Where does Paul fit into the authority debate?

[Church_Militant]

Speaking of what TheOpen Theist (aka Bob Hill) actually thinks of our most holy faith, see it here. It appears he is a pastor…

You gain some insight into what he really believes by having a look at his site;

From the main page:

Bob has invested over 50,000 hours in the study of systematic theology. Although he never attended a Bible College or seminary, his knowledge of theology has become legendary.

Pax vobiscum,

 

[Todd_Easton]

Originally Posted by Todd Easton
*In numerous passages in Acts, Paul is given second billing to Barnabas. (Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:1, 2, 7; 14:12, 14; 15:12, 25) *
Alphabetical listing?

Seriously, what’s that supposed to prove?

Often in the New Testament (NT) a person’s relative position in a list of names indicates his relative standing within that group. It is not a mere coincidence that the name of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus, appears last in the NT lists of the twelve Apostles and that the name of Simon Peter, who exercised a leadership role among the Apostles in the early Church as evident in the first 12 chapters of Acts, appears first in all NT lists of the twelve Apostles. (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:16-19; Acts 1:13)

Because Paul is most often listed after Barnabas in the various passages in Acts where they are mentioned together, this is an indication that Paul was considered Barnabas’ inferior among the apostles.

 

[MonicaC]

I really hope that TheOpen Theist has opened up some minds of those who chose to read his threads here. You are a very forceful, Theopen, People come here looking for answers and we try are best to answer them, there are alot of people here who know our Faith and are very good at answering the questions asked here, honsestly without trying to steer someone around.

There were so many errors in your post about the Catholic Church that I couldn’t even begain to know where to start, and since you seem to think that you are in a postion that is higher than the rest of us, I wont. I do how ever suggest that either you decided to honestly and open heartedly do some basic research, or find somewhere else to rant about the Church. So far from what I have seen you had neither something to add to this forum nor do you plan on asking some honest questions.

Monica

 

[The_Augustinian]

There are dispensations and then there are dispensations. I certainly do not question that God makes different covenants with His people, but if we look at the scriptures as a whole, and not through the distorted lens of mid-Acts dispensationalism (or MAD) then we can note several things:

1. The covenant has a distinct sign.
2. It is made to a specific people.
3. There is a distinct group of people who act as leaders within the covenantal people.

These are the signs of a covenant, because a covenant, like a contract, is a public thing, and so that all the world can know who the people of the covenant are, there needs to be a sign.

So, let’s look at the covenants. There are three: the Noahide, the Abrahamic, and the Christian. All three have signs, all three have specific subjects, and leaders.

Now, the hypothesis of MAD is that the Christian covenant is split into two: the Jewish and the Gentile. Despite what St. Paul said there being neither Jew nor Greek in Christ Jesus, the MAD-theologian would not mind this. Especially with an “open” theology, the MAD-theologian can posit a God who just didn’t know what would happen, and thus instantly change his covenant into something else. However, the “hidden” church of Paul that the MAD-theologian posits has no sign, has no specific organization, nor a specific leader. It is built from various verses based upon a predetermined belief.

The MAD-theologian would call me blind and foolish, and utter rather abusive language. That is not surprising because heretics are usually quite unreasonable. But he then slips up by calling his theology something that he formulated, rather than something passed down through Holy Tradition.

That being said, if Peter and Paul had different gospels, then why are they said to both have founded the Church of Rome?

With that, I will close with some choice words:

*Heretics all, whoever you may be,
In Tarbes or Nimes, or over the sea,
You shall never have good words from me.
Caritas non conturbat me.
*

 

[The_Augustinian]

There are several reasons why I do not accept this heresy, for which I have good evidence and common sense to support me:

