When did the Body of Christ begin?

[joelkaki]

When do you believe the body of Christ began? Pentecost? Acts 9? Genesis 3:15? Let's have some good wholesome debate on this.




Joel

[joelkaki]

No takers?

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Throw me a bone Joel...Where are you coming from?

To answer your question..... Acts 9

[joelkaki]

I believe in Covenant theology, thus I believe that that all who have ever believed in the Messiah, whether in the OT or the NT, are part of the body of Christ.

Thanks for answering. Are you prepared to defend your position?


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

<---- Straps on the 'ol boxing gloves...:argh:

Of course... I hope you are as well...

I would hope that we can have a fruitful dialogue. I am new here, and my experiences on other forums have been both positive and negative. I would ask only that all of our claims be supported by Scripture. I would ask you to keep me in check as well, and if I make a statement that I may believe is common knowledge without using Scripture, please call me on it. I guess the most logical place to start is:

What do you want to know, sir?

In Christ, --jER

[joelkaki]

Thanks for your gracious attitude. I agree that everything should be supported by Scripture.

I guess I will start out by simply asking a few questions (which I am pretty sure I know the answer to):

1. Is there only one way of salvation, namely faith in Christ?
2. Are those in the OT who had faith in Christ saved?


Thanks,

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I also thank you for your gracious attitude...

You asked,1. Is there only one way of salvation, namely faith in Christ?The short answer is yes... The long answer is a bit more difficult. I don't want to get hung up on semantics... I believe that there is a difference between the "method" and the "means" of salvation.

The "means" is always the same. The blood of Jesus Christ is the agent that saves all men who are in a position of salvation. The blood is the agent that washes away sin for all mankind.

The "method" is a bit different. I will address this more in your second question. You asked,2. Are those in the OT who had faith in Christ saved?I would ask you to show an OT Saint "had faith in Christ." For example, we see in Genesis 15:5,6;The New King James Version

Genesis 15
15:5
Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
15:6
And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.The point here is, Abram did not "trust in Christ," but believed what God asked him to believe to be in a position of salvation. God asked Abram to "believe that his seed would be like the stars of the sky." Abram "believed God, and was accounted righteousness."

This is a consistent theme throughout the Bible. To address the "method," we see a few things. God is Gracious to send His Son to die for the sin of the world. Man must have faith to believe in God. God sometimes changes the way He asks man to show faith. This is the "method" of salvation. If man believes what God tells him, and in some cases does physical acts that God asks by faith, the "means" of salvation, or the saving blood of Christ is applied to that person.

Yet another example: What did Noah need to believe to be saved? Noah did not believe that "Christ would die on the cross for Noah's sins and be raised from the dead," but Noah believed that if he did what God asked (build an ark for the saving of his soul), he would be in a right standing with God. God looked at Noah's faithfulness and applied the future blood of Christ to him. Again, i ask for Scripture to support an OT Saint who believed that Jesus Christ would die on the cross for his personal sins, and be raised from the dead. More on this later...

In Christ, --jER

[joelkaki]

jEr, at least we agree that the means is always the same.
Obviously we will not see a statement saying that someone in the OT believed in CHRIST, for he had not yet come. However, I believe it was more than what you said. Salvation in the OT was based on faith in the coming Messiah, the Seed of the woman. (Genesis 3:15; John 8:58). Those in the OT believed the promises of God, the major one being the Messiah. (Hebrews 11:39-40). Hebrews 11:39-40 clearly tells us that they were not made perfect apart from us.

Now, I should have phrased the question like this, so please answer this one if you don't mind:

Did Christ die for the sins of the saved people in the OT?


