Where does Paul fit into the authority debate?

[TheOpenTheist]

you asked

What was that you said about Peter forcing certain diets on people? Thats not what v3 says.

Again, Peter did not have to ask any Jews to abstain from unclean animals since that was part of the law that they had been following their entire lives. The reason why Jews were formidden to eat with Gentiles is precisely because they may eat some food that has unclean animals in it.

you go on

4 But Peter began and explained to them in order: … 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" 18 When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”

Glory to GOD in the highest! The Gentiles are accepted at the hands of Peter and welcomed by all!

Got made the Gentiles clean and began accepting them when He raised up Paul to preach to Gentiles, kings and Israel in Acts 9. God did not give the OK to preach to Gentiles or accept them apart from their becoming proselyte Jews any earlier than Acts 9.

you go on

Next:

19 Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoeni'cia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none except Jews. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyre'ne, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number that believed turned to the Lord.

Thanks be to God!

Acts 11:19 shows that those Jews who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen in Acts 7 were obeying the command that Paul gave them in Matt 10:5-6 which is to not go in the way of the Gentile of a Samaritan.

Also, you are referencing Bible version that is a mistranslation of Acts 11:20. They were not “Greeks”. They were Hellenists. The Greek word hellenistes is used in the NT of Jews born in foreign lands and speaking Greek. They are still Jews though, and not Greeks.

you continue

Next:

22 News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23 When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad; and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose; 24 for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a large company was added to the Lord. 25 So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul; 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.

First called Christians at Antioch!! Both Jews and Gentiles welcome!

Christian literally means followers of Christ. That Luke tells us they were “first called” Christians in Antioch is of no consequence to when the Body of Christ began or to the content of the gospel Christ committed to Paul. And of course “both Jews and Gentiles were welcome” as you say because the Body of Christ had been in existence for a number of years by the time Paul was preaching and teaching in Antioch.

you said

This is the last one I promise! (edited for size)
I will skip to Ch13:16,24-39 [gives reference]

Now compare this Gospel by Paul with that of Peter said in Acts2:21-36 [gives reference]

Wow, they are preaching the same Gospel!

If the only information we had were those two passages, then we could conclude that Peter and Paul preached the same gospel. What Peter says in other parts of Acts, such as “whoever works righteousness is accepted by God” in Acts 10:35 and in his epistles addressed to dispersed Jews (for example, 1 Pet 3:21 and 2 Pet 2:20) shows that he preached a gospel that required works. What Paul says in Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians and his other epistles informs us that Christ revealed to him the mystery, which had been hidden in God until that point, and that those in the Body are justified by faith and are not required to do works in order to receive the Holy Spirit and redemption (Rom 3:19-26; 4:5,15;16:25; 1 Cor 2:6-7; Eph 1:13-14; 2:8-9; 3:2-9; Col 1:13; Tit 3:5).

 

[The_Augustinian]

And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him.

Note that in this passage (Acts 10:34-35) St. Peter is not talking about the works of the Law as in Judaism, but rather the natural law which is common to every man. Ceremonial works such as circumcision are not the same thing as obeying the Decalogue!

I think we have a confusion about works in this thread. We continue to talk about works this, and works that. So, what do we mean by works, and what do we mean by grace? And are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian claimed

It’s funny. You seem to use the early Christian writers for your own purposes.

As does the catholic church and you yourself.

Even though you can accurately piece together the entire Bible from their sayings, you reject their interpretation of it.

As does the catholic church and you yourself.

you said

Now tell me, who is closer culturally and linguistically to the original culture of the Bible?

The Latin fathers as I understand it read and spoke Latin. The New Testament was written in Greek. Looks like we’re both in the same boat, needing to learn the Greek language in order to interpret it correctly into our own language.

Culturally I gotta give the edge to those who lived in the second and third centuries. They had their cultural problems just as we have ours to overcome. Greek philosophical assumptions which were prevalent at the time were particularly harmful because it made it harder to understand God as revealed in the Bible.

Who shed their blood for the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

More people shed their blood for Christ today in recent times then ever have in the history of the Body of Christ.

You, or these men?

I am still alive, and fail to see how interpreting Scripture correctly has anything to do with martyrdom. They weren’t martyred because they believed that water baptism was not necessary for salvatio lol.

you claimed

It seems that, standing on the shoulders of these giants, you are willing kick at their heads. Doing so, you shall surely fall.