1. Having two sets of believers, both believing in the one Lord, Jesus Christ, would create a great rift. According to MAD, there are/were two different ways to be saved, existing at the same time: membership in either Peter or Paul’s communions. One is apparently based upon works salvation, and the other on a kind of antinomian faith. A house, God’s house, divided against itself does not stand.
2. Moreover, this goes against the promise of Christ, who said to Peter, that the Church which he will build will not be prevailed upon by the gates of hell. Yet, the Petrine community seemed to have broken apart after the death of the last apostle.
3. Where did the Petrists go? Why aren’t there any left, at least in scattered community? Peter didn’t leave anyone to oversee his flock for him? Did he say to any newcomers, “Oh, you go to Paul now!” This, however, goes against the purpose of the Petrine community, which is for the Jews. There are still Jews today. Where are the Petrists? The lack of evidence of their existence, outside the interpretation of a few bible verses, gives me pause.
4. For that matter, why have Christians right after the death of the last apostle forget there ever were different groups? Or is it the “trail of blood” which has obscured history? Again, if we look at the historical record the Christian church seems to have been united, with Peter and Paul having honor as founders of the Roman Church.
5. Moreover, this particular interpretation of the scripture (MAD) has only been around for several centuries. It is clearly not the most perspicuous interpretation, as it has numerous contradictions, as I have outlined in this post and others. Moreover, it is associated with a view (open theism) which no Christian would have thought of, and moreover which is heretical.

Anyway, I am not a trained theologian, nor am I as well-read as you are. I am a mere college student, 21 years in age. Excuse me for my prior rudeness. I certainly do need some kind of supplement for my eyes, as I am extremely near-sighted.

May the Holy Spirit give us sight.

The Augustinian

 

[mainusch]

Jesus gave the keys to Peter, thus elevating him to “prime minister” above the eleven other ministers in the court of the King.

When do you suppose the keys were removed from Peter, and transferred to Paul? I don’t see any indication of that in the Bible, or anywhere else.

 

[David_Zampino]

Possibly the best piece I’ve ever read on the issue of authority in the Early Church was written by the late Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar “The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church”. It was one of the things that impelled me toward my conversion decision.

It is an outstanding work, available from Ignatius Press.

Here is my review of this book on Amazon.com, written BEFORE my conversion.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898700205/qid=1128436460/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/103-5764141-9587839?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The Augustinian:

God dispense us from these dispensationalists!

Shall I presume you have new knowledge (gnosis)? What church father wrote about the mid-Acts dispensation, or for that matter, any kind of dispensation at all? Or is Christ divided?

Tell me, if there were a seperate Church of Peter and a Church of Paul,where is the evidence outside your unique Bullingerist interpretation of scriputure? What church father, what record shows a so-called Gospel of the Circumcised and a Gospel of the Uncircumcised? And why, after all these years, has dispensationalism appeared as a Johnny-come-lately?

And why do you rob Peter to pay Paul? Both choices one and two are true. You can’t make them separate.

Also, please do not post so many words at a time. It takes a while to scroll down.

Augustinian, a former Open Theist/mid-Acts dispensationalist

I agree with this. I was talking to a MAD woman a few months ago and the same points were being used, 2 Gospels, 2 Baptisms, 2 of everything. Not to mention that only Acts(last half)+Romans to Philemon are “valid” books of the Bible for us today and everything else is suspended or something.

As you have already said the “evidence” issue is where its at. The run into huge roadblocks. There really is no explaining some of the things they claim.

Just before she stopped talking to me that MAD woman had to remove the second half of Acts and Romans and 1Cor from the list of “valid” books of the Bible after I showed with clear passages that Paul was preaching the same Gospel as Jesus put out for the original 12.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

To start off, Acts15 is the cut off for those dispensationalists, everything after Ch15 is “valid” today as the “current version” of the Gospel.

Here is Acts16:
1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Ico’nium. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Note that this was just after the big council in Acts15.

Also that whole mess with Galatians, you have to go by slowly, the dispensationalists dont realize it is a shorthand version…why? Because Paul was writing a quick letter, BUT Luke who recorded what happened to Paul all the way through Acts records in a little more detail what happened at the conversion.
open theist:

Paul strongly emphasized that he had little contact with the Twelve Apostles prior to the Jerusalem Council. This point is so crucial to Paul that he declares, “I saw none of the other apostles… I do not lie” (Gal. 1:19‑20). Paul emphasizes this slight contact to explain, in part, why he needed to confront Peter and why he and the Twelve had to meet to “consider” theological matters.

Lets look at what Paul says in that same chapter:
13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it;
Notice how they claim Paul is the only Christian, but if you compare it to this you see that God seems to be rewarding Paul for persecuting an already established Church. This is the biggest point that they cant overcome, they claim the first Church “failed”, BUT if you want to know why it “failed”…hmm look at Paul maybe?..Paul was ORIGINALLY KILLING members of the Church and disrupting it!!!
Their ideas dont make sense. God did not reward Paul, he joined him up with the other 12.