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You said,jEr, at least we agree that the means is always the same.Good. We agree that the blood of Jesus Christ is the only thing that can make man righteous, and give man access to the heavenlies. Next you say,Obviously we will not see a statement saying that someone in the OT believed in CHRIST, for he had not yet come.That was my point. I really appreciate the fact that you recognize that. Most people do not. Next you say,However, I believe it was more than what you said. Salvation in the OT was based on faith in the coming Messiah, the Seed of the woman. (Genesis 3:15; John 8:58). Those in the OT believed the promises of God, the major one being the Messiah.Wow, this is getting scary. I agree again! :thumb: Finally, you ask,Did Christ die for the sins of the saved people in the OT?Of course He did. That takes us back to the "means" of salvation. The blood of Christ cleanses sin for every believer from Adam to eternity. I would again say that the "method" is very different, however. The same blood that saves you and me saved Noah when he built his ark, and Abram when he was out counting the stars. God looked forward to the cross and applied the future blood of Christ to them. Now, I have a question for you... You said,Salvation in the OT was based on faith in the coming Messiah, the Seed of the woman. (Genesis 3:15; John 8:58). Those in the OT believed the promises of God, the major one being the Messiah.Is belief in Jesus Christ as Messiah part of the "method" of salvation for today? In other words, if you are sharing the gospel with someone, do you tell them they have to believe that Jesus is their Messiah to be saved? If so, why? If not, why not? Take care brother...

In Christ, --jER

[smilax]

There has always been only one gospel.

Galatians iii, 8: "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."

The things in the Old Testament pointed to the promise of Messiah, and in that sense, they believed in Him. (Faith is about loyalty, not mental belief.) Remember that in the Jewish mind, that which was promised was as good as something already there. That's why Hebrew has no future tense. That's why we "are saved" when our eschatological salvation is yet future. And that's why our Lord's Saviorship was already a reality for the Old Testament saints.

Solus Christus.

(Of course, people have to understand more specifics today because of progressive revelation coupled with progressive responsibility.)

[joelkaki]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Christ die for the sins of the saved people in the OT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course He did. That takes us back to the "means" of salvation. The blood of Christ cleanses sin for every believer from Adam to eternity. I would again say that the "method" is very different, however. The same blood that saves you and me saved Noah when he built his ark, and Abram when he was out counting the stars. God looked forward to the cross and applied the future blood of Christ to them. Now, I have a question for you... You said,

OK, good, so Christ did die for the sins of the people in the OT. Now this thread is about when the body of Christ began. OK, this is what I am getting at--"For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; [i]AND HE IS THE SAVIOR OF THE BODY[i/]... Husbands, love your wives, JUST AS CHRIST HIMSELF ALSO LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR HER."(Eph 5:23, 25)

So Christ is the Savior of the body, the church. Now, if we know he gave himself for those in the OT, and He is the Savior of those in the OT, then how is it that they could not be part of the body? They are. The only difference between us and them is that they looked forward to Christ while we look back to him. They are not made perfect apart from us. (Hebrews 11:39-40)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salvation in the OT was based on faith in the coming Messiah, the Seed of the woman. (Genesis 3:15; John 8:58). Those in the OT believed the promises of God, the major one being the Messiah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is belief in Jesus Christ as Messiah part of the "method" of salvation for today? In other words, if you are sharing the gospel with someone, do you tell them they have to believe that Jesus is their Messiah to be saved? If so, why? If not, why not? Take care brother...

In Christ, --jER

I'm not sure I totally agree with your method thing, but I'll try to answer. I do not usually include something about the Messiah when I share the gospel. If someone comes to faith in him, they are essentially trusting him as the Messiah. Most people today would not understand unless you took a bit of time to explain it to them what the Messiah is, what it means, etc. A Jewish person should, but not all we witness to are Jews. 1 Cor 15:3-4 tells us that the gospel is that Christ died for our sins and rose again, so I believe we must believe that. I haven't really thought about whether you must believe that He is the Messiah or not though.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

smilax,

You say,There has always been only one gospel.I am a bit disappointed since you claim to have an epignosis of Koine Greek. What does "the gospel," or to euangelion, literally mean? GOOD NEWS!