Sorry, its not happening. I am getting better and better whether you like it or not. Only God can stop me, and I see no indication that He wants to stop the good I am doing across Northern Indiana and in other areas of the nation.

And I don’t kick at their heads at all! I just accept what I believe they got right as it conforms with what is revealed in Scripture the same as you and the catholic church does. The church fathers can be helpful, but they are not infallible.

you said

It’s ironic, that you are so willing to believe that the Bible has been communicated totally accurately, but the men who wrote it were so inept as to let their followers so easily corrupt their teachings.

Well, we don’t know ALL of what they taught. Only so much of their writings have been preserved. And the views of most were never committed to parchment.

But, you must admit that we are free to agree with those church fathers that we believe are right and disagree with those which we believe are wrong. For example, I believe that Calcidius’ view (basicly the open view) is correct, while Augustine’s view (utter immutability based upon Platonic rationalism and determinism) is false.

There are various threads of tradition throughout history. It is not monolithic, with only one tradition. Another example is when ensoulment occurs. Augustine said, following Aristotle sadly, after 40 days. I agree with Tertullian and others believing it occurs at conception and that all abortions are murder. Which of the two traditions do you believe?

All for the sake of your convenient theology.

I do nothing for the sake of my theology. I build my theology from the ground up based upon evidence from Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason. The work of theology is never truly finished. And my theology is not at all convenient for me. Liberating, yes, but not convenient.

you claimed

According to you, many, no, I would say all of the Catholic teachings come from God.

No, I don’t believe that. I would have to be extremely ignorant of the development of catholic theology and practice to believe such a thing.

you go on

Don’t be surprised. That’s from the implications of what you say.

I do very much believe that there are teachings and doctrines that were meant for the Circumcision Believers that the catholic church holds to, despite the experience that those views are not correct. That they are not for today (the promise of spiritual AND physical healing in Jam 5 is a good example).

you said

You say that water baptism was necessary for salvation, as well as that one could lose their salvation, among other things.

Yes indeedy! Mark 16:16 makes it clear that water baptism was necessary for salvation as does John 3:5 and 1 Pet 3:21. Heb 6:4-6; 10:26; 2 Pet 2:20 and 1 John 5:16 say in the most clear words imagineable that those Circumcision Believers who were saved, if they fell away or committed a sin unto death, they only had Hell to look forward to. There was no chance for forgiveness once they fell away.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you claimed

Indeed, I believed exactly the same theology as you.

That’s extremely hard to believe since you have had such a difficult time comprehending the view and twist what I say into something that sounds very wrong and even bizarre. I’ve had to correct you so many times and explain myself in so much detail, I can’t believe that you ever truly held to a correct Mid-Acts position.

you said

Until I realized that the so-called “Kingdom Believers” did not die out as you thought they did.

So those people are still alive 1900+ years later!?!? Wow!

Neither do they require circumcision or the practice of Jewish ceremonial law, as you erroneously interpreted.

Yes they did. They believed what Jesus taught them, which was “whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 5:19). You claim that they were wrong for obeying Christ and teaching those Jews that believed “to observe all things” that he commanded them (Matt 28:20).

you claimed

They still exist, and they still are here. And St. Paul was one of them, and so am I.

No, you’re not a Circumcision Believer and neither was Paul who preached against those Circumcision Believers who wrongly tried to make the Gentiles observe the gospel they had believed prior to the Body of Christ coming into existence.

you said

The Kingdom of God is among us! Be happy, and glad!

I am part of the larger kingdom of God, but not a part of the specific Davidic kingdom that The Twelve are a part of and is exclusive to Israel. God is ruling through the Body of Christ now, which was not prophesied and which has a heavenly hope and destination, not an earthly one.

 

[The_Augustinian]

You are correct that the present theology of the Catholic Church does not totally agree with every single word the Church Fathers wrote. We know that their words, although authoritative, are subject, of course, to the interpretation of the true authority of the Church. On the other hand, you seem to dismiss the whole lot of them as backsliding heretics, since they all seemed to practice water baptism, among other beliefs which seem to not square with your position. If you honestly read them, you would have to admit that they agree for the most part with the position of the Church, especially concerning fundamental teachings such as the effects of baptism as well as the truth of the Eucharist.