15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.
Now they take this to mean that Paul never spoke to anyone, or anything like that. This is just shorthand for what really happened, the truth is he met up with Ananias who BAPTIZED Paul to forgive his sins right afterwards (egActs22:16).

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

There are dispensations and then there are dispensations.

Do you even know what the word dispensation means? Or even where it comes from in the New Testament? It doesn’t sound like it from your posts. The word dispensation comes from the Greek word oikonomos which is where we get our word economy from. The word broken down means house (oikos) law or rules (nomos). We are currently relating to God accordig to “the house rules of the grace of God” (Eph 3:2).

I certainly do not question that God makes different covenants with His people, but if we look at the scriptures as a whole, and not through the distorted lens of mid-Acts dispensationalism (or MAD) then we can note several things:

1. The covenant has a distinct sign.
2. It is made to a specific people.
3. There is a distinct group of people who act as leaders within the covenantal people.

And specific covenants are in force during specific dispensations or administrations of God’s rule. For example, the covenant of circumcision is not in effect during the dispensation of the grace of God which is the current dispensation.

you said

These are the signs of a covenant, because a covenant, like a contract, is a public thing, and so that all the world can know who the people of the covenant are, there needs to be a sign.

So, you are telling me that the sign that we use to let the entire world know that we are members of the Body of Christ is water baptism?? Thats not even demonstrably true! When people undergo water baptism it takes place within the presence of a church congregation. The lost world is not around to see water baptism take place at that moment. And the closest anyone can come to letting those outside of the Body of Christ know about it is to tell them that they have been water baptized. Thats no better than telling the lost that you have trusted Christ for salvation.

you said

So, let’s look at the covenants. There are three: the Noahide, the Abrahamic, and the Christian. All three have signs, all three have specific subjects, and leaders.

For those in the Body of Christ all that is required and all that matters is the person’s trust in Christ which results in being baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit (not water) as 1 Cor 12:13 says. Furthermore, Paul tells us that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1:17). Water baptism is not a part of the gospel that Paul preached and that we are to preach until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (Rom 11:25).

you asserted

Now, the hypothesis of MAD is that the Christian covenant is split into two: the Jewish and the Gentile. Despite what St. Paul said there being neither Jew nor Greek in Christ Jesus, the MAD-theologian would not mind this.

No, that is not what the Acts 9 view states at all. You are completely misinformed and you will not find any person promoting this view that makes such a claim.

In the Body of Christ there is no Jew or Gentile. They are only Jews and Gentiles after the flesh, not to God. As Paul says, we once knew Christ according to the flesh, but not anymore (2 Cor 5:16). All men are exactly the same, on the same guilty standing before God, so that God may have mercy on all (Rom 11:32). No one needs to become a Jew in order to be accepted by God as was the case prior to the revelation of the mystery to Paul.

you said

Especially with an “open” theology, the MAD-theologian can posit a God who just didn’t know what would happen, and thus instantly change his covenant into something else.

The reason God did not know for certain what would happen concerning Israel’s repentance or lack thereof is because Israel’s repentance is really Israel’s repentance. Its Israel’s decision ro repent and trust God or not (Luke 13:6-9). Israel did not repent and accept Christ at Peter’s preaching in Acts 3, so God made good on His promise to repent of what He said He would do (Jer 18:7-10).

However, the “hidden” church of Paul that the MAD-theologian posits has no sign, has no specific organization, nor a specific leader. It is built from various verses based upon a predetermined belief.

This is completely wrong and almost slanderous. You know next to nothing about the Acts 9 view. The sign for those in the Body of Christ is the Lord’s Supper. Its the breaking of bread and sharing of wine together. And we do not do it so that the entire world may know that we are part of the Body of Christ. We do it to look forward together to our being caught up and taken home to Heaven where we will be with the Lord forever. We do it to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

The Body is made up of many local organizations with Christ as the head of each one. The only specific leader we will ever need is Christ.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

…continued

The Augustinian said

The MAD-theologian would call me blind and foolish, and utter rather abusive language.

Well, yeah, when you say things about the Acts 9 position that are blatantly false and show that you have no idea what you are talking about, that is very much you being foolish and deserving of a strong rebuke.