What would you say is the "always has been only one good news" of the Bible then? Let me ask you this... What was the Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram in Genesis 15:6? We know that Abram was quite old, and was childless. He is hoping for a son to carry on his lineage. Let's see what he asks God, and what God's response is...The New King James Version

Genesis 15
15:1
After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward."
15:2
But Abram said, "Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?"
15:3
Then Abram said, "Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!"
15:4
And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir."
15:5
Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
15:6
And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.Again, Abram desired a male heir for his house. The Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram here is, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be.". God is promising Abram that He will indeed have a son, and from that son will come many descendants. What is Abram's response? And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

You see, the Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram in Genesis 15 was to believe that his seed would be like the stars of the sky. When he believed that, God applied the future blood of Christ to Abram. Now, let me ask you this... Do you also need to believe that your seed will be like the stars of the sky in order to be counted righteous? Of course not. As Joel has already rightly stated, the Gospel / Good News for us in the body of Christ is summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.The New King James Version

1 Corinthians 15
15:1
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
15:2
by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
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,
15:4
and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,Now I ask, is this what you need to believe to be saved? Of course it is. This is the Gospel / Good News for the body of Christ. On that same note, where did Abram need to believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? He didn't. As I stated before, the blood of Christ saves Abram, just as it saves you and me, but God asks man to show that true saving faith in different ways.

Answer this please... Do you agree that belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is paramount for our salvation? I'll wait for your answer and go from there...

I would like to address one more portion of your post... You said,That's why we "are saved" when our eschatological salvation is yet future.I agree that members of His body are eternally secure. I would bet that my reasons for this are totally different than yours. Let's save that discussion for another day...:read: However, with your previous comment in mind, how would you address 1 Peter 1:8b,9?The New King James Version

1 Peter 1
1:8b
Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
1:9
receiving the end of your faith--the salvation of your souls.It seems that circumcision believers had to hang in there, and continue working for their salvation. At the end of their faith, they receive their salvation. However, members of the body of Christ are saved (presently).The New King James Version

Titus 3
3:5
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, In closing, I truly appreciate your gracious attitude, and your knowledge of the Scriptures. I humbly ask again, did you get saved by believing the same "gospel" that Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc... believed? Or, do you agree that God sometimes has different types of "Good News" for man, and asks man to show their faith to Him in different ways?

In Christ, --jER

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I follow your line of reasoning, and I wish it were that simple. I would like to change gears a bit, and ask you a couple of questions to lay some groundwork. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said,1 Cor 15:3-4 tells us that the gospel is that Christ died for our sins and rose again, so I believe we must believe that. But then you say,I haven't really thought about whether you must believe that He is the Messiah or not though.Now, let's pretend that you and I are Paul and Silas imprisioned in Philippi. After the great earthquake, the Philippian Jailer runs in and says,New King James Version
Acts 16
16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"How would you answer? Isn't it interesting that Paul never preaches that one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah to be saved? You rightly share the gospel by responding with belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. However, we need to consider Christ's own words. Jesus Christ warned the Pharisees and Jewish people that they needed to believe that He was their Messiah or they would die in their sins.The New King James Version

John 8
8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."You see, this takes us back to the "method" of salvation. God asks man to show his faith in different ways. God asks Israel to believe that Jesus Christ is their Messiah. He is their promised King! However, the body of Christ is never asked to believe that He is Messiah. The body of Christ is asked to believe that He died on a cross for our sins and was raised from the dead. Isn't it interesting that no one other than the Apostle Paul teaches belief in the Death, Burial and Resurrection for salvation? It is the cornerstone of Christianity, and most Christians do not realize that no one outside the body of Christ was asked by God to believe in His death, burial and resurrection. As a matter of fact, let's look at what happens when Christ tries to allude to His death...The New King James Version

Matthew 16
16:21
From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
16:22
Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!"
16:23
But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." The point here is, Peter did not believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Peter did, however, believe that Jesus was his promised Messiah. Just something to think about...

In Christ, --jER

[joelkaki]

Joel,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I follow your line of reasoning, and I wish it were that simple. I would like to change gears a bit, and ask you a couple of questions to lay some groundwork. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Cor 15:3-4 tells us that the gospel is that Christ died for our sins and rose again, so I believe we must believe that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But then you say,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't really thought about whether you must believe that He is the Messiah or not though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's pretend that you and I are Paul and Silas imprisioned in Philippi. After the great earthquake, the Philippian Jailer runs in and says,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New King James Version
Acts 16
16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would you answer? Isn't it interesting that Paul never preaches that one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah to be saved? You rightly share the gospel by responding with belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. However, we need to consider Christ's own words. Jesus Christ warned the Pharisees and Jewish people that they needed to believe that He was their Messiah or they would die in their sins.

