What is "The Revelation of the Mystery"?

[CopticChristian]

Before a conclusion can be drawn, it should be revealed that the first century Church consisted of 4 diversified groups that lead Paul to write his epistles addressing these 4 groups of Christians in different cities.

1. Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who insisted on full observation of the Mosaic Law, meaning that only one who was or had become Jewish could become Christian. The converts would have been converts to Judaism as well as to Christianity.
2. Jewish Christians and Gentiles converts who did not insist on circumcision but required Gentiles who were converts only to Christianity to keep some Jewish observances…
3. Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who did not insist on circumcision or Jewish observances, but would be expected to respect the Jewish observances of Jewish members of the Christian community to avoid scandal.
4. Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who saw no particular signifigance to circumcision or Jewish observances, but would keep the moral code included in the OT revelation… (Raymond E. Brown; American biblical scholar).

Understanding this diverse state of the Early Christian communities it is important not to confuse the community situations, when Paul addresses the Roman converts with Jerusalem converts or Ephesian convert communities. Paul addresses each one distinctively upon their circumstances and convert understandings.

With this in mind, no matter the diversified convert community Paul’s teaching remains the same throughout his teachings “Christ Crucified” and all who believe are made one in Christ.

According to Paul it follows then, that all diversed converts, be it Jewish or Gentile are made one

Galatians 3:27* For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.* 28** There is neither **Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Jesus Christ crucified removed the enmity between Jew and Gentile, Jew and Greek making them one in Christ Jesus is the greatest mystery known to man and the heavens.

Exactly. Paul points out that God is God of all not just God of the Jews. God is impartial. This was a message that Paul had a hard time convincing the Judaizing Christians in Rome. That is why he cites the OT so much and uses examples of Moses, stretching out his arms…He cites Genesis, Exodus, Deuterotomy and Isiah among others as shown in this table…

biblewheel.com/wheel/CitationsInRomans.asp

Prompting the writing of this book…Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul by Richard B. Hays

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Exactly. Paul points out that God is God of all not just God of the Jews. God is impartial. This was a message that Paul had a hard time convincing the Judaizing Christians in Rome. That is why he cites the OT so much and uses examples of Moses, stretching out his arms…He cites Genesis, Exodus, Deuterotomy and Isiah among others as shown in this table…

biblewheel.com/wheel/CitationsInRomans.asp

Prompting the writing of this book…Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul by Richard B. Hays

Thanks for the site, it was very informative and alot of detail.

What I found fascinating about Pauls revelation of the mystery is that Paul teaches that it is through the “Church” that the manifold wisdom of God is revealed to the heavens;

Ephesians 3: 4 When you read this you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 **which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, 6 that the Gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body, and copartners in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. **

8 To me, the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ, 9** and to bring to light [for all]* what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things**,10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens*.

Colossians 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church.*

20 **and through him to reconcile all things for him,

making peace by the blood of his cross*
[through him], whether those on earth or those in heaven.**

26 the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones, 27 to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory.

Imagine that? Paul teaches that the “Church” is what makes known the manifold wisdom of God “to the principalities and authorities in the heavens”, “making peace by the blood of his cross, whether those on earth or those in heaven”.

The Church then is very instrumental and significant for the salvation of man, because She reveals the mysteries of God today that were hidden from ages and generations past including the law and the prophets which foretold or foreshadowed (hidden) the mystery of God, on how God would unite every people, tribe, nation and tongue as one in “One faith, One body, in One baptism”.

Back to the OP, Paul never hides his gospel in secret but proclaims “his good news gospel” at the same time refutes Gnostics and those who preach another gospel contrary to his.

 

[CopticChristian]

Thanks for the site, it was very informative and alot of detail.

What I found fascinating about Pauls revelation of the mystery is that Paul teaches that it is through the “Church” that the manifold wisdom of God is revealed to the heavens;

Ephesians 3: 4 When you read this you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 **which was not made known **to human beings in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, 6 that the Gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body, and copartners in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

8 To me, the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light [for all] what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things*,10 **so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church *to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

Colossians 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church.*

20 **and through him to reconcile all things for him,

making peace by the blood of his cross*
[through him], whether those on earth or those in heaven.**

26 the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones, 27 to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory.

Imagine that? Paul teaches that the “Church” is what makes known the manifold wisdom of God “to the principalities and authorities in the heavens”, “making peace by the blood of his cross, whether those on earth or those in heaven”.

The Church then is very instrumental and significant for the salvation of man, because She reveals the mysteries of God today that were hidden from ages and generations past including the law and the prophets which foretold or foreshadowed (hidden) the mystery of God, on how God would unite every people, tribe, nation and tongue as one in “One faith, One body, in One baptism”.