That is not surprising because heretics are usually quite unreasonable. But he then slips up by calling his theology something that he formulated, rather than something passed down through Holy Tradition.

Then I am definitely not a heretic because my posts have very detailed answers and questions and I have been very reasonable in my discussions with those who attack my views or misrepresent my views as you have.

And every theology was formulated by at least one man at one time. For example, Augustinian theology/philosophy, which you claim to hold to, was formulated by Augustine. Thankfully, most people today reject Augustine’s bad theological/philosophical formulation which he based upon Greek philosophical assumptions about God.

That being said, if Peter and Paul had different gospels, then why are they said to both have founded the Church of Rome?

Its pretty simple. Peter and the others in Jerusalem never made it out of Jerusalem with the Gospel of the Circumcision. While they were still in Jerusalem God cut off Israel and raised up Paul and committed the Gospel of the Uncircumcision to him. God revealed the secret concerning the Body of Christ to Paul no earlier than Acts 9. Paul eventually made his way to Rome where he preached Christ according to the revelation of the mystery (Rom 16:25).

Peter and other Circumcision Believers escaped the destruction of Jerusalem and many of those Circumcision Believers fled to Rome historians tell us. Apparently, there was some sort of warning by God to those Jews, so that they could get out of there and not end up being massacred. Now, any Circumcision Believer, including Peter, had to promote the gospel committed to Paul since that is the gospel that was in effect at that time. The gospel that they believed and were living out had ceased once God cut off Israel and raised up Paul to go to the Gentiles. A restored Israel would have gone to the Gentiles to preach Christ had Israel repented. In fact, the Samaritans would have joined them following Israel’s repentance (Acts 1:8). But, Israel rejected Christ, so Christ did not return at that time as Peter said He would if Israel repented. So, God sent Paul to reach the entire world instead of Israel.

Any Circumcision Believer, including Peter, whether in Rome or Galatia or Corinth, had to promote Paul’s gospel once the Gospel of the Circumcision had gone out of effect and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision had gone into effect. Peter did help Paul in Rome (the center of power of the entire Greek empire) and in other areas to promote the gospel committed to Paul which did not require ovedience to the Mosaic Law as Peter’s gospel had required. Peter would act as an important defender of Paul’s gospel in response to the judaizers who tried to convince Jews that they had to do the works of the law in order to be saved. And to a large extent Peter was successful at beating back the attempts of the judaizers. This helped Paul’s ministry greatly.

you said

With that, I will close with some choice words:

*Heretics all, whoever you may be,
In Tarbes or Nimes, or over the sea,
You shall never have good words from me.
Caritas non conturbat me.
*

I am not at all a heretic, so that little rhyme has nothing to do with me.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

There are several reasons why I do not accept this heresy, for which I have good evidence and common sense to support me:

So you claim to have common sense? I have a hard time believing that you have much common sense at all, since you think it is common sense that only physical matter can change in any way, contradicting passages that show God experiencing change (becoming angry, being grieved, suffering affliction). Also, common sense had nothing to do with the message that Noah was told to believe (build a big ark) or the message that Abraham was told to believe (sacrifice your son on Mt Moriah). You can’t find out how to please God through natural reasoning. Natural Theology is never enough for salvation.

1. Having two sets of believers, both believing in the one Lord, Jesus Christ, would create a great rift.

Yes, it would and it in fact did create a great rift between Paul’s converts and those of the Circumcision Believers who accepted Christ’s ministry on the one side and the judaizers and “men from James” on the other side.

According to MAD, there are/were two different ways to be saved, existing at the same time: membership in either Peter or Paul’s communions. One is apparently based upon works salvation, and the other on a kind of antinomian faith. A house, God’s house, divided against itself does not stand.

Again, you show a gigantic lack of understanding of the Acts 9 position. There are not 2 ways to be saved. The Gospel of the Circumcision and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision are 2 different methods of accessing God’s salvation. Two different economies or administrations or, dare I type it…dispensations. The only way to be saved is by trusting God and doing what God asks you to do. For Noah it was build an ark. For Abraham it was early on in the realationship believe that God will provide an heir and later on circumcise your sons on the eighth day. Notice that neither Noah or Abraham were asked to believe that Christ died on the cross for their sins which is what we are to believe today.