Ah, but how did Paul answer? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." You have no way of knowing what all else Paul may have said to him. I think that this short reply given to us by Scripture indicates that the Philippian jailer had prior knowledge of Jesus Christ, or else the response "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" would make no sense. Jesus did prophecy his own death, and did require belief in that. Peter would obviously have believed in the death and resurrection later. Thus Jesus said more than just that he was the Messiah.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

John 8
8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, this takes us back to the "method" of salvation. God asks man to show his faith in different ways. God asks Israel to believe that Jesus Christ is their Messiah. He is their promised King! However, the body of Christ is never asked to believe that He is Messiah. The body of Christ is asked to believe that He died on a cross for our sins and was raised from the dead. Isn't it interesting that no one other than the Apostle Paul teaches belief in the Death, Burial and Resurrection for salvation? It is the cornerstone of Christianity, and most Christians do not realize that no one outside the body of Christ was asked by God to believe in His death, burial and resurrection. As a matter of fact, let's look at what happens when Christ tries to allude to His death...

So we do not need to believe that He is the Messiah? So Christ is not our Messiah? I believe he most certainly is our Messiah. You say "no one outside the body of Christ". You didn't go back far enough to lay the groundwork, for I don't believe anyone who has believed in Christ (whether before or after him) is outside of the Body of Christ. Abraham looked ahead to Christ's day (John 8:58) while we look back. You need to answer my arguments before the rest of this can really be discussed.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Matthew 16
16:21
From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
16:22
Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!"
16:23
But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point here is, Peter did not believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Peter did, however, believe that Jesus was his promised Messiah. Just something to think about...

In Christ, --

But Peter later believed in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

You need to think about what I argued from Eph 5:23-25.


Joel

[joelkaki]

As Joel has already rightly stated, the Gospel / Good News for us in the body of Christ is summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.


Nobody misunderstand me; I don't think the Body of Christ is merely a NT organism. It exists through the promise of the Messiah, for belief in that is central (Gen 3:15).


Joel

[joelkaki]

I humbly ask again, did you get saved by believing the same "gospel" that Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc... believed? Or, do you agree that God sometimes has different types of "Good News" for man, and asks man to show their faith to Him in different ways?


I don't believe that Noah was merely saved by believing God to take care of him in building the ark, or in Abraham believing he would have a numerous seed. I believe that they were saved by believing in the ultimate seed, who is Jesus Christ.


Joel

[joelkaki]

It seems that circumcision believers had to hang in there, and continue working for their salvation. At the end of their faith, they receive their salvation. However, members of the body of Christ are saved (presently).


Very dangerous territory there. No one must "continue working for their salvation." Salvation, no matter what time period, not matter what race, no matter anything, is purely by faith, never works. (Eph 2:8,9)


Joel

[joelkaki]

Again, Abram desired a male heir for his house. The Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram here is, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be.". God is promising Abram that He will indeed have a son, and from that son will come many descendants. What is Abram's response? And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

You see, the Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram in Genesis 15 was to believe that his seed would be like the stars of the sky. When he believed that, God applied the future blood of Christ to Abram. Now, let me ask you this... Do you also need to believe that your seed will be like the stars of the sky in order to be counted righteous? Of course not.

I believe your fundamental mistake here is in Galatians 3:8, for it says THE gospel. Not A gospel, A good news, but THE Gospel. THE Gospel was preached before to Abraham, for he believed in the coming Messiah. Revelation is progressive-in the OT they had animal sacrifices, which obviously we no longer observe since the ultimate sacrifice has come. Now, before Christ came, they believed simply in the coming Messiah, but the more fully revealed revelation of God is that the Messiah was Christ, who died and rose again, and we must look back and believe that. The only difference being they looked forward while we look back. It was not a different gospel. It was THE Gospel, yet not as fully revealed.