Back to the OP, Paul never hides his gospel in secret but proclaims “his good news gospel” at the same time refutes Gnostics and those who preach another gospel contrary to his.

What you say and a proper understanding of the letter of Paul to Romans is the springboard to helping our Protestant siblings to know that they have not been preached “the gospel”…

When you see…a Protestant coming to you and saying you have been lied to…and that you do not need a Church…just Scripture…2Tim3"16, you can point out that this only refers to the OT…

and when they use this…

9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

to tell you that the Catholic Church did not tell you this…gasp…you should gasp…wait and then

they will tell you

17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Oh my you say…you mean that by hearing someone preach, saying a sinners prayer I am saved…oh yes…just ask Jesus to be your personal lord and savior…you then ask, show where in the book of romans does it say this…there will be silence…

You next ask…Do you know to whom the letter to the Romans was written.?..regardless of the answer you tell them to a Church where there were Christians. Now why would Paul put a presumed formula for conversion in a letter to Christians at a Church.?..hello…you then point out all you have read in this post and then YOU PREACH THE GOSPEL…for there is no other gospel…

 

[JohnVIII]

Basics of the Revelation of the Mystery has been put forth by CopticChristian, Gabriel of 12, and John7. Thank you all!

I started this thread in the Non-Catholic Religion forum, rather than the Apologetic’s forum because I think the Revelation of the Mystery has very little to do with most of the issues Roman Catholic’s care about. Religions that would care more about it might be Dispensationalists and Gnostics. I think what started to upset some here was when I said that I think there could be something semi-Gnostic about this. Semi-Gnostic was not the term I should have used, more like ‘a little bit Gnostic-like in appearance’.

You see I was approaching the Revelation of the Mystery and Paul’s Gospel from a non-Catholic angle because I wished to discuss how this played a roll in the very beginning of Christianity in the city of Rome. It would be difficult to have this discussion with Roman Catholic’s exclusively because in involves considering the possibility that Rome was not founded in exactly the way Roman Catholic’s desire to believe. I fear that a deviation in how Rome was founded would be something we could never get past so that we could discuss the meat of how significant the Revelation of the Mystery and Paul’s Gospel was to the first Christians in Rome.

Dear Brother CopticChristian, After reading through all of your postings on this thread I gather that the reason what I have said is not faith-promoting to you is because you believe that a believer must belong to the Roman Catholic Church to be saved. I gathered this from how you kept referring to Protestants (about 9 times) saying that their understanding of salvation, though scriptural-sounding, is not how the Roman Church has interpreted it and is therefore not correct. You said that Protestants are wrong to believe that you do not need to belong to any particular church. Now that I see this I can say that from your point of view you are right about me. Some of what I have to say does not promote unity with the Roman Church. I am by no means trying to be anti-Catholic, it’s just that I only accept some of what Rome teaches because I only believe that some of it is true. But for those who put the Roman Church into the Gospel as a part of the message of salvation, I can see how anything that does not promote Romanism can be seen as not faith-promoting.

All I can say about the matter of not promoting Romanism is that I am sorry. I will affirm every Roman teaching that I can, but I do not believe you must be united to Rome to be in the Church, or to be saved. I feel more inclined to support Protestants in their faith, because they are Christians, then to say to them that they must change how they believe and what church they go to.

I do believe that Rome was established to be the head church of all the Orthodox Catholic Churches. But I do not believe that the first Pope of Rome was St Peter. Those of you that do believe that St Peter was the first Pope do so not because there is any record that this was a fact (and there is no such record) but because the Magisterium has said as much and you feel compelled to agree with it. I don’t wish to change your belief any more that I wish to change the beliefs that a Protestant believes. It’s just that what records we do have paint a picture that is far more accommodating to the notions that arise with regard to the Revelation of the Mystery and Paul’s Gospel.

St Paul said ‘to him who is able to establish you’. Of course, you want to believe that the ‘him’ was St Peter. Nowhere does any Church Father say that the first bishop of Rome was St Peter, but rather most say it was Linus. This follows the Apostolic pattern that the first bishops in the Churches were chosen from the ‘70 Apostles’ (or 70 disciples, if you wish), because Linus was one of the 70. Furthermore, the first early record of any bishop of Rome receiving from St Peter the Keys of the Kingdom is from the Clementine Homilies, but in it St Pope Clement said that he received the Keys directly from the hands of St Peter himself, just before St Peter died. This means Pope Linus and Pope Cletus did not have the Keys! And, in this epistle that St Pope Clement said he received the Keys, he said this to St James, bishop of Jerusalem, to who the epistle was addressed, and the opening words of the epistle from Pope Clement to St James (which you can read here) says, “Clement to James, the lord, and the bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently rounded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always.” So, it would appear that even after Pope Clement held the Keys of the Kingdom and St Peter had died that Pope Clement still did not consider himself to be the head of the universal Church, but it was still St James that was the head, the “bishop of bishops”, over all “the churches everywhere”, not Pope Clement!