1. Moreover, this goes against the promise of Christ, who said to Peter, that the Church which he will build will not be prevailed upon by the gates of hell. Yet, the Petrine community seemed to have broken apart after the death of the last apostle.

LOL! Gates do not prevail upon anyone. They just sit there on the perimeter defending the interior. The reason why the gates of Hell would not prevail is because Christ would enable a believing nation of Israel to bust through the gates of Hell, and bring about the prophesied restoration of Israel. Much like how Israel conquered Jericho. Israel did not believe, so God took a different route (using Paul to reach the world) in order to bring about His eternal purpose, the Body of Christ (Eph 3:11).

1. Where did the Petrists go?

They died out.

Why aren’t there any left, at least in scattered community?

There are none left because none of them lived to be 1970 years old.

Peter didn’t leave anyone to oversee his flock for him?

Thats correct. No one was appointed to watch over the Circumcision Believers because it stopped growing around 35 AD when Israel was cut off and God raised up Paul to preach the gospel according to the revelation of the mystery which did not require works of the law like circumcision, and abstaining from certain foods and water baptisms of various kinds.

Did he say to any newcomers, “Oh, you go to Paul now!”

I doubt he said exactly that. What he almost certainly did was communicate the same gospel that Paul preached, the only one that was in effect from Acts 9 on. And when talking with Jews he was expecially patient with them, answering their questions and explaining why God no longer required them to obey the Mosaic Law in order to be accepted by God which is what their parents and Jewish leaders had taught them their entire lives.

This, however, goes against the purpose of the Petrine community, which is for the Jews.

When the Gospel of Circumcision was in effect, yes, the ministry of The Twelve was specificly to the Jews there in Jerusalem and in Israel. Since God is not attempting to save the world through a redeemed nation of Israel from Acts 9 on, Peter and the other apostles preaching the gospel committed to Paul is perectly in line with God’s will.

There are still Jews today.

There are various types of Jews. Secular Jews, religious Jews, Orthodox Jews, Hasidic Jews. There is still debate about what makes a person a Jew today. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is whether or not they trust in Christ’s death and resurrection to pay for their sins and provide everlasting life.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

…continued

The Augustinian asked

Where are the Petrists?

Again, they died out. They were not to promote the gospel they believed prior to Paul being raised up and given the revelation of the mystery. They were to promote the gospel that Paul preached. The only way that the Circumcisiuon Believers could continue on as a community into the next generation was to have the Gospel of the Circumcision to preach to convert others. Since that gospel was not in effect, the community ceaased to exist after the first generation.

[quoteThe lack of evidence of their existence, outside the interpretation of a few bible verses, gives me pause.
[/quote]

There’s more than just a few Bible verses to substantiate the existence of the Circumcision Believers. How many passages do you need?

1. For that matter, why have Christians right after the death of the last apostle forget there ever were different groups?

Its inaccurate to say that these two different groups were forgotten. The story of each group is well-preserved in the New Testament. Also, the only group that is relevant today is the most recent one - the Body of Christ. That is the group that we are to be most concerned about.

Or is it the “trail of blood” which has obscured history?

Don’t know what you are referring to, so I gotta say no, its not the “trail of blood” or whatever.

Again, if we look at the historical record the Christian church seems to have been united, with Peter and Paul having honor as founders of the Roman Church.

They both played important parts in Rome. Paul played a crucial part in preaching Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, and Peter played a huge part in defending Paul and his gospel so that the juaizers would not prevail.

1. Moreover, this particular interpretation of the scripture (MAD) has only been around for several centuries.

So what!? Augustinianism has been around much longer, yet it is far more messed up than the Acts 9 view is.

It is clearly not the most perspicuous interpretation, as it has numerous contradictions, as I have outlined in this post and others.

You have outlined misrepresentations of the Acts 9 view which I have demonstrated in these last 2 posts responding to your misrepresentations.

Moreover, it is associated with a view (open theism) which no Christian would have thought of, and moreover which is heretical.

You pulled that statement out of your butt. You don’t even know who promoted the open view or how they came to the open view after decades of study and teaching. Otherwise, you are calling Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, Greg Boyd, John Sanders and thousands of other believers and teachers non-Christian. The Open View of God IS the view that best expresses the God revealed in the Bible. And if you doubt it I will debate you or anyone else on it in person in front of a large audience and in the process humiliate you/them. Heck, I would take on an entire panel. An entire auditorium full of critics even!