Joel

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
I believe your fundamental mistake here is in Galatians 3:8, for it says THE gospel. Not A gospel, A good news, but THE Gospel. THE Gospel was preached before to Abraham, for he believed in the coming Messiah. Revelation is progressive-in the OT they had animal sacrifices, which obviously we no longer observe since the ultimate sacrifice has come. Now, before Christ came, they believed simply in the coming Messiah, but the more fully revealed revelation of God is that the Messiah was Christ, who died and rose again, and we must look back and believe that. The only difference being they looked forward while we look back. It was not a different gospel. It was THE Gospel, yet not as fully revealed.


Joel
Joel, with all due respect, surely you can't be serious. Surely you realize the word "THE" isn't written there in the Greek? :)

Besides which, someone can easily say "the gospel" if there is more than one. I can refer to "the car," even though there are two cars. Nothing wrong with this. For clarification, see Galatians 2:7. Paul explicitly says there are two gospels.

A literal translation of this verse says that Paul was tasked with preaching "the gospel of the Uncircumcision," while Peter on the other hand was tasked with preaching "the gospel of the Circumcision."

The Gospel of the Uncircumcision
The Gospel of the Circumcision

Two gospels for two groups of people. Of course, you will argue that these are really the same gospel. But if that's true, then Paul's words in this verse don't make the least bit of sense. It would be like saying:

"I am tasked with teaching the Constitution of the United States, whereas Bob is tasked with teaching the Constitution of the U.S."

Would that make sense? Of course not; it would be preposterous to say that. Illogical. So why do people believe that's how Paul wrote? Paul was an educated man who communicated very carefully and effectively. And there are no mistaking his words here.

[joelkaki]

Joel, with all due respect, surely you can't be serious. Surely you realize the word "THE" isn't written there in the Greek?


Sorry, my mistake--very dumb thing for me to do. I didn't even check the Greek before I posted. RightIdea is right, there is no Greek word for "the" in the Greek. That does not mean I agree with everything you have said, though.

Joel

[jpholding]

RightIdea:
The Gospel of the Uncircumcision
The Gospel of the Circumcision

Two gospels for two groups of people. Of course, you will argue that these are really the same gospel

I don't suppose you'd get the idea that:

1) The Gospel to the Circumcision started from the framework of, "The old covenant may now be dropped."
2) The Gospel to the Uncircumcision started from the framework of the sort Paul preached to the Areopagus.

Since each party was experiencing a different sort of Bad News, it seems more likely that the "Two Gospels" means that the Good News was framed differently for each, resulting in overlapping content only upon essentials for salvation.

Yo?

[bar Jonah]

jpholding:


I don't suppose you'd get the idea that:

1) The Gospel to the Circumcision started from the framework of, &quot;The old covenant may now be dropped.&quot;
2) The Gospel to the Uncircumcision started from the framework of the sort Paul preached to the Areopagus.

Since each party was experiencing a different sort of Bad News, it seems more likely that the &quot;Two Gospels&quot; means that the Good News was framed differently for each, resulting in overlapping content only upon essentials for salvation.

Yo?
So you'd agree they taught different messages? Or the same message just taught differently?

Teaching the Constitution in a different way is not the same as teaching about a different Constitution. You say the Twelve taught the same message, just framed differently, I assume. So, then, why is Paul the only one in the epistles who teaches a message of salvation for unbelievers? Why are the epistles of "Peter and Co." only centered around how to live a righteous life? Since we know they went to separate groups of people, "and never the twain shall meet," it seems to me that the congregations of the Twelve were seriously short-changed.

Paul's letters to the Galatians and Romans hold the most critically important soteriological teaching in the entire Bible. But the followers of Peter and Co. never receive it? James' letter to the scattered tribes" is clearly an extremely important teaching -- that we are not justified by faith alone but by works also. But this is conspicuously absent in Paul's teachings to his followers?

Looks to me like it was a terrible idea for them to go their separate ways.