Now there is no reason to not believe that at some point in time AFTER the death of St James, bishop of Jerusalem, that Rome came to acquired the primacy of the whole universal Church. But St James outlived at least two bishops of Rome and St Peter himself. You don’t wish to believe it happened this way because today’s teaching of the Roman Church has said it happened differently? Then don’t! There is no need for you to change how you wish to believe on this matter. But I will say that I believe that it was St Linus that was the one whom St Paul said established the Church at Rome. And we can assume that it was established, as Paul said, “according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret”.

…cont…

 

[JohnVIII]

…cont…

• “According to my Gospel” - I think there were 2 written Gospels at that point in time. One was “The Gospel According to St Paul”, and the other was “The Gospel According to the Hebrews”.
• “The preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the Revelation of the Mystery” - This revelation was probably the revelation God gave to St Peter as is recorded in Acts10:1-48, 11:4-18.

The Gentiles were not called into the Church as if it were for them the “New” Covenant, because they never had an “Old” Covenant with God. The Old Testament spoke of the Gentiles being blessed through the rise of Israel, but it never spoke of the their entry into the Body of Christ through the fall of Israel!

As St Paul said in Romans 11:26-32:

" All Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”
“THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. "

The Gospel According to St Paul presented the message of Christ with very little references to the Old Testament, only enough to explain that it was because of the ungodliness of Israel that God opened the door of salvation to those who never before had any type of covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Now to open this door of salvation one needed to use a Key. The Key was given to St Peter and he used the Key when he received the Revelation of the Mystery!

There is also a parable in Luke 16:1-9 that I think was a part of The Gospel According to St Paul that speaks of an unfaithful servant who was saved by secretly making deals with his master’s debtors so that he could be welcomed into their homes. And Christ said, “make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness *, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings *”.

I think St Paul was hinting at St James of Jerusalem when he quoted “the ungodliness of Jacob”. There is no such name “James” in the Bible, in the Greek both Jacob & James are the same name. Not that St Paul was implying that St James was ungodly, he was just the opposite, but as the leader of all the Hebrews (the whole Church, but the Jews first) he sort of represented Israel which mostly rejected the message of Christ. And the Jews also killed St James be cause he refused to deny Christ and he prayed, just as his brother did when they killed Him, ‘forgive them for they don’t know what they are doing’.

It must have been sometime between the martyrdom of St James and a Greek first sat in the Chair of St James in Jerusalem that Rome somehow acquired the primacy over all the Churches of God. Following the same pattern as the Gospel, that through the fall of the See of Jacob the primacy has come to Rome of the Gentiles.**

 

[CopticChristian]

…cont…

• “According to my Gospel” - I think there were 2 written Gospels at that point in time. One was “The Gospel According to St Paul”, and the other was “The Gospel According to the Hebrews”.* “The preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the Revelation of the Mystery” - This revelation was probably the revelation God gave to St Peter as is recorded in Acts10:1-48, 11:4-18.

The Gentiles were not called into the Church as if it were for them the “New” Covenant, because they never had an “Old” Covenant with God. The Old Testament spoke of the Gentiles being blessed through the rise of Israel, but it never spoke of the their entry into the Body of Christ through the fall of Israel!

As St Paul said in Romans 11:26-32:

" All Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”
“THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. "

The Gospel According to St Paul presented the message of Christ with very little references to the Old Testament, only enough to explain that it was because of the ungodliness of Israel that God opened the door of salvation to those who never before had any type of covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Now to open this door of salvation one needed to use a Key. The Key was given to St Peter and he used the Key when he received the Revelation of the Mystery!

There is also a parable in Luke 16:1-9 that I think was a part of The Gospel According to St Paul that speaks of an unfaithful servant who was saved by secretly making deals with his master’s debtors so that he could be welcomed into their homes. And Christ said, “make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness *, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings *”.

I think St Paul was hinting at St James of Jerusalem when he quoted “the ungodliness of Jacob”. There is no such name “James” in the Bible, in the Greek both Jacob & James are the same name. Not that St Paul was implying that St James was ungodly, he was just the opposite, but as the leader of all the Hebrews (the whole Church, but the Jews first) he sort of represented Israel which mostly rejected the message of Christ. And the Jews also killed St James be cause he refused to deny Christ and he prayed, just as his brother did when they killed Him, ‘forgive them for they don’t know what they are doing’.

