Is Faith Without Works Dead?

[Right Divider]

When did the dispensation of the Church begin. Jesus tells us in Luke 16:16.."The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." John the Baptist, met his end in the early pages of Matthew. Thus, no man was under the Law of Moses and would be held accountable to it after John came upon the scene in Matthew chapter 3. I believe the first page of Matthew, The Geneology of Jesus Christ, the Messiah (King) is that beginning. Thus, all that believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as put forth by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3-4 will be saved regardless of their being Jew or Gentile. In my opinion, they are part of the same Church, the Church that is His Body, His Bride to be.

Note that is reads "THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS".

That refers to PROPHECY!

Look at the entire passage:

Luke 16:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(16:16) The law and the prophets [were] until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. (16:17) And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. ​

The very next verse after the one that you quoted, negates your false theory.

 

[Clete]

So, I missed this post when you first posted it and noticed it because Right Divider quoted from it earlier today and I want to respond to it because I would consider this to be an actual argument you've presented here and since I'm all the time preaching that people should make arguments and not bare naked proclamations of their doctrine, I thought it calls out for a response from me even though it was addressed to another user....

Thanks for those words. In '1 Cor 15:3-4', a summary of the Gospel of Jesus Christ there is four words stated twice that most people miss. "according to the scriptures" Does this mean that His Gospel is designated only to the Books of Paul. What does it mean that all "scriptures" are part of His Gospel. Is the prophecy of Isaiah 53, the most beautiful rendition of His Gospel in the Bible, part of these scriptures, Paul is speaking of. What about the stormy childhood of Jesus found in the Book of Psalms or maybe the hidden prophecy found in Genesis 5, the Descendants of Adam. There are many many places in Bible and especially the OT where Jesus is found if one looks close enough and it all points to Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

So, let's start by actually quoting the passage being discussed...

I Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,​

First and foremost this is not a summary of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a statement of part of the gospel, of its core and foundation, but it is not what Jesus or His disciples preached nor did His disciples even believe it when Jesus told them that He was going to die in the first place, much less rise from the dead, and some of them refused to believe that He had risen until they were shown physical proof. And so, whatever gospel Jesus was preaching, this wasn't it.

As for the phrase, "according to the scriptures", all that Paul is acknowledging here is that Jesus fulfilled whole swaths of not only outright predictive prophesies but also fulfilled (i.e. paralleled) a great many other passages such as Abraham's sacrificing his "only begotten son" in Genesis 22 as well as passages like Isaiah 53 which do not contain predictions of the future but have been revealed as prophetic by the very life of Jesus paralleling these passages as He lived His life and died and rose from the dead.

None of which is ever called into question in the slightest by Mid-Acts Dispensationalism! The fact that Jesus fulfilled the scriptures is not a dispensational issue. If Jesus hadn't fulfilled the scripture then He wouldn't be the Messiah and He wouldn't be anyone's savior in any dispensation because there wouldn't even be any dispensations because the whole of the Christian faith would be falsified and the whole issue of when did the church begin would be a totally moot point.

When did the dispensation of the Church begin. Jesus tells us in Luke 16:16.."The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." John the Baptist, met his end in the early pages of Matthew. Thus, no man was under the Law of Moses and would be held accountable to it after John came upon the scene in Matthew chapter 3. I believe the first page of Matthew, The Geneology of Jesus Christ, the Messiah (King) is that beginning. Thus, all that believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as put forth by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3-4 will be saved regardless of their being Jew or Gentile. In my opinion, they are part of the same Church, the Church that is His Body, His Bride to be.

Okay, wow. That is a completely new one to me. You are the very first person I have ever encountered to put forward such a view. That doesn't mean you're wrong but it certainly is sufficient to throw up a red flag and cause one to look at it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Let's look at this verse that you're using as a proof-text in it's context and see if it holds up....

Luke 16:14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.​

16 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.​

18 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.​

So, based on verse 16, you say that,"no man was under the Law of Moses and would be held accountable to it after John came upon the scene in Matthew chapter 3" but Jesus Himself literally in the very next sentence says that "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail", and then He goes on to talk about the law in relation to the issue of divorce and remarriage, and then, immediately after this, we read about Jesus telling the dead and in Hell Lazarus that if people don't hear Moses and the prophets that they'd not believe even if someone was raised from the dead.

That doesn't sound like the law came to an end in Matthew 3 to me! I mean, if your point is to say that the law ended some two years prior when John the Baptist showed up, why bring up Moses? That doesn't work, right?

Lastly, note that Jesus said that, "since [John] the Kingdom of God is preached". Jesus and the Twelve preached the gospel of the Kingdom, not Paul's gospel of grace. What they preached was "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand!" (in so many words), not "Believe that Jesus is going to die for your sin according to the scriptures and then rise from the dead and if you believe that, you'll be saved." No one preached anything like that before Paul and even that isn't all of what Paul's gospel entails.

I could go on but I need to ask you a question: Is your belief that if a person does not believe in the Mid Acts dispensation, that that person is not saved?

That is definitely NOT our belief!

While it is obvious that we believe 'the Spiritual Church (His Body, His betrothed Bride) starts in different places in the Bible. Does this make one of us unsaved in your opinion?

No, it doesn't mean that a person is unsaved but we are not Christ's bride, Paul's use of a metaphor not withstanding. Israel is Christ's bride, we are His body.

We both do our best to discern the WORD of GOD while believing in our Lord Jesus Christ's Gospel and Our Savior. Have a Blessed day.

What would you say is "the gospel"?

 

[Clete]

Note that is reads "THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS".

That refers to PROPHECY!

Look at the entire passage:

Luke 16:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(16:16) The law and the prophets [were] until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. (16:17) And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. ​

The very next verse after the one that you quoted, negates your false theory.

I'm a little surprised that more people don't suspect that you and I are the same person!

 

[Nick M]

This is from the late Bob Hill. His website was taken down by his son, from what I read here, after his passing. There is another one that specifically goes into the grammar. Which he in part repeats here. Aposticia is used in the NT a few times. They departed (apostasy) one place and went to another.

Here is the link to the Wayback Machine from one of his articles. There is repeating information.

Paul had comforted the Thessalonian believers with the hope of the rapture in his first letter. Because of the intensity of persecution, though, confusion had set in. These suffering believers were afraid that the awful day of the Lord had come upon them. When Paul learned that his teaching (5:4) had been misinterpreted, he wrote a second letter for clarification. In order to assure them they were not experiencing the day of the Lord, he extended a guarantee to them: that day cannot come “unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed” (2:3). The interpretation of Paul’s promise depends on the meaning of the word ajpostasiva. This noun is compounded from ajpov, “away from,” and stavsi", “position, stance”, from i{sthmi, “stand.” Literally, the act of positioning oneself away is a departure or separation. That’s how we have rendered it. In secular Greek, this noun was used to refer to separatist political groups. From this sense, LXX employed it to denote “rebellion,” especially against God. Since James was familiar with the Greek Old Testament (he cites it in Acts 15:16-18 and Jam 2:23 and 4:6), it is probable that LXX usage underlies his phrase ajpostasiva from Moses” in Acts 21:21. However, his very phrase would be redundant if the concept of religious apostasy were inherent within the noun, for then he would not have defined the ajpostasiva as “from Moses.” From what other than Moses’ law could the Jew apostasize? While ajpostasiva was used in patristic sources in the technical sense of “apostasy,” the addition by James of the qualifying modifier suggests that in the New Testament, ajpostasiva does not carry that sense by itself.

Further, since the Thessalonians were recent converts from paganism, the relevance of LXX usage in Paul’s epistle to them is questionable. These believers would be more familiar with the noun’s Greek heritage. Liddell & Scott (1881:203) classify ajpostasiva as a “worse [later] form of ajpostavsi",” and give as one definition “distance.” Moulton and Milligan (1930:68) consider ajpostasiva “equivalent to ajpostavsi",” a noun commonly used in the sense of “departure.” Further, while the cognate verb ajfivsthmi sometimes describes a departure from godliness, it is often just the opposite:

In Acts 19:9, Paul departs from the unbelieving Jews.

In 1 Timothy 6:5, Paul instructs Timothy to depart from those who pervert the truth.

In 2 Timothy 2:19, those who name Christ’s name are to depart from iniquity.

Our understanding of ajpostasiva is supported by the syntax. The noun in this case has the definite article: “the departure.” The article cannot be generic; it must be anaphoric.[30] To what specific departure did Paul refer in Thessalonians? Had he discussed previously with them a specific time of apostasy? We see nothing of the sort in 1 Thessalonians. In contrast, the departure of the church is pre-eminent in the first epistle. Paul refers to this event and to our subsequent joy in Christ’s presence in 1:10, 2:19, 3:12 and 5:9,10, discussing it at length in 4:13-18. Within the immediate context of our noun, he writes of our gathering together with Christ (2 Th 2:1). We infer that Paul is referring back to a subject in which he has assiduously instructed his readers: “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him.”