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
Sorry, my mistake--very dumb thing for me to do. I didn't even check the Greek before I posted. RightIdea is right, there is no Greek word for &quot;the&quot; in the Greek. That does not mean I agree with everything you have said, though.

Joel
Thank you for the concession. Usually someone doesn't specifically concede a point like that. I respect that. :)

And don't worry... naturally, no one expects you to change your theological bent based on that one point.

[jpholding]

Hi ho,

So you'd agree they taught different messages? Or the same message just taught differently?

The latter. Bear in mind that "gospel" (euanggelion) was not yet a proper noun at this time.

So, then, why is Paul the only one in the epistles who teaches a message of salvation for unbelievers?

Not that I agree, but in what context in the other epistles need to offer such a message? Bear in mind (again) all of the epistles were written to people already believers in the message of salvation and hardly needed it repeated. Thus your objection:

it seems to me that the congregations of the Twelve were seriously short-changed.

...misses the mark.

Paul's letters to the Galatians and Romans hold the most critically important soteriological teaching in the entire Bible.

And if Rome and Galatia had not had issues related to soteriology happen in their church, we may never have heard a peep about it in the Epistles. Meanwhile does that not leave more letters of Paul than not that say nothing about it, by far?

teaching -- that we are not justified by faith alone but by works also. But this is conspicuously absent in Paul's teachings to his followers?

Not really. The teach the same thing:

http://www.tektonics.org/jamesvspaul.html

If you wish to discuss it further.

[joelkaki]

The Gospel of the Uncircumcision
The Gospel of the Circumcision

Two gospels for two groups of people. Of course, you will argue that these are really the same gospel. But if that's true, then Paul's words in this verse don't make the least bit of sense. It would be like saying:

"I am tasked with teaching the Constitution of the United States, whereas Bob is tasked with teaching the Constitution of the U.S."

Would that make sense? Of course not; it would be preposterous to say that. Illogical. So why do people believe that's how Paul wrote? Paul was an educated man who communicated very carefully and effectively. And there are no mistaking his words here.

Could you give us the respective references for "gospel of the uncircumcision" and "gospel of the circumcision"? I need to see the context to make sure of all of this, but is not quite possible that what is meant is that Paul's special mission was to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, while Peter focused more on going to the Jews?


Joel

[bar Jonah]

JP, please answer the following question directly:

Are we justified by works?

(And just to avoid confusion or equivocation, the above question is what students of rhetoric techically refer to as a "yes or no question.") :)

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
Could you give us the respective references for &quot;gospel of the uncircumcision&quot; and &quot;gospel of the circumcision&quot;? I need to see the context to make sure of all of this, but is not quite possible that what is meant is that Paul's special mission was to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, while Peter focused more on going to the Jews?

Joel
Many translations say something such as that it was Paul's job to preach to the Gentiles, and Peter's job to preach to the Jews. But if you look at the Greek text, it really refers to what I described above.

[smilax]

Act9_12Out:
I am a bit disappointed since you claim to have an epignosis of Koine Greek.I did?The Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram here is, &quot;Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.&quot;Galatians iii, 16-17: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."

There is most definitely a Christological reference here.Do you also need to believe that your seed will be like the stars of the sky in order to be counted righteous?Ah, see the problem? You and I are working on different definitions of "believe." Pulling from my Young's Literal Concordance:

To believe:
1. aman, to remain steadfast.

And from Strong's lexicon, same word:

1. to support, confirm, be faithful
1. a. (Qal)
1. a. 1. to support, confirm, be faithful, uphold, nourish
1. a. 1. a. foster-father (subst.)
1. a. 1. b. foster-mother, nurse
1. a. 1. c. pillars, supporters of the door
1. b. (Niphal)
1. b. 1. to be established, be faithful, be carried, make firm
1. b. 1. a. to be carried by a nurse
1. b. 1. b. made firm, sure, lasting
1. b. 1. c. confirmed, established, sure
1. b. 1. d. verified, confirmed
1. b. 1. e. reliable, faithful, trusty
1. c. (Hiphil)
1. c. 1. to stand firm, to trust, to be certain, to believe in
1. c. 1. a. stand firm
1. c. 1. b. trust, believe

(Excuse the messy formatting.)

