, and not the same as Christ’s baptism. In context, it is more likely that St. Ignatius refers to Christian baptism.
   
   
   TheOpenTheist:
   

   That’s the view of the person who authored the Epistle of Barnabas, which is in no way binding since it is not God-breathed Scripture. Its just another spurious work that states that authors opinions.

   1. 
      *]How did we come to know that it was not Sacred Scripture in the first place?
      *]Even if it was not written by St. Barnabas, its viewpoint reflects the milieu of first century believers. Books are after all a product of the era.
      
      
      TheOpenTheist:
      

      So, his only options were to be 1. Lost OR 2. a member of the Body of Christ.

      Or we get rid of false dichotomies and admit that he is simply a Christian. There is nothing in the Scriptures or in the Tradition which shows that St. Peter and the apostles could not and did not choose successors to teach the gospel.
      
      
      TheOpenTheist:
      

      [Baptism is] a form of legalism that churches practice in order to be accepted by those in their congregation and make themselves feel like they are accepted by God.

      If so, then it is always wrong to baptize, then, even as a symbol of a person’s faith? If so, then it seems that St. Paul did wrong by baptizing Stephanus and his household, among others. Yet, he does not write that he did wrong, but that his primary obligation was to preach the gospel.
      
      Baptism is an outward sign of inward grace. It is a sacrament, which is from God. It makes a big difference whether or not a work is of God or of man. Yet, you seem to throw out anything which seems to be a “work” indiscriminately. This is unfortunate. I suggest you read Louis Bouyer’s The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism to understand how grace works.
      
      You claim that anything not of faith is a work. Yet, where does faith come from, if not the grace of God? The fact that we believe is not due to our effort, but from God loving us.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

Finally, against your citation of biblical texts supposedly showing that God changes, I say that “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor the Son of Man, that He should change His mind.” (Num. 23:19)

So, that one passage invalidates the almost 30 passages that show God repenting? Really? How do you come to such a conclusion? By what hermeneutic?

What do you do with a chapter like 1 Samuel 15? Early on it says that God repents. Then in the middle it says that God will not repent. Then at the end it says that God repents. Interpret that passage for me so that it is intelligible.

you claimed

God appears to change His mind in order to make Himself comprehensible to us finite beings

That’s a completely baseless assertion. The Scripture is either reality-depicting or it isn’t. And again, how do you determine, by what method, that a few passages that describe God are correct and true of who God really is and the great majority of passages do not describe God as He truly is?

you go on

but in reality He is the unmoved, and we are the movers, moved by His grace.

This is another completely baseless assertion. Tell me this: Does the incarnation reveal an “unmoved mover”?

you claim

For, if our free will was not prompted by the grace of God, then we would earn our salvation!

If your view of God is correct then we are indeed not moved by God’s grace, but by something higher than God which has determined the future which He must always abide by since His knowledge of the future as exhaustively definite requires that He does only what He knows He will do and not what He chooses to do. Your view of God makes God a slave to His knowledge and unable to stop anything in the future from occuring.

you asked

You’re not a Pelagian, are you?

I am not. Unfortunately, we do not really know what Pelagius truly believed, since we only have the arguments of his critics to go by. When a critic deals with another person’s views and explains them they usually get some of it wrong, as our discussion has shown over and over again with your asserting things about my view that I never said or implied.

And also, did you know that when someone claims that God is “sovereign” that they are comparing God to a king? A king does not at all micromanage his kingdom and neither does God.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Jesus Christ is not the result of a contingent plan. God knew all along that man would sin, so He, in His eternal grace, chose to become a man. God cannot, as God, limit himself. It is as impossible as making black equal to white.

You seem to think that freedom is equal to ignorance; that we need to not know the future, to be afraid and risk things in order to be free. That is not true freedom. For there many things that I would have done differently if I knew the future. This means that my past actions did not completely align with my will. Thus, I was a slave to ignorance. God, knowing all things, chose in a perfect manner. Perfect freedom and perfect knowledge are one; if God did not have perfect knowledge, then he could not be free.