Anyway, I am not a trained theologian, nor am I as well-read as you are.

That fact is extremely evident from your postings.

I am a mere college student, 21 years in age. Excuse me for my prior rudeness. I certainly do need some kind of supplement for my eyes, as I am extremely near-sighted.

May the Holy Spirit give us sight.

The Augustinian

If you are close, I will come to your college and debate there. That is, if you think you could handle such a debate.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

mainusch asked

Jesus gave the keys to Peter, thus elevating him to “prime minister” above the eleven other ministers in the court of the King.

When do you suppose the keys were removed from Peter, and transferred to Paul? I don’t see any indication of that in the Bible, or anywhere else.

There was no transferrence of any keys from Peter to Paul. If that occured that would means that Paul would have been the 13th Apostle in which there is only room for twelve in Israel’s kingdom, corresponding to ruling over (or judging) each of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28).

The keys the Jesus committed to Peter is essentially the same thign as saying that Jesus committed to Peter the Gospel of Circumcision (Gal 2:7). Peter’s preaching, or rather Israel’s acceptance of Peter’s message, was the key to bringing about the restoration of Israel which would coincide with the return of Christ within the apostles lifetime. Here is the Scriptural evidence showing that had Israel repented at Peter’s preaching Christ would have returned to reign over Israel and lead Israel in evangelizing the entire world.

• Matthew 16:28 “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
• Matthew 10:23 "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
• Acts 3:19-26 "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 "and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 "whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. 22 "For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. 23 ‘And it shall be [that] every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24 "Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days. 25 "You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 “To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one [of you] from your iniquities.”

Christ did not return within the apostles lifetime, because Israel did not repent or bear fruit (Luke 13:6-9). So God cut down the fig tree, He cut off Israel, and brought about the Body of Christ apart from Israel’s cooperation.

Does that answer your question to your satisfaction?

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Catholic Dude:

I agree with this. I was talking to a MAD woman a few months ago and the same points were being used, 2 Gospels, 2 Baptisms, 2 of everything. Not to mention that only Acts(last half)+Romans to Philemon are “valid” books of the Bible for us today and everything else is suspended or something.

As you have already said the “evidence” issue is where its at. The run into huge roadblocks. There really is no explaining some of the things they claim.

Just before she stopped talking to me that MAD woman had to remove the second half of Acts and Romans and 1Cor from the list of “valid” books of the Bible after I showed with clear passages that Paul was preaching the same Gospel as Jesus put out for the original 12.

Everything in the Acts 9 view has an explanation. So, to say that this gal you talked with had no explanation to her views is incorrect.

Also, just because there are a lot of similarities between the gospel Peter preached and the gospel Paul preached does not mean that they are similar in every way. For example, I am sure that you realize that Peter’s gospel required circumcision and abstaining from certain foods while Paul’s gospel does not require that anyone become circumcised or abstain from certain foods. Right?

 

[The_Augustinian]

Could you then outline the various theological similarities and distinctions between Circumcision Believers and the Body of Christ? In bulleted explanations of one sentence each, please.

Unlike you, we are not so well-read and knowledgeable of Acts-9 Dispensational theology, nor of its huge impact on the Church throughout 2,000 years.

The Augustinian

 

[The_Augustinian]

The fundamental disagreement in this debate, as in most debates involving Catholics and Protestants, is over the nature of the scriptures. Because TheOpenTheist is a sola scripturist, he does not care if there is no extrabiblical support for his theology, nor does the fact that his distinct theology was only developed in the last couple of centuries bother him. The Holy Bible, insofar as he has interpreted it, is his guide.

In other words, since we have fundamentally different approaches to interpreting the scriptures, I doubt that there will be any good conclusion to this debate.

TheOpenTheist, I apologize for provoking you, but you really need to tone down the polemic. Also, insults are not acceptable. I do not think calling you a heretic is an insult, because to me, as a Catholic, you are indeed a heretic since you left the Church. To most orthodox Christians who believe in the omniscience of God, you are a heretic. However, I will refrain from using such language.

Also, you shouldn’t assume that everyone else knows what you know about your theology. I think you (and I) should focus on a few distinct points. Going all scatter-shot like this does nothing to clarify our points of view.