Does this refer to mental belief? By no means! Faith is loyalty. Pistis is used for both faith and faithfulness, and, really, what's the difference? In the Old Testament, people were saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by God (specifically Christ, though they didn't know it, because the Trinity was not yet revealed; as John i, 18 states, the Father is declared by the Son) alone. It is not mental belief in God's promise that saved Abraham, but his commitment to God. And likewise, we must take up our cross to follow Him.Answer this please... Do you agree that belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is paramount for our salvation? I'll wait for your answer and go from there...Absolutely.I agree that members of His body are eternally secure. I would bet that my reasons for this are totally different than yours. Let's save that discussion for another day...:read:No problem. Just so you know, I hold to perseverance of the saints.However, with your previous comment in mind, how would you address 1 Peter 1:8b,9?It works perfectly with my model. I don't see salvation as a single moment, but God's preservation. Those who persevere will be preserved. Faith in itself is not a one-shot moment of mental belief.It seems that circumcision believers had to hang in there, and continue working for their salvation. At the end of their faith, they receive their salvation. However, members of the body of Christ are saved (presently).See http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=397 for my position on this. I have no doubt that perseverance is necessary. As Matthew xxiv, 13 states, "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." And I view Peter's exhortation no differently than I do Paul's in Philippians ii, 12.I humbly ask again, did you get saved by believing the same &quot;gospel&quot; that Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc... believed?If you define "believe" correctly.Or, do you agree that God sometimes has different types of &quot;Good News&quot; for man, and asks man to show their faith to Him in different ways?As I noted at the end, progressive revelation is a reality. Perhaps the outworking is different, yes, and perhaps the specific things to believe (in the mental sense) differ over time, but the gospel, fundamentally, is salvation by grace through faith in Christ.

And to answer again the question of this thread regarding the body of Christ: as Galatians iii, 7 states, "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." Every believer, then, is part of this body, whether Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, or Paul. I sense that most of the debate is semantic, and that the issue really lies elsewhere, namely in your dispensational presuppositions and my rejection (at least in part) thereof. Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad this has been so civil thus far.RightIdea:
And just to avoid confusion or equivocation, the above question is what students of rhetoric techically refer to as a "yes or no question."Well, the word "justified" right there is confusing and a possible equivocation. Are you referring to forensic declaration before God, or vindicating exhibition before men? The former, no; the latter, yes. Dikaioo can mean both depending on context.

And before Holding gets a chance, here's the link he'll want to post: http://www.tektonics.org/baptismneed.html.

[GrayPilgrim]

Smilax:
I sense that most of the debate is semantic, and that the issue really lies elsewhere, namely in your dispensational presuppositions and my rejection (at least in part) thereof.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. IMHO, in the eternal state there will be and is no distinction. All are saved in/by the Name of Christ Jesus and His finished work on the cross. The only reason that I would point ot a distinction is a fulfilment of the Land Promise of Gen 15. However, this promise only holds sway in this life for those descended from Abraham who believe in Christ. That is the geenration alive when Christ returns will receive the promises of the New Covenant along with the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. Notice, I do not believe that there is a distinction for those who have gone on before or will go on, and after the Mill. is over there will continue to be no distinction.

So as you can tell for me the OT is detrminative of my view and that's why on NT passages I don't generally differ too much from the preterist take. To me it all boils down to the covenants and God inextricably tieing his fidelity to their fulfillment and administration.

GP

[jpholding]

RightIdea:
JP, please answer the following question directly:

Are we justified by works?

(And just to avoid confusion or equivocation, the above question is what students of rhetoric techically refer to as a &quot;yes or no question.&quot;) :)

..is that the question is misplaced and based on a false dichotomy between faith and works that the ancients would never have entertained as we do in the Western world. Therefore neither yes nor no can answer adequately or correctly. You may as well ask, "Is the sky green or red?" and expect a direct answer.