Our interpretation of ajpostasiva as “departure” better serves Paul’s purpose in writing this chapter. Those who interpret ajpostasiva as “apostasy” assume that Paul refers to this “apostasy” as a sign to warn the Thessalonians of Christ’s return. However, Paul’s purpose is not to warn them of His impending return, but to reassure them in their persecution that they need not worry about enduring the wrath of God. It is not they who will be left behind. The unbelievers who refused the truth will be left behind (2:11-12).

Ironically, the chief text cited on behalf of the post-tribulation position occurs in the immediately preceding context. “It is just with God to repay affliction to those who afflict you, and to you who are afflicted relief with us, at the unveiling of the Lord Jesus” (1:7). All agree that this context describes our Lord’s return after the tribulation. However, we must not assume that the saints’ relief and the afflictors’ recompense are simultaneous. The nouns relief and affliction are not co-objects of the verb ajntapovdounai, “repay,” for in what sense is God’s relief a repayment of our afflictions? Afflicting the afflictors represents the Mosaic law of corresponding retribution, but our relief is not a corresponding reward – we all receive it, regardless of the degree of our faithfulness. The clause, “and [give] relief to you who are afflicted,” is a parenthesis, inserted in a manner almost characteristic of this passage:

 

[Bladerunner]

I read every word.

The mistake that you are making here is that you are confusing exactly what is "according to the scriptures". It is NOT Paul's gospel that is "according to the scriptures", but those things related to Paul's gospel (i.e., the death of Christ and His resurrection).

I don't think you understand...Paul is not the author of the words you say you have read...Jesus (God) is the author..Paul is only preaching and writing those words. Paul did not have a Gospel nor did the Jews. It is all the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paul's "mystery of Christ" was not found anywhere in scripture until Paul wrote about it. Paul made that clear time and time again.

Gal 1:11-12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. (1:12) For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. should​

The mystery of Christ (The coming King) is all over the Bible as a mystery.. I give you several places it is spoken about which I see you rejected.

Bladerunner stated the following "Does this mean that His Gospel is designated only to the Books of Paul." and Right Divider's answer was

Yep!

Bladerunner stated the following "Does this mean that His Gospel is designated only to the Books of Paul." and Right Divider's answer was above "YEP!"

So you throw all of GOD's Words out except the books that Paul Wrote?

Again, that is you trying to force your understanding onto the scripture.

The exact words of 1 Cor 15:3-4 are "according to Scriptures" Notice scriptures is plural "scriptures" and by that I interpret the scriptures in question is ALL of them....If you look closely, you can find Jesus Christ on most every page of the OT.... That equates to "All Scripture"

Not the gospel that Paul taught.

So Paul taught a different Gospel of Jesus Christ according to you. He did teach about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus did He not? it seems to be the same in the synoptic Gospels of Mat, Mark, Luke and John.

Confusion reigns with you.

Yes, when it comes to you, I am confused. You, who so vehemently protected Paul as the Gentile Apostle, yet you do not follow his word.

This dispensation did not (nor could it) start until God gave it to Paul (i.e., Acts 9).

So is this the hinge pin that separates the Bible OT and NT...The actual start of the Dispensation of the Church began when Jesus was crucified on that Cross....not until and not after.

It's the GOSPEL of the grace of God that saves someone today.

It has been the Grace of GOD, that has saved thousands from the beginning, including Adam and Eve.

See? Again your confusion reigns... you think that Christ will marry His own body. You do not understand figures of speech.

This is what the OT is leading up to But you need to understand the Ancient Jewish Wedding.

QUOTE it! Or you're just another poser.

Bladerunner had stated "no need, you know" about what Right Divider had said:"I have not called you names. Please QUOTE me doing so."

OK, you called me an Idiot....

You clearly do not understand the simple fact that there are many gospels in the Bible.

There are many doctrines in the Bible but only one Gospel:"The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles"

If you continue to believe that works are a requirement for salvation, you may be in real trouble.

Works and faith will not get one into heaven. Yet, when one has faith and is supposed to be justified, their works will tell on them....for Faith and Salvation without the product of Good Works = Faith is dead.

Have a good evening Right Divider.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't think you understand...

You think wrong, as per usual.

Paul is not the author of the words you say you have read...Jesus (God) is the author..Paul is only preaching and writing those words. Paul did not have a Gospel nor did the Jews.

God inspired men to write scripture. Paul is one of those men.

It is all the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There are many gospels in the Bible.

The mystery of Christ (The coming King) is all over the Bible as a mystery..

Your confusion continues...

The mystery of Christ was NOT "the coming King".

I give you several places it is spoken about which I see you rejected.

I reject your silly ideas. I believe the Bible 100%

Bladerunner stated the following "Does this mean that His Gospel is designated only to the Books of Paul." and Right Divider's answer was above "YEP!"

So you throw all of GOD's Words out except the books that Paul Wrote?

A typical FALSE ACCUSATION.

There is a good reason why Paul calls it "MY GOSPEL" (three times).

The exact words of 1 Cor 15:3-4 are "according to Scriptures" Notice scriptures is plural "scriptures" and by that I interpret the scriptures in question is ALL of them....If you look closely, you can find Jesus Christ on most every page of the OT.... That equates to "All Scripture"

You have blinded yourself to truth. God called Paul for a purpose.

Col 1:25 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:25) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; ​

​

Something that you will probably never understand.

So Paul taught a different Gospel of Jesus Christ according to you.

No, it's according to the Bible.

He did teach about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus did He not?

There is a lot more to it than that. Something that you will probably never understand.

it seems to be the same in the synoptic Gospels of Mat, Mark, Luke and John.

That's because of your self imposed blindness.

OK, you called me an Idiot....

QUOTE ME you POSER.

There are many doctrines in the Bible but only one Gospel:"The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles"

Poor confused child. Do you think that these two gospels "are one"?

Gal 2:7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:7) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;​

If so, see a doctor immediately.

Works and faith will not get one into heaven.

Then why claim that works are a requirement? You are super confused.

Yet, when one has faith and is supposed to be justified, their works will tell on them....for Faith and Salvation without the product of Good Works = Faith is dead.

That's not what God says through Paul.

Rom 4:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.​

 

[Lon]

I don't think you understand...Paul is not the author of the words you say you have read...Jesus (God) is the author..Paul is only preaching and writing those words. Paul did not have a Gospel nor did the Jews. It is all the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Not really a point of contention.

So you throw all of GOD's Words out except the books that Paul Wrote?

No, not at all. Question: Do you take a sword against all ungodly neighbors today? Why not? The answer from Mid Acts is along the same reasoning.

The exact words of 1 Cor 15:3-4 are "according to Scriptures" Notice scriptures is plural "scriptures" and by that I interpret the scriptures in question is ALL of them....If you look closely, you can find Jesus Christ on most every page of the OT.... That equates to "All Scripture"

Yes.

So Paul taught a different Gospel of Jesus Christ according to you. He did teach about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus did He not? it seems to be the same in the synoptic Gospels of Mat, Mark, Luke and John.

Yes, when it comes to you, I am confused. You, who so vehemently protected Paul as the Gentile Apostle, yet you do not follow his word.

I think frustration reigns after a lot of the same conversation over and over. This thread I started a bit ago, may help. It doesn't matter if I am Mid Acts or not, just the tenor of the thread was a question and very open dialogue that might be of service.

So is this the hinge pin that separates the Bible OT and NT...The actual start of the Dispensation of the Church began when Jesus was crucified on that Cross....not until and not after.

The answer is 'how many dispensations?' If I remember correctly, even in 2nd Acts, there are 7 dispensations.

It has been the Grace of GOD, that has saved thousands from the beginning, including Adam and Eve.

See above for how every 2nd Acts Dispensationalist I know believes. The reason Mid Acts goes to chapter 15 or 18 is because grace was spelled out and Mid Acts, again if I remember correctly would be something like "Grace to gentiles" (help me on this one Mid Acts folks).

I'm going to try and set this up as a Bible Study, just for you to see if anything makes sense. I'm not trying to debate, will just ask questions and try and get your meaningful response to those questions:

There are many doctrines in the Bible but only one Gospel:"The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles"

Gospel is used often as a moniker for theology proper, and a good dictionary definition you give above, but consider:
Matthew 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

Would you think the "Gospel of the Kingdom" is the same at "Gospel for salvation?" How might they be the same? How might they be significantly different?