So, why do the Scriptures show God regretting and repenting? Because they were written from the viewpoint of men, not God. Of course someone writing from the earth would say that the Sun moves, even though it is the earth that moves. To make God more comprehensible to us, He chose to reveal Himself through those words. Yet, they are not to be taken literally.

 

[The_Augustinian]

For a good summary of the traditional nature of God, there is this thread on CAF, as well as this page.

The latter page is especially helpful since it shows logically that God is necessarily eternal, perfect, timeless, immutable, etc. Certainly you could deny several of the premises, but how many could you deny before denying God?

It’s also extremely silly to say that God’s knowledge of the future limits Him in some way. Didn’t he create all things, including time? Then why would he be limited by it? Or do you believe that time is a part of God’s nature? If I know something, am I limited by it, or liberated? Knowledge is liberating, and God knows all because He knows Himself.

I’ve looked for texts by Calcidius, the so-called open theist of the 4th century. The only one I’ve found so far was a Latin translation of Plato’s Timaeus, of all things!

 

[The_Augustinian]

Certainly I might misunderstand things; we’re only human, after all. That’s what these kinds of conflicts are for: to restate one’s beliefs in a clearer fashion. However, being quick to accuse one of constructing straw men or belittling one’s opponent is not good form.

I have some questions:

1. 
   *]Can God be said to become better or worse?
   *]If God can limit Himself, then can He also commit suicide?
   *]If God is within time, does that make time uncreated? Is God limited by time?
   *]Is Jesus Christ fully God and fully Man, without any confounding of the natures?
   *]Is mankind saved by works in some eras, and by grace in other eras?
   *]What is predestination?
   *]How can Christ’s death apply to people in the present and in the past if God is not eternal?
   
   Finally, there’s an interesting discussion on open theism here and St. Thomas’ classic defense of God’s knowledge of future contingents here.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian:

Ephesians 3:1-10 (NIV)

1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— 2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

7 I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. 8 Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Note that this mystery has now been revealed by the Spirit to the apostles and prophets (plural) not St. Paul alone. Moreover, the great “mystery” is not that St. Paul has not a separate calling for a dispensation, but that the Gentiles have been grafted into the present church.

Here you go again making claims about my view that I DO NOT HOLD TO and have NEVER claimed to hold to ever.

Here is how God revealed the mystery. I will spell it out with a diagram to show how God revealed the mystery according to Scripture.

Christ revealed to Paul the mystery (Eph 3:2). Then Paul revealed it to those who were part of his ministry and to those he preached to during his ministry (Rom 16:25). And then, after that, Paul communicated the gospel he preached to some of the other apostles who told the others (Gal 2:2). That’s how God made known the mystery to the apostles and prophets. In that order.

And again, you accuse me of not being able to understand the most obvious passages in Scripture when you make the completely baseless claim that I believe that “the mystery” is that “Paul has a separate calling for a dispensation.” I never even remotely implied such a thing! Your making such accusations demonstrates that you are unable to provide any good arguments against my view.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif
With all due respect TOT, I got a good laugh out of this because I expected your response. Whenever someone teaches and believes revisionist theology–then comes face to face with Orthodox teaching–the only response available is: “That study Bible is wrong.”

Since your profile says “Orthodox leaning”, I would suggest that you purchase this Bible and study it often.

The Orthodox Study Bible is not inspired by God. The interpretations found in the Orthodox Study Bible are the opinions of those who put together that “study Bible”.

When it comes to the Greek text, the Orthodox do not have the leeway to take a genitive and turn it into a dative. No one, not the Orthodox or anyone else in the Body of Christ, possesses the ability to amend the inspired Word of God.

If you want to maintain that Gal 2:7-8 ought to be translated “gospel to” or “gospel for” then ask some Orthodox Greek expert to examine the passage and explain why (according to the rules of Greek grammar) it ought to be translated that way. Since in EVERY CASE this construction is translated as gospel of, such as “the gospel of the grace of God” or “the gospel of the Kingdom” ot “the gospel of Jesus Christ” or “the gospel of God” etc. the burden is on those who claim that Gal 2:7-8 should be the one exception to the rule.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m changing my vote - to two dispensations, not one. I forgot the OT ​

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian asked

St. Peter and the apostles preached to the Jews, who were already circumcised. I have no idea how you interpreted that they required circumcision as a prerequisite of salvation. If St. Peter commanded them to circumcise converts and children, then that would make sense to me. But, he did not. So, how exactly is being circumcised a prerequisite for salvation according to St. Peter?