So, no, we are not doing the same thing, in the same way that the Geocentrist and the true astronomer are not doing the same things. Your method is shot-through with pseudo-theology and arguments from silence. Dan Brown just called, he wants his method back!

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian asked giving more evidence that he never understood the Mid-Acts position

So, if it’s the only game in town, then why didn’t Peter, James and the rest convert?

The reason why is very simple. Its given in Rom 11:29.

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God [are] irrevocable.

Those Jews who were called believed in early Acts had an irrevocable calling - to obey the Circumcision Gospel to the end.

you asked

If there’s neither Jew nor Greek in the Body of Christ, then it makes no sense for the Kingdom Believers to practice circumcision.

Yes, that would make no sense at all. And according to the New Testament record they DIDN’T promote the practice of circumcision in order to be accepted by God, save for a few judaizers who were acting contrary to God’s will.

you reasoned

So, they should have become believers according to Paul.

No. Nothing necessitates that they should live as though they believed the Uncircumcision Gospel and obeyed its “house rules”. Their calling was to obey the Circumcision Gospel and they would continue to do so until death.

you said

Yet, you claim they believed differently.

I get the impression that they continued to persevere and obey the law which they would be judged by (according to James 2:9) from what is found in the Circumcision Epistles (Hebrews - Revelation).

you claimed

Something is fishy, either with the actions of the Apostles, or what you’re claiming.

Nope. Nothing fishy here except for the salmon cooking in the kitchen

 

[The_Augustinian]

For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.

If they are without repentance, then why do you think God repents, and changes the “house rules” around?

James 2 refers to the moral law, not the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic Law. The moral law endures forever, and nothing revokes it!

By not practicing water baptism, your community puts the poor children in the danger of hellfire unwittingly! And, with the added belief in a changable God, you’re worse than the Arians.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Note in my last paragraph, I wrote of the “danger” of not baptizing the children. Note that I didn’t write that the children would surely go to Hell. Now, unbaptized children who die may, according to the Church, go to Heaven. The position is debatable, and hopefully it can be resolved in my lifetime. I am mainly referring to the children who grow up, without baptism, and sin presuming on the mercy of God. Presumption is a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and is to be condemned.

 

[The_Augustinian]

…so I’ll return to a brief exegesis of Romans 11.

In Romans 11, Paul writes about the branches of Israel being cut off, and the Gentiles being grafted in. However, God’s covenant with Israel is perpetual, as it is written in verse 29.

What does this imply? Not that Jewish Christians continued to uphold the Mosaic Law, but that both Jews and Gentiles followed the same rules. After all, it’s the same tree! This goes against the basic suppositions of the dispensationalist camp.

Secondly, you claim that the Jewish Christians simply died out. What about their children? Did they follow the faith of their fathers, or did they follow Pauline Christianity? You would think that some remnants of this sect would survive today. Even people who claim to be followers of St. John the Baptist are still around!

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian claimed

A heresy seems clearer than the real truth

That does not sound like a good gauge to use for recognizing truth.

you continue

the Trinity confounded the Jew, the Muslim, and the Arian, but was counted as sublime.

It did indeed confound them, but they had specific reasoning that they held which made it difficult for them to accept the Trinity. By the way, believing in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation. Believing in Christ’s work on the cross and His resurrection for the forgiveness of sins is. I do affirm the Trinity.

Anyways, their philosophical objections were the following:

• Jews had trouble becuase of their confession that “the LORD is one” which they refer to as the Shema (from Deut 6:4).
• The Muslims trouble accepting the Trinity? Not too sure about that since I hate Islam. Probably similar to the same reason the Jews have for objecting. Oh, and their Koran denies that Jesus’ death was vicarious also, saying that he was just another prophet.
• The Arians combined Neoplatonism with a literal, rationalist interpretation of biblical texts. By asserting the absolute oneness and immutability of God, he called into question the divinity of Christ (the Word became flesh). This is yet more evidence of Greek philosophy’s detrimental effect on the Body of Christ. I actaully have a friend who argued for Arianism in seminary and won since everyone accepted that God was utterly immutable. He’s now an open theist, thank God.

you go on

The Incarnation of Our Lord was and remains a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles.