See here from a 2nd Acts Dispensational site and look specifically for 'gospel' and 'salvation' in any verse. Note, in good study there are only two that have 'gospel' and 'salvation' in the same sentence and only from the Apostle Paul.

Works and faith will not get one into heaven.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved?" Granted it is Jesus Who saves, but how? Ephesians 2:8-10?

Yet, when one has faith and is supposed to be justified, their works will tell on them....for Faith and Salvation without the product of Good Works = Faith is dead.

Who was James writing to? According to Acts 15, was there a difference between how Jews and gentiles were to act? Are all under works?
Why did Paul oppose Peter to his face? Galatians 2:11-21 What was Paul concerned with? Was it different for Peter than gentiles?
Looking forward to the fruit of your study to share with me and others, thank you. -Lon

 

[Bladerunner]

Probably by people who have no authority to actually remove you from it and if there is an exception to that, it would be further evidence that your bolded comment above it false because asking someone to leave on their own isn't at all the same thing as removing them by force (i.e. banning them) which is what every other so called "Christian" web forums does to any of us who show up to debate open theism on their forums.

The moderators have been very nice during my time on this forum and yes, I was asked to leave.

Yes, I have seen these types of Forums that want no other teachings than theirs to be afforded to their members....Yet, that is no excuse for a forum to close its doors except for those who like open theism.

We are all suppose to be studying the Bible, trying to find all that GOD gave us in His WORD....As John is written so that a young child can understand it yet, One can study it for a life time and still not know everything that God left for us in this Book.

It isn't just "somehow"! It has been clearly explained to you over and over again but you just will not even acknowledge the explanation and pretend like we're just making it up out of whole clothe and have refused to explain anything rationally and instead have resorted to insulting you when the fact of the matter is that you relegate yourself to the level of ridicule because when we repeatedly explain and explain and explain and get ignored every single time, you've demonstrated yourself to be a waste of time.

I simply give you the literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation of the scriptures you throw away.

No one has said that you have to be convinced but just pretending like no defense of our position has been presented is insulting and more than a little bit frustrating to say the least.


Saying it doesn't make it so, Bladerunner! This is a terrific premise to start an argument with, but it isn't true just by virtue of the fact that you showed up and stated that "it is clear"! The fact is that it isn't clear and, in fact, I think you are the first person I've ever encountered that believes that specific point of doctrine! If you'd made actual arguments, you'd be everyone's favorite debate partner!


Jesus didn't preach anything new, Bladerunner. He was born under the law, He was circumcised on the eighth day and kept the whole law and lived the only perfect life any human being has ever lived and died in accordance with the law as a sacrifice for sin. His entire Earthly ministry and the purpose of His coming had everything to do with the law and He even stated explicitly that He had not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it - which is precisely what He did.


Notice that we do not deny that what Jesus and James taught are the same thing! If that were not the case, it would be proof we were wrong! As it is, their agreement stands as evidence for our case, not yours. For your case, their agreement is, at best, a neutral fact that neither argues for nor against you.


It isn't we who tie God's hands but rather the limitations of reality. God cannot do ANYTHING that pops into a theologian's mind. He is real and He is not a magician. There are those who believe that right and wrong are defined by God's fiat command and that if God were to declare it acceptable to have forcible sex with a woman who showed her ankles in public then it would become righteous to do so. Do you believe that God could do that or do you "tie God's hands to His righteousness without the ability to do anything at all"?

God is sovereign all things period. There is nothing He can not do.

Our motive has nothing to do with tying God's hands and the only reason you even put it in those terms is to make an emotional based "argument". The only thing we desire is to acknowledge that God is real and to limit our doctrine to that which is consistent with that reality which means that you cannot have your cake and eat it to. Go ahead and call that an attempt to tie God's hands if you like but the only thing we're tying is our own theological hands. The fact is that words mean things and ideas do have real consequences and if you desire to have a rationaly coherent theology, then you have to choose between believing in a God who exhaustively knows every event that will ever happen or believing in a God who is just, wise and righteous. If you arbitrarily decide to ignore the contradictions inherent in those to versions of God then stop pretended to debate it because all you're doing is turning off your mind and making debate impossible. There is no rational argument that can defeat an appeal to mystery.

Now you have tied my hands...I either have to believe in a God who knows all or believe in a God who is Just, wise and righteous.... I believe in Both of the them.
You speak of contradictions yet, I have found no contradictions in the Bible. It appears you are using these so-called contradictions to rewrite the meaning of the scriptures to your world/theological view.

The only reason you "see" it is because a guy named Augustine imported Greek philosophical notions about God into the Catholic church in the 4th century.

He happened to get these notions from God's WORD.....

Those two sentences are not logically connected to each other. The first is legalism and was true prior to the cutting off of Israel (the people of the law) and the second is just Augustinian doctrine that is not taught anywhere in scripture.

Not sure what was said before your rebuttal, the Arrow by your name is gone?
"cutting off of Israel" what does this mean? The doctrines of Election????it is your opinion

I know that this post of yours was not aimed at me, at least not directly, but bebating in favor of our doctrine is what we are all here for Bladrunner! I am not kidding! If you made actual arguments instead of simply declaring your doctrine as though that counts as a rebuttal of the arguments that have been presented to you then you'd very quickly have more people interacting with you than you have time to keep up with. Top Top

I try not to aim it at anyone person..None of what I say is personal yet, I have to address you at some point. When I address a post, I am giving an alternative message of what God's Word states. To me this is debating...your beliefs vs my beliefs.....Are you speaking for all of the others.?

 

[Bladerunner]

Not really a point of contention.

Ok, lets simply talk about it......It is in this case! God did not separate the Gentiles from the Jews in His Church. The Bible is One Integrated Book from the beginning to the end. Rem, the very first word of the Bible "in the Beginning" tells us the end from the beginning....

No, not at all. Question: Do you take a sword against all ungodly neighbors today? Why not? The answer from Mid Acts is along the same reasoning.

I have several neighbors of different theology. They like you and those others in this forum are set in their theology. This also includes myself. Yet, God tells us to teach His word and that is all...He is the only one who can give salvation to anyone. So it is His opinion that counts.

Yes.

I think frustration reigns after a lot of the same conversation over and over. This thread I started a bit ago, may help. It doesn't matter if I am Mid Acts or not, just the tenor of the thread was a question and very open dialogue that might be of service.

In most cases, it comes down to one fallacy. God does not separate the Jewish members and the Gentile members of His Church. Those who believe (both Jew and Gentile) the Gospel of Jesus Christ during the Church dispensation will be Raptured to Heaven.

The answer is 'how many dispensations?' If I remember correctly, even in 2nd Acts, there are 7 dispensations.

See above for how every 2nd Acts Dispensationalist I know believes. The reason Mid Acts goes to chapter 15 or 18 is because grace was spelled out and Mid Acts, again if I remember correctly would be something like "Grace to gentiles" (help me on this one Mid Acts folks).

Appears you have more than 7 dispensations.

My Dispensations are as follows: Creation, Conscience(after the fall, before Noah's Flood), Patriarchs (After Noah's Flood), The Law of Moses, The Church, The Millennium, Eternity. The main ones that affect us are the Law which stopped at John, the Baptist., The Church which started at the Death of Jesus Christ, The Millennium which starts at Daniel's 70th week and Eternity, which starts after the White Throne Judgement.

I'm going to try and set this up as a Bible Study, just for you to see if anything makes sense. I'm not trying to debate, will just ask questions and try and get your meaningful response to those questions:

ok,

Gospel is used often as a moniker for theology proper, and a good dictionary definition you give above, but consider:
Matthew 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

Would you think the "Gospel of the Kingdom" is the same at "Gospel for salvation?"

No, the Gospel is that of Jesus Christ....Here in Matthew, Jesus was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. Had the Jewish people accepted Him as their King, the Kingdom would have started at that time (Lucky for you and me the Kingdom did not come.). However, they (Israel as a nation) rejected Him three times. The Kingdom was postponed. This was very early in Matthew, chapter 4 to chapter 9. Mark, (Chapter 1), was also one chapter where Jesus had preached the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Jesus also warned those at the Olivet Discourse, the Gospel of the Kingdom would be preached in the future to come. Mat 24:14

How might they be the same?

No, they are not.....The everlasting Gospel is the "Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached to the nations of the world after the Rapture event has happened by the 144,000. For at the time of this event, no one on earth will be a true believer of Jesus Christ.

How might they be significantly different?

1. Gospel of Jesus Christ, in the Church Dispensation, a gospel where Salvation is given via Faith in Jesus, a gift from GOD
2. the Gospel of the Kingdom, Millennial Dispensation, will require that martyrdom, the death of the person in the name of Jesus Christ during Daniel's 70th week. A different part of the gospel will control the time of the Millennium and forward into the Dispensation of Eternity.