It must have been sometime between the martyrdom of St James and a Greek first sat in the Chair of St James in Jerusalem that Rome somehow acquired the primacy over all the Churches of God. Following the same pattern as the Gospel, that through the fall of the See of Jacob the primacy has come to Rome of the Gentiles.**

The onus is on you to produce what you call 2 gospels.

If you believe that the Gentiles had no Covenant then you too do not understand the letter to the Romans…if you put your faith in Abraham as the Covenant…then Paul points out…God had an original Covenant with Adam…for by one mans sin we were made sinners and by one mans obedience we were made righteous. The Covenant is not the Mosaic law…it is the Moral Law…for the Gentile as Pauls says is circumcised of the heart and are a law unto themselves…if they were circumcised and a law unto themselves then they were in the Covenant.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The onus is on you to produce what you call 2 gospels.

If you believe that the Gentiles had no Covenant then you too do not understand the letter to the Romans…if you put your faith in Abraham as the Covenant…then Paul points out…God had an original Covenant with Adam…for by one mans sin we were made sinners and by one mans obedience we were made righteous. The Covenant is not the Mosaic law…it is the Moral Law…for the Gentile as Pauls says is circumcised of the heart and are a law unto themselves…if they were circumcised and a law unto themselves then they were in the Covenant.

Ditto CopticChristian; After all that reading how easy it is for one to forget why Jesus came to do the will of the Father for the many?

The gospel in simple form;

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave* his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.*

18 Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Amen

 

[JohnVIII]

The onus is on you to produce what you call 2 gospels.

The Gospel According to St Paul can be re-produced because of extensive quoting of it by Church Fathers, however, it is essentially the same thing as The Gospel According to Luke. And the Gospel According to the Hebrews is essentially the same thing as The Gospel According to Matthew.

If you believe that the Gentiles had no Covenant then you too do not understand the letter to the Romans…if you put your faith in Abraham as the Covenant…then Paul points out…God had an original Covenant with Adam…for by one mans sin we were made sinners and by one mans obedience we were made righteous. The Covenant is not the Mosaic law…it is the Moral Law…for the Gentile as Pauls says is circumcised of the heart and are a law unto themselves…if they were circumcised and a law unto themselves then they were in the Covenant.

Non-dittos here. Sorry, the only thing that can put you under the Old Covenant is circumcision. “Circumcised of the heart” is just an expression St Paul used to make a point.

If there is no speed limit on a road, but you choose to drive no faster than 65 mph, that does not create a law that you then are magically under. You could say that you are obeying the ‘speed limit of your heart’; that would be nice of course, but it doesn’t put you under a law.

These same Gentiles that before knowing of Christ and were “circumcised of the heart” were also called by St Paul as: “Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” (Ephesians 2:12)

A pagan that is leading a moral life is still a pagan! They were without God and strangers to the Covenants! When they became Christians they entered into their FIRST ever covenant with God. It is a covenant of grace that gave them a relationship with God that had nothing to do with Judaism or Jewish Law or anything Jewish, yet they were no different spiritually to Jewish Christians. And the gospel message includes that God choose to do this secretly, that is without any forewarning via the prophets, because of the ungodliness of Jacob.

Putting this matter in the context of Rome in the very early days, before St Peter came to Rome (if he did). Roman Christians learned of a Christianity that had nothing to do with the Jews. Sure, Jesus was Jewish, but that was irrelevant. St Peter was Jewish and he had the Revelation, but it was given to him not because Roman Christians needed it but God gave it to Peter to inform Jewish Christians to leave the Roman Christians alone, because they don’t need Judaism. Roman Christianity was whole and complete with all that was needed BEFORE St Peter came to Rome.

I’m sure there were reasons, good reasons, for St Peter coming to Rome and giving the Keys (if that’s what he did). I don’t claim to know what those reasons were, but I believe that one reason was NOT so that Christians that were already complete in Christ need something more to re-make them complete. Protestants are Christians and they are therefore complete in Christ. They don’t need Catholicism to complete them any more that a Christian needs Judaism to complete them. Now if you don’t buy this line of thinking then…

Just continue believing that being "circumcised of the heart’ put’s you under the covenant. But I ask you to do so with consistency. Here’s how, for example, Lutherans have a Mass and they look and sound very Catholic-like. I think you could say that they are ‘Catholic of the heart’. So therefore that makes them Catholic! Shazzam!

 

[CopticChristian]

The Gospel According to St Paul can be re-produced because of extensive quoting of it by Church Fathers, however, it is essentially the same thing as The Gospel According to Luke. And the Gospel According to the Hebrews is essentially the same thing as The Gospel According to Matthew.