I accept that you have an explanation for your views. Your views are indeed, defendable. But, so is Islam. It doesn’t make them correct.

The Augustinian

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Catholic Dude said

To start off, Acts15 is the cut off for those dispensationalists, everything after Ch15 is “valid” today as the “current version” of the Gospel.

No its not. If it were, then I would refer to myself as holding to the Acts 15 view. I do not do that because I hold the Acts 9 view.

you wrote

Here is Acts16:
1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Ico’nium. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Note that this was just after the big council in Acts15.

You are pretty thick dude. The reason WHY Paul had Timothy circumcised was to avoid unnecessary confrontation with the Jews, so that Paul could preach to them. He did not circumcise Timothy because he was under the impression that circumcision was necessary if you wanted to be accepted by God as the Gospel of the Circumcision taught.

Also that whole mess with Galatians, you have to go by slowly, the dispensationalists dont realize it is a shorthand version…why? Because Paul was writing a quick letter

Galatians may be just a “quick letter” to you, but even though it is not as voluminous as Acts, everything that Paul tells us in Galatians is true and not to be contradicted.

BUT Luke who recorded what happened to Paul all the way through Acts records in a little more detail what happened at the conversion.

Lets look at what Paul says in that same chapter:
13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it;
Notice how they claim Paul is the only Christian, but if you compare it to this you see that God seems to be rewarding Paul for persecuting an already established Church. This is the biggest point that they cant overcome, they claim the first Church “failed”, BUT if you want to know why it “failed”…hmm look at Paul maybe?..Paul was ORIGINALLY KILLING members of the Church and disrupting it!!!

You completely misunderstand the Acts 9 view dude. We have never ever claimed that the one and only church in history ever started at Acts 9 with the raising up of Paul. And we never referred to Paul as “the only Christian”. We recognize that a specific church, the Body of Christ, began with Paul as the first member (or the second if you count Christ, the head of the Body, as the very first). For example, there was “the church (ekklesia) in the wilderness” that Moses led for 40 years (Acts 7:38). That church did not believe 1 Cor 15:1-4 and that through trusting Christ they received from God a righteousness apart from the law (Rom 3:21). It was a different “church” or “congregation” that was asked to believe something different then the Body of Christ is asked to believe in order to appropriate God’s salvation.

Their ideas dont make sense.

You have yet to demonstrate that in these forums.

God did not reward Paul, he joined him up with the other 12.

That is not true. The Twelve are The Twelve. Paul did not become the 13th apostle or replace one of The Twelve. Paul is the one apostle to the one Body where there is one baptism. Israel’s number is 12. The Body’s number is 1.

you referenced Galatians 1:15-17 and said

Now they take this to mean that Paul never spoke to anyone, or anything like that. This is just shorthand for what really happened, the truth is he met up with Ananias who BAPTIZED Paul to forgive his sins right afterwards (egActs22:16).

You are not understanding what Paul is saying in this passage at all. Paul does not say that he never spoke to anyone about anything. He is simply saying that he “did not confer with flesh and blood” or any of the apostles like Peter and the others in Jerusalem concerning the gospel that Christ committed to him. Gal 1 is all about how Paul received the Gospel of the Uncircumcision directly from Christ and not from any man. Paul’s encounter with Ananias in Acts 22 is not an example of Paul confering with him about the gospel message that Christ gave Paul.

And of course Ananias is going to say “be baptized, washing away your sins” because all Ananias knows of is the Gospel of the Circumcision. The only way that Ananias could have learned of the revelation of the mystery was after Paul had received it from Christ and then communicated it to Ananias. The mystery had not yet been revealed to Paul at the time he met Ananias.

 

[scylla]

TheOpenTheist would you please focus on a single point and make a clear answer. Maybe I am just dumb but can you please focus on one or 2 points so it is more coherent?

God Bless
Scylla

Or start threads, you can start one illustrating how history supports your arguement, or address this here.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Your problem is with The Augustinian and Catholic Dude, not me. I have only been responding to their questions and misrepresentations of my view. I believe that when people ask questions or misunderstand a specific view that it is important to address every question and misunderstanding that I possibly can.

If you have a specific question or topic about Paul’s authority then go ahead and post it.