See here from a 2nd Acts Dispensational site and look specifically for 'gospel' and 'salvation' in any verse. Note, in good study there are only two that have 'gospel' and 'salvation' in the same sentence and only from the Apostle Paul.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved?" Granted it is Jesus Who saves, but how? Ephesians 2:8-10?

Gentiles became a heir of the covenants of Israel including the New Covenant. In Eze 36:25-26 .."Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." This is how Jesus saves us. We

Who was James writing to?

All the Apostles and Paul were writing to the Jews first and Gentiles second.

According to Acts 15, was there a difference between how Jews and gentiles were to act? Are all under works?

These "Judaizers" from the north came Jews in Jerusalem the circumcision was the only way to salvation. Paul straightened this out when He got to Jerusalem (next four verses). Notice, that Paul had just come down from Antioch teaching of the real Gospel. Judaizers became a main stay of the those who could not let go of legalism.

Why did Paul oppose Peter to his face? Galatians 2:11-21

Because Peter refused to teach what GOD had told Him in Acts 10:9-16.. Peter had learned this from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles who believed (apart from being circumcised) in Acts 10:44-48.

What was Paul concerned with?

the actions of Peter would turn away Jewish Christians from Communion

Was it different for Peter than gentiles?

Was ??different for Peter than Gentiles..Not sure what your asking here...will hold until it is clear.

Looking forward to the fruit of your study to share with me and others, thank you. -Lon

Thanks Lon for allowing me to present my thoughts on the Lord our GOD.

 

[Clete]

Bladerunner,
Do yourself a favor and don't respond to this post until you've read the end of it. In fact, just skip down there now and read it first so that you aren't forced to spend two hours writing a mile long response to this whole monstrosity.

The moderators have been very nice during my time on this forum and yes, I was asked to leave.

Yes, I have seen these types of Forums that want no other teachings than theirs to be afforded to their members....Yet, that is no excuse for a forum to close its doors except for those who like open theism.

I've been here for more than two decades and I'm telling you that you have an incorrect perception.

We are all suppose to be studying the Bible, trying to find all that GOD gave us in His WORD....As John is written so that a young child can understand it yet, One can study it for a life time and still not know everything that God left for us in this Book.

I agree with this 100% as does every person associated with running this website.

I simply give you the literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation of the scriptures you throw away.

I have little doubt that you believe that this is what you're doing but it isn't actually what you're doing. "Historical" fits but the rest doesn't and there's problems stacked as high as Everest with the historical interpretation of scripture.

A very important foundational premise of Open Theism is that we have as a default mindset to take the bible to mean what it seems to be saying by simply reading it. We, of course, acknowledge that some passages are more difficult than others and we also know that there are figures of speech on every single page of the bible. But generally speaking, the bible means what it seems to mean.

We also understand that one is sometimes forced to take some passages as a figure of speech (e.g. hyperbole or metaphor or whatever) because of one's doctrine. Indeed, that is true of not just reading scripture but in formulating doctrine itself. One is forced - FORCED - to choose which doctrines are more foundational than others. Everyone does this - everyone. The difference with Open Theism is that we do not simply choose in some arbitrary manner which doctrines will take precedence over others and we do not pretend that we don't make such choices (i.e. lie to ourselves) like the Calvinists and Catholics do.

God is sovereign all things period. There is nothing He can not do.

This is an excellent counter example to your claim above. There simply isn't a single passage of scripture that teaches this in the dogmatic what you mean it and the passages one might use as proof texts either don't teach it at all period or are examples of hyperbole.

Incidentally, people tend to overreact to the term "hyperbole," thinking we are suggesting more than we are when we point out its existence in Scripture. The idea isn’t that passages like Luke 1:37 are wild-eyed overstatements, said with undue amounts of emotion, which seems to be how many people interpret what we are saying. That’s not it at all. What we are saying is that it’s perfectly normal for people, including the biblical authors, to speak in generalities. It isn’t necessary, nor even desirable, for someone to mention every caveat or exception to a statement that is generally true.

Thus, it is true that with God, all things are possible, but only in a general sense. The word "all" doesn’t have to mean every single possible thing or instance. In fact, it almost never means that in any context where the word is used. What is being communicated in such passages is that God can do any doable thing that He wills to do. It does not mean that God can do the rationally absurd. God cannot make perfect spheres with flat sides and sharp corners. God cannot go to a place that does not exist. God cannot make someone love Him. These things are contradictions. To do them would be not to do them. God cannot do the absurd.

Calvinists in particular will argue with every one of those examples I just gave but they usually won't argue when someone quotes Hebrews 6:18 which says that it is impossible for God to lie. They accept that at face value and ignore - totally ignore - the fact that it means that the statement "There is nothing He can not do." is false! It is just one example of where the Calvinist is forced to ARBITRARILY choose which passages he takes at face value and which he interprets.

Now you have tied my hands...I either have to believe in a God who knows all or believe in a God who is Just, wise and righteous.... I believe in Both of the them.

Some people believe in the tooth-fairy and Santa Claus, that doesn't make them real. People believe all kinds of contradictory things but that doesn't mean that they are true.

And it isn't I who has tied your hands, its good old fashioned plain reason that has done it. The two are contradictory. They cannot both be true. There is no such thing as contradictory truths. (See the argument presented at the end of this post.)

You speak of contradictions yet, I have found no contradictions in the Bible.

I didn't suggest that there are any contradiction in the bible. Indeed, I state categoricaly that there are none!

The contradiction exist in your doctrine. It is points of your doctrine which must be false, not scripture.

It appears you are using these so-called contradictions to rewrite the meaning of the scriptures to your world/theological view.

On the contrary! It is just the precise opposite!

First of all they are not "so-called" contradictions. Whether something is contradictory or not isn't a matter of personal opinion. I don't get to decide by my own personal whim or fiat desire that contradictory truth claims are both true. At least, I don't get to do that AND claim that I am a rational person or that I care about the truth. To accept the contradictory as truth is to turn off one's mind, to leave what is real behind and to base one's life on fairy tales, superstition and myth. I said it once, I'll say it again. There is no such thing as contradictory truths.

I also don't get to decide what words mean. Words mean things and ideas have consequences. It is the Calvinist who redefines commonly understood words to mean something other than what they mean when used in any context outside of Christian doctrine. What I am doing is using the normal meaning of words such as "sovereign", to give just one example.

He happened to get these notions from God's WORD.....

No, he flatly did not. He himself doesn't claim to have done so. Augustine refused to even entertain becoming a Christian precisely because Genesis presents a God who can change His mind! I mean that is THE reason that Augustine himself gives for why he believed Christianity to be a child's fairy tale and it wasn't until his mother's Bishop (Ambros of Milan) taught Augustine how to interpret the bible in light of Aristotelian philosophy that he consented to become a Christian. He then set about formulating an entire systematic theology based, first a foremost, on the Neo-Platonic premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. Several centuries later an Augustinian monk named Luther hung a list of grievances on a church door and one of his contemporaries canonized Augustinian theology proper and soteriology into what we now call "Calvinism".

You talk about the historical interpretation of the scriptures? Well, there's the history! You have primarily Socrates, Aristotle and Plato to thank for it if you believe that the God who became flesh, died and rose from the dead is immutable.

Not sure what was said before your rebuttal, the Arrow by your name is gone?

It doesn't matter. Skip it.

"cutting off of Israel" what does this mean?

Romans 9; Jeremiah 18

Israel was cut off because of unbelief and God turned instead to the Gentiles. When the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25) then God will return again to Israel to exalt the law and make it honorable (Isaiah 42:21).

You've asked a question here that is ENORMOUS in its implications and that single sentence doesn't do it justice but there's only so much time for these posts!

The doctrines of Election????it is your opinion

I very consciously avoid personal opinions when discussing doctrine and when I do give one, I try to always point out the fact that it is an opinion.

The view I have concerning the "doctrines of election" has nothing to do with my personal opinion. These doctrines are either true or they are false and my opinion doesn't come into it.

I won't go into specifics here as this post is already quite long except to reiterate that Calvinists have redefined very nearly every single word in the entire Christian lexicon to mean something other than what it would mean in any context outside of their particular flavor of Christianity. The word, "elect" is certainly no exception.

In short, biblically, the "elect" are those whom God has chosen, whether individuals or groups, to fulfill a specific purpose or role in His redemptive plan, based on His knowledge of the individual person or of the group as a whole (i.e. the person's personality and their faith or the group's lineage, or whatever the case may be).