Non-dittos here. Sorry, the only thing that can put you under the Old Covenant is circumcision. “Circumcised of the heart” is just an expression St Paul used to make a point.
Just continue believing that being "circumcised of the heart’ put’s you under the covenant. But I ask you to do so with consistency. Here’s how, for example, Lutherans have a Mass and they look and sound very Catholic-like. I think you could say that they are ‘Catholic of the heart’. So therefore that makes them Catholic! Shazzam!

You have a mindset concerning Peter, Rome, Paul and that is not the essence of the letter to Romans. Ask yourself this. If Rome was complete why do we see Paul writing the letter concerning this problem? Paul mentions this problem again in Galatians and if you read all of his letters he frequently references Jew, Gentile, Greek and mystery.

16

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Paul teaches, as does the Catholic Church Natural Law. Yes the world is under Natural law, not mosaic law. Paul points this out in the introduction of his letter to Rome.

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

There is no excuse not to know the workings of God because you can see it in the world. Circumcised of the heart puts you under Moral Law not mosaic law…The Mosaic law was added because of man’s disobedience…

The Church teaches that the Church is how you and everyone else joins the Covenant of grace, by Baptism and yes Protestants are part of that Covenant, however incompletely.

As an Orthodox you believe in Tradition, Scripture and Patristics. You believe in Apostolic Succession and “similes” do not equate to Orthodoxy or you would look at the Catholic Church and say “shazaam” and forget about the filioque. Do you who say don’t judge also judge? I suggest you spend some more time reading Paul.

 

[JohnVIII]

…“similes” do not equate to Orthodoxy…

Funny! We are in full agreement here, “similes” do not equate to Orthodoxy!

You have a mindset concerning Peter, Rome, Paul and that is not the essence of the letter to Romans. Ask yourself this. If Rome was complete why do we see Paul writing the letter concerning this problem? Paul mentions this problem again in Galatians and if you read all of his letters he frequently references Jew, Gentile, Greek and mystery.

Not complete?

Colossians 2:4-12:

I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument. For even though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good discipline and the stability of your faith in Christ.

Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

The Church teaches that the Church is how you and everyone else joins the Covenant of grace, by Baptism and yes Protestants are part of that Covenant, however incompletely.

So,

• Bible: “in Him you have been made complete”
• Church: you are incomplete until you have St Peter

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear CopticChristian,

You mentioned how I needed to read Romans because you didn’t think I knew what it says. So, I have a question about being “complete” with regard to Romans.

For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Romans 4:3)

For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe. (Romans 4:9-11)

My question, was Abram “complete” through faith before he was circumcised? Or was circumcision needed still to make Abram complete?

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified (Romans 4:13-14)

As an Orthodox you believe in Tradition, Scripture and Patristics. You believe in Apostolic Succession and “similes” do not equate to Orthodoxy or you would look at the Catholic Church and say “shazaam” and forget about the filioque. Do you who say don’t judge also judge?..

I believe the Eastern Orthodox are still spiritually tied to Rome. When I say “shazaam” I say it to the Eastern Orthodox too. But an EO is less likely to go back and forth about this with me because they don’t like Orthodox to appear divided in their beliefs. That’s why, to be fair to the Orthodox, I call myself “semi-Orthodox”. If I am something different then the Orthodox are not divided in their opinions. But I do go to an Eastern Orthodox Church. As for the filioque, I believe the Son is generated from the Father and the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father and the Son. So, for me it’s not “and the Son” (filioque), it’s “and the Holy Spirit”. You might say I consider the Holy Spirit to be the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, and the Son the 3rd. So now that you know that I disagree over a minor point in the Trinity (it is a deviation not in any way greater than the filoque was a deviation), would you say that disagree = judge? If so, I am guilty as charged. My judgement in this case goes against Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant! I think it might be in line with the Church of Samaria however. The Apostles converted Samaria to Christ too, and the first bishop of Samaria was Nicolaus, who was #12 of the 70 Apostles. Call me semi-Orthodox, or heterodox, or heretic, but even if my Church someday excommunicates me for this I will remain in this same confession of Faith. But I also believe that the confession of Roman Catholic’s and the confession of Eastern Orthodoxy is acceptable to God as well. God has called us to peace.

…I suggest you spend some more time reading Paul.

Ok

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Romans 5:6-10)

The Revelation of the Mystery was to protect the liberty we Christians have in Christ from those who wanted to add to the Gospel Judaism or the Law. But I see no reason that in cannot apply, by extension, to anything that anyone wishes to add to the Gospel in order to claim that the Christian is not complete without this addition.