It was foolishness to the Greeks because they sought after wisdom (1 Cor 1:21-22) and their “rationalism” prevented them from accepting the true God.

you said

Like Christ, Holy Church is a stumbling block as well, and Protestantism seems to have a clarity to it, as clear as the muezzin’s call.

Not to me! I reject the vast majority of Protestant belief systems that are out there.

you claimed

So it is with your theology, although relatively speaking it is rather muddled compared to the Reformed faiths.

My beliefs are much more consistent than the Reformed faiths are. For one thing, they are determinists and claim rediculous things like “God cannot be touched by love” as C. S. Lewis wrote. And they have all of these contradictory passages in the New Testament that they attempt to reconcile but fail to do so.

you said

So, do not assume the strength of your position based upon the clarity of your beliefs. Because you can be clearly wrong.

And if I am wrong someone will be able to demonstrate that I am.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Were the Judaizers right? You seemed to claim that the only difference between them and the Apostles were that the Judaizers wanted to proselytize the Gentiles, and the Apostles did not. Otherwise they believed the exact same things.

If so, then why doesn’t the Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings, mention either circumcision or not eating pigs? As for food offered to idols, there is no strict proscription, but a warning to “be exceedingly careful.” This is of course in line with the Council of Jerusalem.

The Didache was claimed to be the original teachings of the Twelve Apostles. Funny how it doesn’t match up with what you thought they believed.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Anti-intellectuals can’t debate. The proof in the pudding is in this thread. Frankly, I doubt you have even read Plato, or come up with intellectual arguments against him. Because of your interpretation of the Bible, Plato is false. So are those other heretical Greeks who thought the earth round!

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

You’re right in that certain Christians (the Judaizers) thought that circumcision was required.

Why don’t you include the rest based upon Jesus’ teaching to keep the law in Matt 5:17-20 and based upon Peter’s response to the unclean food and being sent to a Gentile’s house along with the response of those in Jerusalem who heard about Peter’s experience??

you claimed

However, you are mistaken in thinking that they were right in their own way, that it was part of their dispensation.

We will see if you can demonstrate that. Here we go.

you said

The “house rules” did indeed change, but that is because the Church herself changed them, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit: “Whatsoever you bind in heaven, will be bound in heaven, &c.”

How do you get this impression from what occured in Acts 10? Did Peter or the others institgate the conversion of Paul and tell God to send Paul to Gentiles, kings and Israel?? Did Peter or the others in Jerusalem instigate the vision in Acts 10 of the unclean animals?

you claimed

This of course happened at the Council of Jerusalem. Now, you may object, saying that St. Paul already had his gospel to the Gentiles before that.

Yes, I do object. God made the decision and took the initiative, not Peter and the rest in Jerusalem. Those in Jerusalem prompted by what God revealed to Peter and to Paul and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit went along with God in the transition from God bringing salvation to the Gentiles through Israel’s rise (Is 60:1-3), to God cutting off Israel and bringing salvation to the Gentiles through Israel’s fall (Rom 11:11,15).

you claimed

In doing so you misunderstand the role of a Council. A Council does not proclaim new doctrine. It merely confirms doctrine that is already true in order to clear up conflicts.

To an extent it did. The main purpose of this “council” in Jerusalem was to make things easier for Paul’s ministry by telling Jews that Gentiles could be saved apart from being circumcised and keeping the law, which had not been the case since God gave the law to Moses.

you continue

Thus, the Council of Jerusalem confirmed St. Paul in his belief, and confounded the Judaizer party which were mainly composed of converts from the Pharisees (Acts 15:5).

Their being Pharisees was not a bad thing. It was not wrong to be a Pharisee. Paul was a Pharisee. Nicodemus was a Pharisee. What is important in this passage is that those Jews who had faith in Christ objected to the Gentiles not being circumcised and keeping the law as they did.

you claimed

Thus:

Not all Christians in Jerusalem believed that circumcision was necessary, it was mainly the Judaizing sect.

That’s almost correct. Not all of the Circumcision Believers in Jerusalem believed that Gentiles had to be circumcised and followed the law. The text does not tell us that the Circumcision Believers no longer kept the law as Jesus had commanded them to during His earthly ministry.

you claim

The apostles and elders were deliberating among themselves. This implies that circumcision and keeping the law of Moses was something debatable, and not ordered by Jesus Christ.