I try not to aim it at anyone person..None of what I say is personal yet, I have to address you at some point. When I address a post, I am giving an alternative message of what God's Word states. To me this is debating...your beliefs vs my beliefs.....Are you speaking for all of the others.?

I can only speak for someone else in so far as I know them and even then only in general terms and so, basically, no I am not speaking for all the others except to say that I have a very long history here and know how things tend to go.

One thing you should be aware of, however, is this: we attempt to follow Jesus' example and are not afraid to get personal if something someone says warrants it. I, in particular, do not suffer fools gladly. If you come at me with blatantly dishonest claims or flagrantly mindless stupidity, you won’t enjoy my response. I am as patient as Moses with people who are substantive and responsive, but I lose patience rather quickly with those who waste my time by ignoring the points I’ve made and “respond” by simply restating their doctrine, as though doing so makes my arguments disappear. You don’t have to agree with me for us to get along just fine, but you do need to be substantive, make actual arguments, and respond with either genuine rebuttals or pertinent questions when I’ve done the same.


Now, in an effort to not beat a dead horse, I suggest that we pick a specific point and launch from that point and leave the rest behind for now.

We can discuss any point of disagreement you like, I feel like the one point of disagreement that might be easiest to tackle is the issue concerning the contradictory ideas of God's infallible foreknowledge and our having a free will. The two are definitely contradictory but my saying so doesn't prove the point, and so let me present to you the following formal argument and you can respond to it if you like. By the way, you do sort of have read the argument sort of slowly or else it gets knotted up in your brain. Be sure you understand one point before proceeding to the next.

Also, if this particular issue doesn't suit you and you'd rather discuss a different topic than this one then just say so. We can go in any direction you desire.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

Note that the above argument does not prove that God does or does not have infallible foreknowledge nor does it prove or disprove that we have free will. What it proves is that the two are mutually exclusive, that they cannot BOTH be true.

 

[Lon]

Ok, lets simply talk about it......It is in this case! God did not separate the Gentiles from the Jews in His Church. The Bible is One Integrated Book from the beginning to the end. Rem, the very first word of the Bible "in the Beginning" tells us the end from the beginning....

I have several neighbors of different theology. They like you and those others in this forum are set in their theology. This also includes myself. Yet, God tells us to teach His word and that is all...He is the only one who can give salvation to anyone. So it is His opinion that counts.

Realize I have been where you are at. I've been called Mid Acts because I'm definitely grace theology, but it means, without knowing I was Mid Acts, I'm likely Mid Acts simply because of this particular. In a nutshell, after wrestling a long time with James with Galatians and Ephesians, I had to come up with what God was saying. Hebrews started me on this journey. I like you, read Hebrews 'to me.' One day I read "Our" forefathers. In the first chapter. It hit me that I don't have Jewish forefathers. I looked at the title "Hebrews" and went 'duh' this book is written to Jews and I have to understand context before application: One of the number one rules of Bible study and I missed it!

In most cases, it comes down to one fallacy. God does not separate the Jewish members and the Gentile members of His Church. Those who believe (both Jew and Gentile) the Gospel of Jesus Christ during the Church dispensation will be Raptured to Heaven.

I'd think you are Covenant Theology then? Only they see themselves and Jews as blended. Those are Calvinists. All my life I have not been, but have been surrounded by many. One of my first bosses was Calvinist and I loved him. He was the owner of a Christian bookstore and I read a lot of Calvinists extensively (never Institutes though, oddly). Most Calvinists that I've met do not agree with Calvin on everything. On this forum, it is reckoned they aren't Calvinists if they do not hold to all of Calvin's doctrines. I was never a five point Calvinist.

Appears you have more than 7 dispensations.

I am not a staunch dispensationalist, scripture talks of dispensations so I have to be one. I've never drawn an 'us/them' line too strongly. All who call on the name of the Lord are saved, if they are regenerated by Christ.

On the whole, I see most churches as Judaized to some degree or another, how could we not be when our Lord was a Jew? Rather, the more I've read scriptures, the more I've come to believe gentiles really weren't given a lot of rules. Why? It is a cart/horse consideration: Works plays in the lives of every believer, but why? The answer I have searched from scripture is simply this: First salvation and a new nature, THEN and only then: works in keeping with that new nature. It has to be the prompting of the Holy Spirit in our lives, as new beings. Then? Works happen because we love Him and also then, because we seek it in scripture by the renewing of our minds.

My Dispensations are as follows: Creation, Conscience(after the fall, before Noah's Flood), Patriarchs (After Noah's Flood), The Law of Moses, The Church, The Millennium, Eternity. The main ones that affect us are the Law which stopped at John, the Baptist., The Church which started at the Death of Jesus Christ, The Millennium which starts at Daniel's 70th week and Eternity, which starts after the White Throne Judgement.

Looks similar to 2nd Acts Dispensationalism.

ok,

No, the Gospel is that of Jesus Christ....Here in Matthew, Jesus was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. Had the Jewish people accepted Him as their King, the Kingdom would have started at that time (Lucky for you and me the Kingdom did not come.). However, they (Israel as a nation) rejected Him three times. The Kingdom was postponed. This was very early in Matthew, chapter 4 to chapter 9. Mark, (Chapter 1), was also one chapter where Jesus had preached the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Good, so their 'good news' was for them alone. That is in keeping with them as His chosen people and the people/avenue in which He would influence the world (if I'm reading you correctly). While it is good news for gentiles too, in the long run: we either see Paul as 'further work' of this where we are involved to some degree with the promise to Israel, or we look at differences. The main difference between theology is where one sees difference, rather than what is the same. Like you, I've always looked for the cohesion of all scriptures, but Bible Study method in every bible study course I've taken always tells us to not do this 'first' but to look at context and it means always "what is different?" Even if I weren't Mid Acts, I see their Bible Studies as asking the right kinds of questions for good Bible study to be affective. No matter if one eschews Mid Acts for themselves, they do force good bible study and are of great service even if you come away not being Mid Acts. I think I am likely Mid Acts (not hung up on this), but I'm still a work in progress.

Jesus also warned those at the Olivet Discourse, the Gospel of the Kingdom would be preached in the future to come. Mat 24:14

Yes, so the continuity. No Mid Acts rejects any scriptures. Rather, they first read a book such as James, within the context it was written. Acts 15 as their guide, they try to understand what was written to Jews who did have to keep the Law, as gentiles who aren't supposed to do so.

In a sense, if you will, they'd intimated that you and I, if we ignore that, we are essentially cutting Acts 15 out of our bibles, even eschewing Galatians and Ephesians and instead embracing James as 'our' book. It is good to take the accusation in the sense that we want to be faithful to all of our Bible, not just part of it. For them, and in a large degree for me, I do that by noticing 'what is different.' Granted Romans tells us there is no longer Jew or Greek, but was that a wholesale comment? Doesn't Acts 15 among much of Paul's writings tell us that there is yet a difference, just not in Christ? These questions actually help Bible study, not hinder it. We have to dare to serve God by taking in His whole counsel. For me, I loved all of my Bible. I was very much of the same mind as you, but I realized I wasn't letting God talk because I wanted it all to be for me as a believer. It is all for me, but it isn't all 'to' me. I was a little jealous at that point. Jesus called a gentile a 'dog' in his analogy and I didn't like being one. That passage hurt, but as I read, she was elevated, as a gentile to great faith and Jesus healed. The Samaritan woman likewise.

No, they are not.....The everlasting Gospel is the "Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached to the nations of the world after the Rapture event has happened by the 144,000. For at the time of this event, no one on earth will be a true believer of Jesus Christ.

Are you saying you get to reign with the 12 tribes, as part of them? See above comment as well: we either tie it all together, perhaps slipshod or we see differences. Every Mid Acts sees what is the same, and every Covenant and to a degree 2nd Acts dispensationalist sees at least some difference. Good bible study ever asks us to delve into both. What is the same? What, if anything, is different?

1. Gospel of Jesus Christ, in the Church Dispensation, a gospel where Salvation is given via Faith in Jesus, a gift from GOD
2. the Gospel of the Kingdom, Millennial Dispensation, will require that martyrdom, the death of the person in the name of Jesus Christ during Daniel's 70th week. A different part of the gospel will control the time of the Millennium and forward into the Dispensation of Eternity.

Glorydaze here on TOL is no longer Mid Acts, if I remember. She is a bit closer to your thoughts. It is no sin to consider another's POV, it helps us wrestle with what we believe and question if it is true. My ever endeavor is to try and see another's view of scripture and test it against my own for mutual challenge and understanding (as iron sharpens iron).

Gentiles became a heir of the covenants of Israel including the New Covenant. In Eze 36:25-26 .."Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." This is how Jesus saves us. We

You seem to have a blend of Covenant Theology and 2nd Acts dispensationalism. We were similar at one point, but I'd always agreed with Grace theology, which is of course Mid Acts. I didn't know it at the time.