You seriously have no idea how I came to that conclusion? You must not recall what I post as my views very well. I’ve given my reasons why I believe Peter and the other required circumcision several times. Perhaps you should copy and paste into a Word document some of the stuff I post and label the statements under categories for future reference. Sort of like Bob Enyart has done here enyart.com/features/quotes/index.shtml

The reason why I believe the circumcision gospel required circumcision is because of the following reasons:

1. 
   *]The gospel that Christ committed to Peter is referred to as “the gospel of the circumcision” or “the circumcision gospel”
   *]Jesus taught The Twelve and His desciples from His earthly ministry that they were not to go in the way of the Samaritans or the Gentiles (Matt 10:5-6), but to go rather to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:22-26)
   *]The response of Peter and the others in Jerusalem is shock and surprise when God tells Peter to go to a Gentiles house (Acts 10:28,45; Acts 11:2-3)
   *]The response of some of the circumcision “who believed” when they were told that Gentiles were being given the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:5; 21:20-21)
   
   you claimed
   

   You define a work as something apart from faith.

   I certainly did not! What I said exactly was “If it takes anything other than faith, then its a work.” See the difference? I never claimed that Jesus taught that faithless works were ever required, as you wrongly accuse me of doing or even that Paul taught that we should perform any faithless works. As the Spirit-inspired word wrote through Paul " And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men" (Col 3:23; Eph 6:7).
   
   you conintued based upon your misconception of my beliefs
   

   That’s the kind of “work” that St. James was referring to when he wrote: “faith without works is dead.”

   I never claimed that God wants anyone to do a faithless or dead work in any dispensation.
   
   you said
   

   I define a work as something apart from grace; in other words, something that we do in order to get God to give us something, rather than a totally free gift of God. That is what St. Paul refers to as a “work.”

   I don’t know if that squares well with Paul’s vocabulary. Let me check…Paul refers to our being “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph 2:10). Paul writes in 1 Cor 3:13 that “the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is” showing that some works we do will “endure” and others will not. And Paul refers to “wicked works” in Col 1:21. We are to “maintain good works” (Tit 3:8,14).
   
   you go on
   

   I believe that we are totally saved by the grace of God alone, that it is impossible to please Him outside of His grace.

   I agree.
   

   I believe that baptism is a part of God’s grace, because if it weren’t, we would just be taking apart in a hollow ritual with no effect.

   And that is my overwhelming (or more accurately underwhelming) experience - that those who get water baptized are taking part in a hallow ritual with no effect.
   
   you go on
   

   We can never cause God to be obligated to us in any way.

   That is true.
   

   However, God can work through us by His grace, encouraging us to do good works, including baptism.

   He can, but He hasn’t from studying what Paul teaches in his epistles. A man who was being water baptized in Texas last Sunday was electrocuted and died during a baptismal service. That was not God working through water baptism by His grace.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Augustinian:

Certainly I might misunderstand things; we’re only human, after all. That’s what these kinds of conflicts are for: to restate one’s beliefs in a clearer fashion. However, being quick to accuse one of constructing straw men or belittling one’s opponent is not good form.

I have some questions:

1. • Can God be said to become better or worse?
   • If God can limit Himself, then can He also commit suicide?
   • If God is within time, does that make time uncreated? Is God limited by time?
   • Is Jesus Christ fully God and fully Man, without any confounding of the natures?
   • Is mankind saved by works in some eras, and by grace in other eras?
   • What is predestination?
   • How can Christ’s death apply to people in the present and in the past if God is not eternal?
   Finally, there’s an interesting discussion on open theism here and St. Thomas’ classic defense of God’s knowledge of future contingents here.

1. 
   