It was debateable for the Gentiles whether or not they had to be circumcised and keep the law, not among the Circumcision Believers who believed Peter’s message (received from Jesus) in Acts 2 and 3 up to Acts 11.

you claimed

St. Paul commanded the Church in Syria to “keep the precepts of the apostles and ancients.” (Acts 15:41)

Acts 15:41 does not say that. Here is what it says

Acts 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

you claimed

I predict you will claim those Churches in Syria were “of the Circumcision” although you have no such evidence of that.

I will claim no such thing. Previous to Acts 15:41 it says that the churches Paul and Barnabas visited were the ones they had planted through their preaching

Acts 15:36 Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, [and see] how they are doing.”

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you claimed

Because that is your MO in deciphering the Bible: you throw out whatever is against your believe in a strict separation of Kingdom Believers and the Body, and conveniently string together unrelated verses in order to prove your point.

My MO eh? Referring to my hermeneutic in derogatory terms is pretty pathetic. I have a big picture that I use to interpret Scripture and my doctrine of God. Within that big picture there are details and those details are coherent within my hermeneutical framework. All you need to understand is Eph 3:2-9. That Christ gave Paul the “house rules of the grace of God” so he could communicate that to us and this economy/administration/house rules includes within it “the revelation of the mystery” which God revealed to Paul and is part of Paul’s gospel.

you insulted me by asking

Are you willing to obey your pope Bob Hill that earnestly?

He is not my authority or anything near what I would refer to as a pope, unless you use the word pope as meaning “pastor” or “elder” or “bishop”. He’s definitely a pastor/teacher that I admire.

you said

You see? We Catholics believe in organic change, through the acts and teachings of the Apostles.

“Organic change” eh? That is a meaningless term to me. Since Paul has died there is no change of rules communicated through any apostle, so are you referring to change in the New Testament period then.

you go on

So, our feathers are not ruffled when we hear of the Judaizers in Acts, thinking that they are some sort of valid sect.

Catholics don’t care enough about the matter to even think about it. Is you ask a typical Catholic what a judaizer is, they’ll have no idear!

And the judaizers were Circumcision Believers, so they were believers no doubt about it. They were just wrong in pushing their law keeping on the Gentile converts.

you said

We accept the authority of St. Peter and the apostles, in that they changed the discipline of the Church early on and started to distinguish her from Judaism.

Again, that was a decision and action that God carried out. It was His perogative to switch from one route to another in order to reach the lost world with the message of salvation in Christ. Peter and the others, many years after the fact, merely cooperated with the transition that God had begun 17 years before the council in Acts 15 took place.

And they didn’t so much distinguish the Body of Christ from Judaism as they did make it evil or wrong to be a Jew in any way. The councils cursed and condemned the entire Jewish to wander and suffer claiming that each new generation was worse than the one before it.

And what’s ironic is, I have a good friend that is a priest that likes to refer to the catholic church as a Jewish sect, since many of the practices in the catholic church and temple Judaism are the same (incense, sacrifices, altars, etc).

you said

No need to invent new dispensations!

Who is inventing dispensations? It seems that you are ignoring specific dispensation based on the Scriptural evidence.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian claimed

Note that in this passage (Acts 10:34-35) St. Peter is not talking about the works of the Law as in Judaism, but rather the natural law which is common to every man. Ceremonial works such as circumcision are not the same thing as obeying the Decalogue!

The Decalogue is part of the Law of Moses. Its found in Ex 20 and the commands for breaking those laws are found in Ex 21. Do you also believe that we should execute murderers and rapists and kidnappers, because the catholic church doesn’t. They accept the 10 commandments, but not the punishments that the government is to apply to those who break them.

Also, it does not matter what sort of works they are. What mattes is the fact that peter is telling them they God will accept them if they perform good works, which is contrary to Paul’s gospel (Rom 4:4-5; Eph 2:8-9).

you claimed

I think we have a confusion about works in this thread.

There is no confusion with me! Paul’s gospel requires no works. Peter’s gospel did.

you asked

We continue to talk about works this, and works that. So, what do we mean by works, and what do we mean by grace?

Works is not grace. And grace is not works (Rom 11:6).

you asked?

And are the two mutually exclusive?

In this present dispensation they certainly are.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

You are correct that the present theology of the Catholic Church does not totally agree with every single word the Church Fathers wrote.