Then what advantage is there in being Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox)? Well, if St Clement really did receive the Keys from St Peter, as the The Clementine Homilies say did happen, then somehow the advantage would by much the same as what Paul said was the advantage in being a Jew, he said, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” (Romans 3:1-2) But by no means does a Christian also being a Jew make them complete, whereas all non-Jewish Christians are incomplete. Likewise, if Rome has the oracles of God now, by no means does a Christian also being a Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) make them complete, whereas all non-Catholic (or non-Eastern-Orthodox) Christians are incomplete.

 

[CopticChristian]

Dear CopticChristian,

You mentioned how I needed to read Romans because you didn’t think I knew what it says. So, I have a question about being “**complete” **with regard to Romans.

For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Romans 4:3)

For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe. (Romans 4:9-11)

My question, was Abram “complete” through faith before he was circumcised? Or was circumcision needed still to make Abram complete?

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified (Romans 4:13-14)

I believe the Eastern Orthodox are still spiritually tied to Rome. When I say “shazaam” I say it to the Eastern Orthodox too. But an EO is less likely to go back and forth about this with me because they don’t like Orthodox to appear divided in their beliefs. That’s why, to be fair to the Orthodox, I call myself “semi-Orthodox”. If I am something different then the Orthodox are not divided in their opinions. But I do go to an Eastern Orthodox Church. As for the filioque,** I believe the Son** is generated from the Father and the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father and the Son. So, for me it’s not “and the Son” (filioque), it’s “and the Holy Spirit”. You might say I consider the Holy Spirit to be the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, and the Son the 3rd. So now that you know that I disagree over a minor point in the Trinity (it is a deviation not in any way greater than the filoque was a deviation), would you say that disagree = judge? If so, I am guilty as charged. My judgement in this case goes against Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant! I think it might be in line with the Church of Samaria however. **The Apostles **converted Samaria to Christ too, and the first bishop of Samaria was Nicolaus, who was #12 of the 70 Apostles. Call me semi-Orthodox, or heterodox, or heretic, but even if my Church someday excommunicates me for this I will remain in this same confession of Faith. But I also believe that the confession of Roman Catholic’s and the confession of Eastern Orthodoxy is acceptable to God as well. God has called us to peace.

Ok

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Romans 5:6-10)

**The Revelation of the Mystery was **to protect the liberty we Christians have in Christ from those who wanted to add to the Gospel Judaism or the Law. But I see no reason that in cannot apply, by extension, to anything that anyone wishes to add to the Gospel in order to claim that the Christian is not complete without this addition.

**Then what advantage is there in being Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox)? **Well, if St Clement really did receive the Keys from St Peter, as the The Clementine Homilies say did happen, then somehow the advantage would by much the same as what Paul said was the advantage in being a Jew, he said, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” (Romans 3:1-2) But by no means does a Christian also being a Jew make them complete, whereas all non-Jewish Christians are incomplete. Likewise, if Rome has the oracles of God now, by no means does a Christian also being a Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) make them complete, whereas all non-Catholic (or non-Eastern-Orthodox) Christians are incomplete.

Define Complete as you understand it.

You do go to a Sister Church, amen.

You believe in the Trinity as do I, amen.

Your confession of Faith is Apostolic, mine too, amen.

The revelation of the mystery was in the fullness of time as decided by God and I venture not to suggest I can say that I know or understand the “cause”. I disagree.

The advantage is the same. For to the Church were given the Oracles of God, the Bible, amen.

For I say there is neither Jew, Gentile, Barbarian or Greek for all are one in Christ Jesus, through the Church, by Baptism and the grace of God, for God is impartial and wants all children to come to HIm through the mystery hidden for all ages, the Church, pillar and foundation of truth, mystery hidden for all ages through which the wisdom of God is known so that where once we were foreigners we are now complete…see how much love the Father has that He declares us to be children of God and so we are, amen.

You are a child of God through your Baptism, by the Church, amen.

 

[CopticChristian]

Dear CopticChristian,

You mentioned how I needed to read Romans because you didn’t think I knew what it says. So, I have a question about being “complete” with regard to Romans.

For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Romans 4:3)

For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe. (Romans 4:9-11)

My question, was Abram “complete” through faith before he was circumcised? Or was circumcision needed still to make Abram complete?