All the Apostles and Paul were writing to the Jews first and Gentiles second.

Do me a favor and read the audience addressed in each book you are talking about. Paul doesn't say 'to the gentiles' but research who the Ephesians, Galatians and Romans were. I do not perceive as you on this. It 'looks' like you are mistaken. Sure the gospel was 'first to the Jew, then the gentile' but note with me a 'difference' on point. Galatians is certainly not to the Jew first, then the gentile. It has every tenor of being written first the gentile, then the Jew.

These "Judaizers" from the north came Jews in Jerusalem the circumcision was the only way to salvation. Paul straightened this out when He got to Jerusalem (next four verses). Notice, that Paul had just come down from Antioch teaching of the real Gospel. Judaizers became a main stay of the those who could not let go of legalism.

Right, so why was there confusion? Wasn't it the scriptures themselves they thought they were following? Why then the difference? Why didn't the Jews have to just do like the gentiles and go ahead and eat pig and shellfish, for instance? Why was there still a prohibition for them? Peter said 'certainly not!' He never did eat pork or shellfish. (All good Bible study questions)

Because Peter refused to teach what GOD had told Him in Acts 10:9-16.. Peter had learned this from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles who believed (apart from being circumcised) in Acts 10:44-48.

Agree to a point, but what was the actual problem spelled out in Galatians? He was a Jew, he was supposed to only eat kosher. Was this the problem? Galatians 2:11-14 (from Dallas Theological Seminary)

the actions of Peter would turn away Jewish Christians from Communion

A bit more than just communion. See Galatians 2:11-14, the hypocrisy was that in separating, he was forcing a rift between Jew and gentile, not that they weren't to eat together, but by ceremony, Peter had caused an 'us/them' rift. It was part of the difference, not all bad, but the result is what was bad: A separation of two of the same body in Christ and a bewitching of the gentiles to have to act like Jews in order for grace to be efficacious. There was pressure on the gentiles to conform and it infected the gospel message of grace. This is the whole argument of Galatians. "If anyone preaches another gospel, (not the same gospel, no?) then let him be accursed!" Those are strong words and we have to catch the whole drift of Galatians or we too, aren't rightly seeing what is necessarily different. We have to entertain the difference to even acknowledge and do justice to the book of Galatians that is written specifically about 1) the gospel to gentiles, necessarily, it seems by Peter and Barnabas' actions, be differentiated as problematic for gentiles. It does not behoove us to unite that message as if there weren't difference. They whole thrust of Galatians is to not be compromised in saving faith by grace.

You don't have to agree, just entertain in your study that you may have glossed over this point, by priori of 'what is the same' rather than taking the message of Galatians that "it isn't all the same."

Thanks Lon for allowing me to present my thoughts on the Lord our GOD.

We are all working on progress as we look to our Savior and trying to live according to His word. Upon the journey, Lon

 

[Bladerunner]

Realize I have been where you are at. I've been called Mid Acts because I'm definitely grace theology, but it means, without knowing I was Mid Acts, I'm likely Mid Acts simply because of this particular. In a nutshell, after wrestling a long time with James with Galatians and Ephesians, I had to come up with what God was saying. Hebrews started me on this journey. I like you, read Hebrews 'to me.' One day I read "Our" forefathers. In the first chapter. It hit me that I don't have Jewish forefathers. I looked at the title "Hebrews" and went 'duh' this book is written to Jews and I have to understand context before application: One of the number one rules of Bible study and I missed it!

Lon. most all of the epistles of Paul were to the Jew first then to the Gentiles.. Peter did not like this and actually went against Paul even after he had agree with Paul...But this was Peter, a man who had his foot in his mouth. The only time a foot was not in his mouth was when He was changing it for the other foot. By the Way, Hebrews is written by Paul, (most all scholars agree) as there are His many footprints to prove it......Hebrews (and I know this is off of the subject, please bare with me) is specially written because of specific problems. I leave it at that for another thread, maybe,.

I'd think you are Covenant Theology then? Only they see themselves and Jews as blended. Those are Calvinists. All my life I have not been, but have been surrounded by many. One of my first bosses was Calvinist and I loved him. He was the owner of a Christian bookstore and I read a lot of Calvinists extensively (never Institutes though, oddly). Most Calvinists that I've met do not agree with Calvin on everything. On this forum, it is rehickoned they aren't Calvinists if they do not hold to all of Calvin's doctrines. I was never a five point Calvinism

I am a six point Calvinist, a little of Dispensationalism, fundamentalism, historical and as you put it, I speak as a mid-acts person as well.....I bring these in because I look at the whole Bible from beginning to the end and can see that a lot of properties of these other theologies are intertwined with the all pages of the Bible...This I do without every having to change, delete, add one word or grammatical modifier to His WORD.

I am not a staunch dispensationalist, scripture talks of dispensations so I have to be one. I've never drawn an 'us/them' line too strongly. All who call on the name of the Lord are saved, if they are regenerated by Christ.

It is hard to go through the Bible and not see dispensations. In fact, it is biblical as the Bible speaks of them as well.Yet, as most all theology goes, many teachers/Preachers disagree with one part and to keep from having to use that part, they substitute, change, delete, add, etc. the Word of GOD to make it fit what they believe. All of them do this...Here I do not have to change anything...I can lay out His WORD and let them speak for themselves. Either it is true or it is not.

On the whole, I see most churches as Judaized to some degree or another, how could we not be when our Lord was a Jew? Rather, the more I've read scriptures, the more I've come to believe gentiles really weren't given a lot of rules. Why? It is a cart/horse consideration: Works plays in the lives of every believer, but why? The answer I have searched from scripture is simply this: First salvation and a new nature, THEN and only then: works in keeping with that new nature. It has to be the prompting of the Holy Spirit in our lives, as new beings. Then? Works happen because we love Him and also then, because we seek it in scripture by the renewing of our minds

The Judaizers were so-called Christians that actually killed Christians in the Churches. They only believed in the Law of Moses (rem this was before the fall of Jerusalem 70 AD)and wanted the Christians gone. History tells us, so many were killed that it would rival the number of killed by the Roman Army. You said it well, about the: first the Salvation....Yes and works to follow....But one can judge someone by their works....for if they have no works their faith is dead.

Looks similar to 2nd Acts Dispensationalism.

Good, so their 'good news' was for them alone. That is in keeping with them as His chosen people and the people/avenue in which He would influence the world (if I'm reading you correctly). While it is good news for gentiles too, in the long run: we either see Paul as 'further work' of this where we are involved to some degree with the promise to Israel, or we look at differences. The main difference between theology is where one sees difference, rather than what is the same. Like you, I've always looked for the cohesion of all scriptures, but Bible Study method in every bible study course I've taken always tells us to not do this 'first' but to look at context and it means always "what is different?" Even if I weren't Mid Acts, I see their Bible Studies as asking the right kinds of questions for good Bible study to be affective. No matter if one eschews Mid Acts for themselves, they do force good bible study and are of great service even if you come away not being Mid Acts. I think I am likely Mid Acts (not hung up on this), but I'm still a work in progress.

Yes, so the continuity. No Mid Acts rejects any scriptures. Rather, they first read a book such as James, within the context it was written. Acts 15 as their guide, they try to understand what was written to Jews who did have to keep the Law, as gentiles who aren't supposed to do so.

I have to disagree here....What about the Jews that were saved by believing as you and I do? Does Mid-Acts relegate them to the Church that was born with the Holy Spirit and the Promise that God would send Him to them in Acts 1 or are they part of the Church that only Gentiles are members? In Acts 10:45 Jesus tells us:"And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here the Jews who followed the law yet also believed in Jesus Christ received the Holy Spirit as the Gentiles did....they are both members of the same church, one church....Yet, when did the Mid-acts church begin. If this is the church beginning at Acts 10:45, then thousands of Jews since Acts 2 who also received the Holy Spirit (the sign of salvation)have not had a church until now......OR do they have their own church separate from the Gentiles Church and herein lies the crux of the Mid-Acts theology.

In a sense, if you will, they'd intimated that you and I, if we ignore that, we are essentially cutting Acts 15 out of our bibles, even eschewing Galatians and Ephesians and instead embracing James as 'our' book. It is good to take the accusation in the sense that we want to be faithful to all of our Bible, not just part of it. For them, and in a large degree for me, I do that by noticing 'what is different.' Granted Romans tells us there is no longer Jew or Greek, but was that a wholesale comment? Doesn't Acts 15 among much of Paul's writings tell us that there is yet a difference, just not in Christ? These questions actually help Bible study, not hinder it. We have to dare to serve God by taking in His whole counsel. For me, I loved all of my Bible. I was very much of the same mind as you, but I realized I wasn't letting God talk because I wanted it all to be for me as a believer. It is all for me, but it isn't all 'to' me. I was a little jealous at that point. Jesus called a gentile a 'dog' in his analogy and I didn't like being one. That passage hurt, but as I read, she was elevated, as a gentile to great faith and Jesus healed. The Samaritan woman likewise.