I am glad that you acknowledged that

you continue

We know that their words, although authoritative, are subject, of course, to the interpretation of the true authority of the Church.

And which one is that? Augustinianism? Thomism? Molinism? Openness? Which of these 4 views is the true tradition of the church?

you go on

On the other hand, you seem to dismiss the whole lot of them as backsliding heretics, since they all seemed to practice water baptism, among other beliefs which seem to not square with your position.

I do not. You can’t get that impression from what I posted about them. Go back and read what I said or perhaps quote me next time before making such a comment.

you said

If you honestly read them, you would have to admit that they agree for the most part with the position of the Church, especially concerning fundamental teachings such as the effects of baptism as well as the truth of the Eucharist.

Ohhhhhh, so I am not “honestly” reading them now am I? Guess I’ll just have to keep on reading them until God gives me the grace to be an honest reader then

you claimed

So, no, we are not doing the same thing, in the same way that the Geocentrist and the true astronomer are not doing the same things. Your method is shot-through with pseudo-theology and arguments from silence. Dan Brown just called, he wants his method back!

All of my theology has its basis in Scripture. I can give evidence that my views are correct and that is what I do in almost every post where I defend my view. Scripture is not silent when it comes to supporting my view.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian asked

If they are without repentance, then why do you think God repents, and changes the “house rules” around?

That’s a fair question. Let me think about this for a while before giving a detailed answer. Thinking…thinking…

God is going to make good on His gifts and calling that The Twelve received from Him, despite God cutting off Israel for a period of time. They will rule Israel, each over one tribe, sitting on twelve thrones.

Actually, I don’t believe that God’s gifting someone and calling them for a specific purpose has anything to do with the transition of one dispensation to the next. Even though God gave Abraham a new set of rules and new promises, I do not believe that that affected anything that God did with Noah. His calling was sure and God did not repent of it. And God made Noah and his extended family the father of the current human race after he sent the flood to destroy the wicked men of that dispensation. And God’s promises, His gifts to David are sure and not repented of because of a transition from the dispensation he was in during his life to the next one. In fact, God says He will not repent of His promises to David (Ps 89:30-37).

you claimed

James 2 refers to the moral law, not the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic Law. The moral law endures forever, and nothing revokes it!

The Body of Christ is not under the moral law either. We are under no law, and “the works of the law” cleearly include the moral law according to those who have researched Paul’s writings and first century Judaism (such as N. T. Wright). Our salvation is not dependent upon keeping the moral law. Its dependent upon our trusting Christ for salvation and realizing that we are freely given by God’s grace His righteousness, which we could never attain even if we did good works continually for a million years.

you claimed

By not practicing water baptism, your community puts the poor children in the danger of hellfire unwittingly!

No. God is not revealed as being so petty as to send babies to hell because someone did not pour water on them and chant a formula while doing so.

you claimed

And, with the added belief in a changable God, you’re worse than the Arians.

No. Its quite the opposite. Your Augustinian view, which says that God ordaans everything, including rape and child molestation and the Nazi Halocaust and the abortion halocaust, is much worse than what the Arians believed. Your belief that most people will go to Hell (the massa damnata) all because they never hear of Christ before they die is worse than Arianism. Your belief that the evil we suffer is God punishing us for our sins, is worse than Arianism. Thats what Augustine believed and I must assume you also believe.

My view, which comes directly from Scripture, affirms that God can change so that He can become flesh and set aside some attributes of deity which are not central to God’s nature in order to relate to sinful man and make reconciliation for the entire world through His death and resurrection. my view of God affirms that God does indeed repent of doing harm in response to the repentance of men as Jonah 4:2 and Joel 2:13 affirms.

Jonah 4:2 …I know that You [are] a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.

Your “Augustinian” view takes the roughly 30 passages that show God repenting and says of them “they don’t mean what they seem to mean since we know through Platonic rationalism that God cannot change in any way and, therefore, cannot repent. So those passages mean…I’m not sure, I just know they don’t mean what they seem to mean. Its not what God is truly like and so on.”

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian claimed

…so I’ll return to a brief exegesis of Romans 11.

In Romans 11, Paul writes about the branches of Israel being cut off, and the Gentiles being grafted in. However, God’s covenant with Israel is perpetual, as it is written in verse 29.