   If God be not eternal and sovereignly free, then:​

   • He cannot be infinite in graciousness
   • He cannot be transcendent
   • He cannot be Lord of history
   • He cannot create
   • He cannot recreate
   • He cannot forgive
   and He becomes a great god indeed, but no more so than any great god of the nations whom He had not chosen - so He can do no more than they. And we are left unredeemed, in an economy based on works instead of on His Grace Who is Jesus Christ.
   
   Destroy any one attribute, & all vanish, because God is but one thing, Himself, so all His attributes are one, and are no other than His Nature. To deny that God is omniscient, is to say He is no god. He is all that He is, or He is not at all. ##

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian asked

If God is bound in time, then how could His grace have a retroactive effect on St. John’s baptism?

No one is “bound in time” since time is not a thing and cannot bind anyone or anything. God blesses and gives grace because He is able to do so and is committed to providing universally accessible redemption to the world.

you ask

St. John said that his baptism was mere water, and not the same as Christ’s baptism. In context, it is more likely that St. Ignatius refers to Christian baptism.

That’s your opinion. What John the Baptist said about Christ’s baptism is that He would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. The Holy Spirit for those who believed and fire for those who rejected Christ.

you ask

How did we come to know that it was not Sacred Scripture in the first place?

The examination by the church over time showed that it was not to be included among Paul’s writings and the writings of the Circumcision Believers.

you ask

Even if it was not written by St. Barnabas, its viewpoint reflects the milieu of first century believers. Books are after all a product of the era.

It reflected the view of some believers. Not of all. Perhaps the views of one specific congregation.

you said

Or we get rid of false dichotomies and admit that he is simply a Christian.

Its not a false dichotomy at all. Its true. At the time it was written you were either a member of the Body of Christ or lost and in need of Christ.

you said

There is nothing in the Scriptures or in the Tradition which shows that St. Peter and the apostles could not and did not choose successors to teach the gospel.

So? That isn’t the issue. Paul told Timothy the following

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

What matters is the content of the things Timothy and others heard and passed on. And we know from Scripture what Paul preached and taught among many witnesses from his epistles.

you ask

If so, then it is always wrong to baptize, then, even as a symbol of a person’s faith?

There is no need for such a symbol for the Body of Christ. All it seems to do is create confusion among those in the church, giving them the impression that it might be necessary for salvation or to show that you are a true believer. I recommend not water baptizing anyone ever since it is when you believe that you are sealed with the Holy Spirit for the Day of Redemption.

you claimed

If so, then it seems that St. Paul did wrong by baptizing Stephanus and his household, among others. Yet, he does not write that he did wrong, but that his primary obligation was to preach the gospel.

No. Paul water baptized because that was the custom that the other churches he experienced fellowship with in the beginning practiced. In time God revealed to him that water baptism is unnecessary for those in the Body of Christ. What matters is the gospel, because it is “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom 1:16).

you claimed

Baptism is an outward sign of inward grace.

For the Circumcision Believers it was a work that was necessary to perform in order to receive the Holy Spirit and have their sins remitted.

you claimed

It is a sacrament, which is from God.

Indeed, it was a sacrament that God wanted men to participate in at one time.

you said

It makes a big difference whether or not a work is of God or of man.

Yes, it is a big difference. Either you are cooperating with God’s inward working or you are not and doing your own works apart from God’s participation.

you claimed

Yet, you seem to throw out anything which seems to be a “work” indiscriminately. This is unfortunate.

Anyone that claims that a specific work or works need to be done in order to receive salvation, I throw that out or rebuke such a claim. I do not ever say that people should not do good works.

I suggest you read Louis Bouyer’s The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism to understand how grace works.

Never heard of him. Is it available online?

you asserted

You claim that anything not of faith is a work.

I never claimed such a thing ever.

you asked

Yet, where does faith come from, if not the grace of God? The fact that we believe is not due to our effort, but from God loving us.

Well, God loved us first. He took the initiative. And we did not deserve such an outreach in any way. But, we must still respond by our exercising our faith. Its our trust, not God trusting Himself through us somehow.