Are you saying you get to reign with the 12 tribes, as part of them? See above comment as well: we either tie it all together, perhaps slipshod or we see differences. Every Mid Acts sees what is the same, and every Covenant and to a degree 2nd Acts dispensationalist sees at least some difference. Good bible study ever asks us to delve into both. What is the same? What, if anything, is different?

There were 24 elders on thrones according to St John. Could not 12 of these Elders be apostles and judge Israel.....as the other 12 elders judge the Angels, etc. Jesus will judge the rest of the Nations on earth during the 1,000 years.

Glorydaze here on TOL is no longer Mid Acts, if I remember. She is a bit closer to your thoughts. It is no sin to consider another's POV, it helps us wrestle with what we believe and question if it is true. My ever endeavor is to try and see another's view of scripture and test it against my own for mutual challenge and understanding (as iron sharpens iron).

You seem to have a blend of Covenant Theology and 2nd Acts dispensationalism. We were similar at one point, but I'd always agreed with Grace theology, which is of course Mid Acts. I didn't know it at the time.

Do me a favor and read the audience addressed in each book you are talking about. Paul doesn't say 'to the gentiles' but research who the Ephesians, Galatians and Romans were. I do not perceive as you on this. It 'looks' like you are mistaken. Sure the gospel was 'first to the Jew, then the gentile' but note with me a 'difference' on point. Galatians is certainly not to the Jew first, then the gentile. It has every tenor of being written first the gentile, then the Jew.

God would not have it any other way, unless He is NOT totally sovereign?

Right, so why was there confusion? Wasn't it the scriptures themselves they thought they were following? Why then the difference? Why didn't the Jews have to just do like the gentiles and go ahead and eat pig and shellfish, for instance? Why was there still a prohibition for them? Peter said 'certainly not!' He never did eat pork or shellfish. (All good Bible study questions)

Agree to a point, but what was the actual problem spelled out in Galatians? He was a Jew, he was supposed to only eat kosher. Was this the problem? Galatians 2:11-14 (from Dallas Theological Seminary)

The problem was that Peter was a fisherman and the Law was a custom (sociological Law). The laws of Moses written for the synagogues and the people. Rem. The Law of Moses stopped and the people would become to understand this when Jesus was crucified. The Veil of the Holy of Holies was torn in-two and the Stone on which the mercy seat was, was split down the middle. No more would GOD visit and sit with His people UNTIL. Today, the Oral Tanach took the place of the Masoretic Tanach simply because after 70 AD they had no place for sacrifice and they had already rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah.

A bit more than just communion. See Galatians 2:11-14, the hypocrisy was that in separating, he was forcing a rift between Jew and gentile, not that they weren't to eat together, but by ceremony, Peter had caused an 'us/them' rift. It was part of the difference, not all bad, but the result is what was bad: A separation of two of the same body in Christ and a bewitching of the gentiles to have to act like Jews in order for grace to be efficacious. There was pressure on the gentiles to conform and it infected the gospel message of grace. This is the whole argument of Galatians. "If anyone preaches another gospel, (not the same gospel, no?) then let him be accursed!" Those are strong words and we have to catch the whole drift of Galatians or we too, aren't rightly seeing what is necessarily different. We have to entertain the difference to even acknowledge and do justice to the book of Galatians that is written specifically about 1) the gospel to gentiles, necessarily, it seems by Peter and Barnabas' actions, be differentiated as problematic for gentiles. It does not behoove us to unite that message as if there weren't difference. They whole thrust of Galatians is to not be compromised in saving faith by grace.

Again the problems at the Galatian church was caused by Judaizers...or as Paul put it.."false brethren". These followers of the Pharisees, etc. would not change, yet the Law of Moses already had be stopped....they did not care..WHY. Because the day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem, He blinded them UNTIL 'the fullness of the Gentiles". This prophecy has not been fullfilled yet. Even today, Israel are all blinded with the except of those that GOD calls individually.

You don't have to agree, just entertain in your study that you may have glossed over this point, by priori of 'what is the same' rather than taking the message of Galatians that "it isn't all the same."

We are all working on progress as we look to our Savior and trying to live according to His word. Upon the journey, Lon

Thanks: Upon the Journey, Blade

 

[Clete]

Lon. most all of the epistles of Paul were to the Jew first then to the Gentiles.. Peter did not like this and actually went against Paul even after he had agree with Paul...But this was Peter, a man who had his foot in his mouth. The only time a foot was not in his mouth was when He was changing it for the other foot. By the Way, Hebrews is written by Paul, (most all scholars agree) as there are His many footprints to prove it......Hebrews (and I know this is off of the subject, please bare with me) is specially written because of specific problems. I leave it at that for another thread, maybe,.

Hebrews was definitely not written by Paul and the fact that most scholars agree otherwise is a terrific piece of evidence that he did not write it. "Scholars" make their career by disagreeing with the bible whenever the opportunity to do so presents itself. Biblical Archeologist in particular, it seems, have it as their life's goal to disprove some aspect of the bible, but they aren't unique, unfortunately. It seems the more educated the scholar, the more likely they are to get major issues wrong.

Be that as it may, the strongest argument against Pauline authorship of Hebrews relies on linguistic, stylistic, historical, and theological evidence drawn from multiple sources, including early church testimony, textual analysis, and yes, even scholarly research. I won't bore you with the entire argument, which is lengthy and will instead focus on the biblical elements of the argument, which is more than sufficient....



First, Paul explicitly identifies himself in all his known letters (e.g., “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ…”), yet Hebrews lacks any personal attribution. In 2 Thessalonians 3:17, Paul states that he signs his letters with his own hand to verify authenticity. This is absent in Hebrews.

Second, Hebrews presents a high priestly Christology, focusing on Jesus as the Melchizedekian high priest, which is something Paul never develops in his letters. While Paul emphasizes justification by faith apart from works (e.g., Romans, Galatians), Hebrews leans heavily on endurance, obedience, and covenantal fidelity without explicitly discussing justification by faith alone in Pauline terms. The covenantal discussion in Hebrews is more aligned with Jewish liturgical thought, whereas Paul often frames his arguments in relation to Gentile inclusion and law vs. grace.

Third, Hebrews 2:3 states that the message of salvation “was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,” strongly implying the author was not an eyewitness of Christ’s ministry. Paul, however, consistently claims he received what he referred to as "my gospel" (Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25 & II Timothy 2:8) directly from Christ (Galatians 1:12) and does not rely on secondhand testimony.

Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

​

Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.​

​

That last point is the real kicker here because if Galatians 1:12 weren't the case and Paul was teaching the same gospel that the Twelve were preaching then there would be no need for Paul's ministry at all. Jesus had just spent three years training His apostles and Judas' replacement had been confirmed not only by the eleven Apostles who remained as Jesus had given them authority to do (Matthew 16:19), but also by the Holy Spirit Himself in Acts 2:1-4.

The "Great Commission" given by Christ to the Twelve was an explicit instruction for them to take the gospel to "all nations" and yet they agreed with Paul to remain in Israel and minister to "the circumcision" (i.e. believing Jews) while Paul would go to the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.​

And notice also why the meeting that produced the above agreement, happened in the first place....

Galatians 2:2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles​

Why would Paul need to be sent by God Himself to Jerusalem in order to explain the gospel to the Twelve if what he was preaching was the same? There wouldn't be any need! It is precisely the fact that he was not preaching the same thing that justifies Paul's being an Apostle at all.

This Jerusalem counsel agreement also relates to the question of Hebrews’ authorship. If Paul wrote Hebrews, then his gospel would have been identical to what the Twelve were preaching, and this Jerusalem council meeting would have been unnecessary. On the other hand, if Paul’s message was distinct and someone wanted to argue that Hebrews reflects Paul’s gospel (which it clearly does not, as shown above), then the fact that it was written to the Hebrews would mean that Paul had violated his agreement with the Twelve. Paul would surely not have done such a thing. He was, after all, sent to this meeting by God Himself. Indeed, if he had violated this agreement by writing to the Hebrews, God would not have allowed it to be included in His Word. Either way you go, this point alone is sufficient to prove that Paul did not write Hebrews.

 

[Right Divider]

Lon. most all of the epistles of Paul were to the Jew first then to the Gentiles..