That’s correct.

you go on and ask

What does this imply? Not that Jewish Christians continued to uphold the Mosaic Law, but that both Jews and Gentiles followed the same rules. After all, it’s the same tree! This goes against the basic suppositions of the dispensationalist camp.

They had no choice but to foillow “the house rules of the grace of God” since it effects all people, both Jew and Gentile. All are condemned and are on equal ground before God.

And the root that all share is what is common to Abram. That he was justified by faith (Rom 4). For he is the father of both the circumcised AND the uncircumcised as Rom 4:11-12 clearly says.

you said

Secondly, you claim that the Jewish Christians simply died out. What about their children? Did they follow the faith of their fathers, or did they follow Pauline Christianity?

Those who had not believed the Circumcision Gospel and lived it out till their death believed the Uncircumcision Gospel committed to Paul.

you reason

You would think that some remnants of this sect would survive today. Even people who claim to be followers of St. John the Baptist are still around!

No, I would not think that some remnants of the Circumcision Believers would survive today since that unique generation of Israel died out and the “house rules of the grace of God” were in effect from around Acts 9 until the present time…

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian asks

Were the Judaizers right? You seemed to claim that the only difference between them and the Apostles were that the Judaizers wanted to proselytize the Gentiles, and the Apostles did not. Otherwise they believed the exact same things.

If so, then why doesn’t the Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings, mention either circumcision or not eating pigs? As for food offered to idols, there is no strict proscription, but a warning to “be exceedingly careful.” This is of course in line with the Council of Jerusalem.

The Didache was claimed to be the original teachings of the Twelve Apostles. Funny how it doesn’t match up with what you thought they believed.

HA! The Didache is in line with the Uncircumcision Gospel, the one gospel that was in effect the time the Didache was written, and you criticize my view because you assume that the non-canonical Didache ought to teach circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses as the Circumcision believers taught prior to the revelation of the mystery to Paul. Your assertion makes no sense at all.

What the Didache teaches is of little concern since it is not part of the canon or even a deutero-canonical writing. In fact, Eusebius lists it as one of the spurious writings. But, the fact that it was written around 120 and does not promote the Circumcision Gospel is evidence that the generation of Jews who believed the Circumcision Gospel have died out and that the message that is to be preached is the one Christ committed to Paul, namely Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery (Rom 16:25).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TheOpenTheist-
(concerning post 77)

Peter did not need to command anyone to be circumcised in order to be accepted by God because he was preaching to Jews who had already been circumcised. Every Jew was circumcised on the 8th day as God commanded Abraham to do to all of his descendants in Gen 17.

They were already circumcised BEFORE Christ came and died and rose. AFTER he doesnt command it, especially when dealing with the gentiles.

We do not find Peter telling anyone to be circumcised, since his audience was already circumcised. What we DO find is Peter and the other Circumcision Believers strongly opposing the idea of going in the way of a Gentile or the uncircumcised which is opposed to Christ’s teaching to them given in Matt 10:5-6. The following passages show this

They started off not having anything to do with the Gentiles, but then God revealed to Peter they were to be included and Peter obeyed. Your ignoring the timeline to argue otherwise. They were hesitant at first, but when it became clear the Gentiles were accepted the Jews held nothing against them.

Acts 10:28a Then [Peter] said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation.

Are you kidding me? This is one of the most desparate attempts I have ever seen. Here is what that verse says, you seemed to take it out of context and leave out some important info:You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
If your intetion is to really learn the truth, reread that passage in context, what you said is totally unfounded.

Acts 11:2-3 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”

Again, totally misrepresenting what the Bible says, keep reading:4 But Peter began and explained to them…And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life."
Again, if your interested in the truth you will go back and meditate on what these passages are saying in context.

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

More of your misunderstanding if not deliberate misrepresenting the truth. This was not Peter causing this but some radicals, you know the ones PAUL CIRCUMCISED TIMOTHY BECAUSE OF, anyway keep readingeter rose and said to them, “… the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 …and he made no distinction between us and them. … 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke [ie keeping the Law] upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
Again, if your interested in the truth you will meditate on this wonderful moment and read the passage with clear intentions.

These passages show that the Circumcision Believers had required circumcision. …

Those passages are not only out of context, but clearly biased selective citing and deceptive tactics.
(cont)