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified (Romans 4:13-14)

I believe the Eastern Orthodox are still spiritually tied to Rome. When I say “shazaam” I say it to the Eastern Orthodox too. But an EO is less likely to go back and forth about this with me because they don’t like Orthodox to appear divided in their beliefs. That’s why, to be fair to the Orthodox, I call myself “semi-Orthodox”. If I am something different then the Orthodox are not divided in their opinions. But I do go to an Eastern Orthodox Church. As for the filioque, I believe the Son is generated from the Father and the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father and the Son. So, for me it’s not “and the Son” (filioque), it’s “and the Holy Spirit”. You might say I consider the Holy Spirit to be the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, and the Son the 3rd. So now that you know that I disagree over a minor point in the Trinity (it is a deviation not in any way greater than the filoque was a deviation), would you say that disagree = judge? If so, I am guilty as charged. My judgement in this case goes against Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant! I think it might be in line with the Church of Samaria however. The Apostles converted Samaria to Christ too, and the first bishop of Samaria was Nicolaus, who was #12 of the 70 Apostles. Call me semi-Orthodox, or heterodox, or heretic, but even if my Church someday excommunicates me for this I will remain in this same confession of Faith. But I also believe that the confession of Roman Catholic’s and the confession of Eastern Orthodoxy is acceptable to God as well. God has called us to peace.

Ok

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Romans 5:6-10)

The Revelation of the Mystery was to protect the liberty we Christians have in Christ from those who wanted to add to the Gospel Judaism or the Law. But I see no reason that in cannot apply, by extension, to anything that anyone wishes to add to the Gospel in order to claim that the Christian is not complete without this addition.

Then what advantage is there in being Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox)? Well, if St Clement really did receive the Keys from St Peter, as the The Clementine Homilies say did happen, then somehow the advantage would by much the same as what Paul said was the advantage in being a Jew, he said, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” (Romans 3:1-2) But by no means does a Christian also being a Jew make them complete, whereas all non-Jewish Christians are incomplete. Likewise, if Rome has the oracles of God now, by no means does a Christian also being a Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) make them complete, whereas all non-Catholic (or non-Eastern-Orthodox) Christians are incomplete.

My brother, listen to this audio…

saintdemianachurch.org/sermons/?sermon_id=526

from a Coptic Orthodox Church. An Oriental Orthodox Church. This message is about the Church as fulfillment of the Old Covenant. I believe that there is common ground.

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear Brother CopticChristian,

My brother, listen to this audio…

saintdemianachurch.org/sermons/?sermon_id=526

from a Coptic Orthodox Church. An Oriental Orthodox Church. This message is about the Church as fulfillment of the Old Covenant. I believe that there is common ground.

We have talked about some thinks we do not agree on, but I think we do have much more in common that we do not. I have attended a Coptic Church once and every time I see a priest I ask for his blessing. Of all Apostolic Churches that have any significant size, I think the Coptic Church has preserved its apostolic heritage the best.

I listened to the audio sermon and I will say that I feel that I can agree with what was said to 99%. But I do not think I will, in my lifetime, find a Church that is 100% as I believe. And I do feel strongly enough about that 1% difference that I cannot give it up for the sake of full unity with any Church. I have a few issues that are not as the Eastern Orthodox teach one of these is what and where the Church is.

No jurisdiction, either local or universal, nor any combination of jurisdictions can fully contain the Church. The Church is reveled in a Mystery and both the Sacraments of the Church as well as the Church Herself exist both within and without any and all official jurisdictional lines. This is what I believe about the Church.

I think you were trying to lay a foundation concerning the matter of “covenants” to put the Church within this context. You audio I listened to said that it was to be a series of lessons about the Church, and this first one started by discussing covenants. So permit me to make some comments about covenants and their relationship (if any) to the Church:

Your audio spoke of 3 covenants:

1. 
   *]Abrahamic. Audio said was fulfilled in Christ.
   *]Davidic. Audio said was fulfilled in Christ.
   *]And, Mosaic. Audio said was replaced by the Church.
   
   I agree that the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. Gentiles were not a part of this covenant until they became Christian.
   
   I agree that the Davidic Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. (Except that there still remains a time when the Seed of David (Christ) will rule on Earth.)
   
   As for the Mosaic Covenant, it’s not exactly so that the Church replaced it. The Mosaic Covenant is the “Old Covenant”. The “New Covenant” is what made the Mosaic Covenant “Old”. The Old and the New are really the same covenant. The Old was a shadow of the New, and the New was the true Covenant made with the Blood of Christ. The Law of God is a part of both the Old and the New. But the Law is “changed” in the New because the priesthood is changed. In the Old it is the Aaronic Priesthood, in the New it is the Melchizedek Priesthood. This Christian synagogue under the New Covenant was the “Church” for Jewish Christians, Samaritan Christians, and any Gentile proselytes (converts to Judaism) Christians. But it wasn’t called “Church” yet because it was seen as a new sect of Judaism.
   
   Then, after the Revelation of the Mystery, there was a man in Caesarea called Cornelius who became the first to be baptized without first converting to Judaism. God sent Paul to preach the Gospel to Gentiles, telling them that once they become Christians they are not to join Judaism, that they are not under the Mosaic Covenant, nor are they under Law. They are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ, which is the New Covenant for the Jews, but for them it is the partaking of what they are, namely the Church, which is the Body of Christ.
   
   " Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things. " (Romans 15:27)
   
   So, if you were under the Old Covenant and became a Christian then you enter the New Covenant. But if you are not under any covenant and you become a Christian than you only enter the Abrahamic Covenant because you are in the Seed (Christ) of Abraham.
   
   When the Church was established in Rome according to the Revelation of the Mystery, there was no replacing of any “Old Covenant” there. The Church didn’t replace any law or any covenant in Rome. In the Church in Jerusalem the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant, and Rome became partakers of their spiritual things without entering their Mosaic Covenant.

 

[CopticChristian]

Dear Brother CopticChristian,

We have talked about some thinks we do not agree on, but I think we do have much more in common that we do not. I have attended a Coptic Church once and every time I see a priest I ask for his blessing. Of all Apostolic Churches that have any significant size, I think the Coptic Church has preserved its apostolic heritage the best.

I listened to the audio sermon and I will say that I feel that I can agree with what was said to 99%. But I do not think I will, in my lifetime, find a Church that is 100% as I believe. And I do feel strongly enough about that 1% difference that I cannot give it up for the sake of full unity with any Church. I have a few issues that are not as the Eastern Orthodox teach one of these is what and where the Church is.

No jurisdiction, either local or universal, nor any combination of jurisdictions can fully contain the Church. The Church is reveled in a Mystery and both the Sacraments of the Church as well as the Church Herself exist both within and without any and all official jurisdictional lines. This is what I believe about the Church.
I think you were trying to lay a foundation concerning the matter of “covenants” to put the Church within this context. You audio I listened to said that it was to be a series of lessons about the Church, and this first one started by discussing covenants. So permit me to make some comments about covenants and their relationship (if any) to the Church:

Your audio spoke of 3 covenants:

1. 
   *]Abrahamic. Audio said was fulfilled in Christ.
   *]Davidic. Audio said was fulfilled in Christ.
   *]And, Mosaic. Audio said was replaced by the Church.
   
   I agree that the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. Gentiles were not a part of this covenant until they became Christian.
   
   I agree that the Davidic Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. (Except that there still remains a time when the Seed of David (Christ) will rule on Earth.)
   
   As for the Mosaic Covenant, it’s not exactly so that the Church replaced it. The Mosaic Covenant is the “Old Covenant”. The “New Covenant” is what made the Mosaic Covenant “Old”. The Old and the New are really the same covenant. The Old was a shadow of the New, and the New was the true Covenant made with the Blood of Christ. The Law of God is a part of both the Old and the New. But the Law is “changed” in the New because the priesthood is changed. In the Old it is the Aaronic Priesthood, in the New it is the Melchizedek Priesthood. This Christian synagogue under the New Covenant was the “Church” for Jewish Christians, Samaritan Christians, and any Gentile proselytes (converts to Judaism) Christians. But it wasn’t called “Church” yet because it was seen as a new sect of Judaism.
   
   Then, after the Revelation of the Mystery, there was a man in Caesarea called Cornelius who became the first to be baptized without first converting to Judaism. God sent Paul to preach the Gospel to Gentiles, telling them that once they become Christians they are not to join Judaism, that they are not under the Mosaic Covenant, nor are they under Law. They are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ, which is the New Covenant for the Jews, but for them it is the partaking of what they are, namely the Church, which is the Body of Christ.
   
   " Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things. " (Romans 15:27)
   
   So, if you were under the Old Covenant and became a Christian then you enter the New Covenant. But if you are not under any covenant and you become a Christian than you only enter the Abrahamic Covenant because you are in the Seed (Christ) of Abraham.
   
   **When the Church was established in Rome according to the Revelation of the Mystery, there was no replacing of any “Old Covenant” there. The Church didn’t replace any law or any covenant in Rome. In the Church in Jerusalem the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant, and Rome became partakers of their spiritual things without entering their Mosaic Covenant./**QUOTE]
   
   We agree. 99% give or take is wonderful. Bless you.
   
   I agree with your statement of the Church. Alleluia.
   
   Concerning the Church in Rome as the mystery. The mystery was hidden. Paul as you know wrote Thessolonians, then Corinthians, Galatians, Romans and Ephesians. In Galatians you see him developing what he fully expressed in Romans and in Ephesians the mystery is explained more fully than in Romans.
   
   The mystery that was hidden was evident before the letters were written and was thriving in many places outside of Jerusalem. The Church in Rome was the Church in Rome. The Church at the moment of its revalation as explained by Paul was what others did not realize was how God was to call his people.
   
   So let’s just settle on 1%. You can thumb your nose at me and I will smile.