Where do you get this nonsense?

You continue to make false claims without a shred of support.

Peter did not like this and actually went against Paul even after he had agree with Paul...

Another false and unsupported claim.

 

[Lon]

The Judaizers were so-called Christians that actually killed Christians in the Churches. They only believed in the Law of Moses (rem this was before the fall of Jerusalem 70 AD)and wanted the Christians gone. History tells us, so many were killed that it would rival the number of killed by the Roman Army. You said it well, about the: first the Salvation....Yes and works to follow....But one can judge someone by their works....for if they have no works their faith is dead.

Your are confusing Judaizing with Jews. They aren't the same.

I have to disagree here....What about the Jews that were saved by believing as you and I do? Does Mid-Acts relegate them to the Church that was born with the Holy Spirit and the Promise that God would send Him to them in Acts 1 or are they part of the Church that only Gentiles are members? In Acts 10:45 Jesus tells us:"And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here the Jews who followed the law yet also believed in Jesus Christ received the Holy Spirit as the Gentiles did....they are both members of the same church, one church....Yet, when did the Mid-acts church begin. If this is the church beginning at Acts 10:45, then thousands of Jews since Acts 2 who also received the Holy Spirit (the sign of salvation)have not had a church until now......OR do they have their own church separate from the Gentiles Church and herein lies the crux of the Mid-Acts theology.

There is a difference. Question: What is that difference? It is important. You may need to read Galatians to be able to grasp the answer. It isn't obscure, fairly evident but I can help if need be. The question: What is different between Jews under grace and you and I?

There were 24 elders on thrones according to St John. Could not 12 of these Elders be apostles and judge Israel.....as the other 12 elders judge the Angels, etc. Jesus will judge the rest of the Nations on earth during the 1,000 years.

God would not have it any other way, unless He is NOT totally sovereign?

He is sovereign.

The problem was that Peter was a fisherman and the Law was a custom (sociological Law). The laws of Moses written for the synagogues and the people. Rem. The Law of Moses stopped and the people would become to understand this when Jesus was crucified. The Veil of the Holy of Holies was torn in-two and the Stone on which the mercy seat was, was split down the middle. No more would GOD visit and sit with His people UNTIL. Today, the Oral Tanach took the place of the Masoretic Tanach simply because after 70 AD they had no place for sacrifice and they had already rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah.

It needs details before we settle on a whole. What did the ripping of the veil do?

Again the problems at the Galatian church was caused by Judaizers...or as Paul put it.."false brethren". These followers of the Pharisees, etc. would not change, yet the Law of Moses already had be stopped....they did not care..WHY. Because the day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem, He blinded them UNTIL 'the fullness of the Gentiles". This prophecy has not been fullfilled yet. Even today, Israel are all blinded with the except of those that GOD calls individually.

Was Peter among these false brethren? Who were they? Jews, certainly. Christ-followers?

Thanks: Upon the Journey, Blade

 

[Lon]

Hebrews was definitely not written by Paul and the fact that most scholars agree otherwise is a terrific piece of evidence that he did not write it. "Scholars" make their career by disagreeing with the bible whenever the opportunity to do so presents itself. Biblical Archeologist in particular, it seems, have it as their life's goal to disprove some aspect of the bible, but they aren't unique, unfortunately. It seems the more educated the scholar, the more likely they are to get major issues wrong.

I'm not too caught up on this particular simply because it is scripture and it doesn't matter too much, 'who' wrote it. @Bladerunner God certainly was behind it. I tend toward your inclination, maybe not 'definitely not' as with you. Evidence seems to me, that Paul didn't write it.

Be that as it may, the strongest argument against Pauline authorship of Hebrews relies on linguistic, stylistic, historical, and theological evidence drawn from multiple sources, including early church testimony, textual analysis, and yes, even scholarly research. I won't bore you with the entire argument, which is lengthy and will instead focus on the biblical elements of the argument, which is more than sufficient....

Right Divider has a very good thread on this. @Bladerunner

First, Paul explicitly identifies himself in all his known letters (e.g., “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ…”), yet Hebrews lacks any personal attribution. In 2 Thessalonians 3:17, Paul states that he signs his letters with his own hand to verify authenticity. This is absent in Hebrews.

Second, Hebrews presents a high priestly Christology, focusing on Jesus as the Melchizedekian high priest, which is something Paul never develops in his letters. While Paul emphasizes justification by faith apart from works (e.g., Romans, Galatians), Hebrews leans heavily on endurance, obedience, and covenantal fidelity without explicitly discussing justification by faith alone in Pauline terms. The covenantal discussion in Hebrews is more aligned with Jewish liturgical thought, whereas Paul often frames his arguments in relation to Gentile inclusion and law vs. grace.

Third, Hebrews 2:3 states that the message of salvation “was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,” strongly implying the author was not an eyewitness of Christ’s ministry. Paul, however, consistently claims he received what he referred to as "my gospel" (Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25 & II Timothy 2:8) directly from Christ (Galatians 1:12) and does not rely on secondhand testimony.

Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

​

Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.​

​

That last point is the real kicker here because if Galatians 1:12 weren't the case and Paul was teaching the same gospel that the Twelve were preaching then there would be no need for Paul's ministry at all. Jesus had just spent three years training His apostles and Judas' replacement had been confirmed not only by the eleven Apostles who remained as Jesus had given them authority to do (Matthew 16:19), but also by the Holy Spirit Himself in Acts 2:1-4.

The "Great Commission" given by Christ to the Twelve was an explicit instruction for them to take the gospel to "all nations" and yet they agreed with Paul to remain in Israel and minister to "the circumcision" (i.e. believing Jews) while Paul would go to the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.​

And notice also why the meeting that produced the above agreement, happened in the first place....

Galatians 2:2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles​

Why would Paul need to be sent by God Himself to Jerusalem in order to explain the gospel to the Twelve if what he was preaching was the same? There wouldn't be any need! It is precisely the fact that he was not preaching the same thing that justifies Paul's being an Apostle at all.

This Jerusalem counsel agreement also relates to the question of Hebrews’ authorship. If Paul wrote Hebrews, then his gospel would have been identical to what the Twelve were preaching, and this Jerusalem council meeting would have been unnecessary. On the other hand, if Paul’s message was distinct and someone wanted to argue that Hebrews reflects Paul’s gospel (which it clearly does not, as shown above), then the fact that it was written to the Hebrews would mean that Paul had violated his agreement with the Twelve. Paul would surely not have done such a thing. He was, after all, sent to this meeting by God Himself. Indeed, if he had violated this agreement by writing to the Hebrews, God would not have allowed it to be included in His Word. Either way you go, this point alone is sufficient to prove that Paul did not write Hebrews.

I will copy this over to the above thread. Very well written, Clete.

 

[Bladerunner]

Where do you get this nonsense?

You continue to make false claims without a shred of support.

Another false and unsupported claim.

I get it from the Bible....where do you get your info..doubt it is from the Bible.

 

[Right Divider]

I get it from the Bible....where do you get your info..doubt it is from the Bible.

You gave no Biblical support.
You are a lying poser.

 

[Bladerunner]

Your are confusing Judaizing with Jews. They aren't the same.

the Bible and History tells it is so and they 'Judaisers are Jews'

There is a difference. Question: What is that difference? It is important. You may need to read Galatians to be able to grasp the answer. It isn't obscure, fairly evident but I can help if need be. The question: What is different between Jews under grace and you and I?

that is what I ask....Is there a difference.. no, yet Mid-Acts stresses there is for it has to have two churches that Jesus Built....one for Jews that were saved by faith and gentiles that were saved by faith...OR can according to Mid-Acts and Paul, Jews be saved by Faith and Faith alone.

He is sovereign.

It needs details before we settle on a whole. What did the ripping of the veil do?

What was the veil? It was a type of Curtain that covered the entrance to the Holy of Holies inside the Temple. God would in a cloud sit among His People...When Jesus let go of the Holy Ghost (died), an earrthquake was felt that tore the veil in half and split the stone floor in half. No more would God visit His people as He had done for 4,000 years. It has been 2,000 years He has yet to show up again. In fact, He told us that UNTIL the Jews cried out His Name, He would not return.

Was Peter among these false brethren?

No, Peter was an Apostle and within the inner circle of Jesus Christ.

Who were they? Jews, certainly. Christ-followers?

Judiazers? they followed the Pharisees model... The Pharisees killed Jesus, do you think they would think twice about killing a true Christian.

Thanks or the Conversation and for being civil.....many are not whether they use words or smilies.

 

[Nick M]

Hebrews was definitely not written by Paul and the fact that most scholars agree otherwise is a terrific piece of evidence that he did not write it.

And the author tells us.