For convenience I would only offer

http://www.tektonics.org/baptismneed.html

Note esp. what I say about Semitic Totality.

[dizzle]

Perfect JP. Thank you.

Dear Right Idea..... And I do have some things to say about the Greek in the "two gospels".. I have to dig up my material on that. And I sure wish Jaltus would offer a word or two on that. From my understanding the Greek necessarily implies no such thing.

[joelkaki]

Many translations say something such as that it was Paul's job to preach to the Gentiles, and Peter's job to preach to the Jews. But if you look at the Greek text, it really refers to what I described above.


I'm not debating whether the Greek says "of" or "to". Rather what I am saying is that "of" could still have reference to the fact that He was to the circumcision, etc.

Another reason I think what you are saying is inaccurate is Galatians 6:15--"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation." I don't think we can say that there was a different gospel for the circumcision and the uncircumcision, for there is no difference. (Romans 10:12).

DeeDee, I don't think the Greek implies anything either way.


Joel

[dizzle]

Dear Joel:

Thanks, I am going to check it out. I really have to dig out that material I had on that once. I get so caught up in the preterism aspect that this kind of stuff kind of falls to the wayside, because I have figured out that preterism is the achille's heel to this whole sheebang, so I go that route to disprove it.

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
Many translations say something such as that it was Paul's job to preach to the Gentiles, and Peter's job to preach to the Jews. But if you look at the Greek text, it really refers to what I described above.


I'm not debating whether the Greek says &quot;of&quot; or &quot;to&quot;. Rather what I am saying is that &quot;of&quot; could still have reference to the fact that He was to the circumcision, etc.

Another reason I think what you are saying is inaccurate is Galatians 6:15--&quot;For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.&quot; I don't think we can say that there was a different gospel for the circumcision and the uncircumcision, for there is no difference. (Romans 10:12).

DeeDee, I don't think the Greek implies anything either way.

Joel
Oy.. . Joel, as I've said many times, that reference in Galatians 6:15 is the new gospel via Paul -- after Israel is cut off and the dispensation of the apostolic church is ended. Before Paul, circumcision was necessary. Are we to say the Twelve lived with Jesus three years, soaked up His teaching every single day, and yet were so moronic enough that they mistakenly thought circumcision was absolutely necessary for salvation? I find that extremely insulting to the Twelve.

[joelkaki]

Oy.. . Joel, as I've said many times, that reference in Galatians 6:15 is the new gospel via Paul -- after Israel is cut off and the dispensation of the apostolic church is ended. Before Paul, circumcision was necessary. Are we to say the Twelve lived with Jesus three years, soaked up His teaching every single day, and yet were so moronic enough that they mistakenly thought circumcision was absolutely necessary for salvation? I find that extremely insulting to the Twelve.

Gal 6:15 tells us that IN CHRIST neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything. Surely you don't think that there is any way to be saved apart from being in Christ? If there is no other way than being in Christ, then nowhere does circumcision or uncircumcision avail anything.
Are you saying that the Twelve thought circumcision was necessary for salvation?


Joel

[joelkaki]

DeeDee, I understand why you take the preterist route. I know less about that than I do this side of the issue, although I know enough to agree wholeheartedly. Dispensationalism's core is in my opinion its doctrine of the church, and the distinction between Israel and the church, and thus I take that approach.

Joel

[Jaltus]

Galatians 2:7 is quite the interesting construct in Greek. The main verb (of the second clause, not the main clause) is a perfect passive, with Paul as the subject (I was entrusted with). The direct object is "the gospel," but it is the modifiers of the DO that are interesting.

You see, "of the uncircumcision" modifies gospel entrusted, not gospel preaching (which some translations erroniously provide).

Nearly all would agree that this is a rare genetive of advantage (some might say it is a genetive of direction, but it amounts to the same thing), translated as "I was entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles" instead of the gospel "of the Gentiles" which is much too non-descript.

You see the problem with it being a gospel only for the Gentiles, is that there is only one gospel mentioned in the sentence. Grammatically, this is not a problem, since you can supply the word "gospel" for the next phrase. However, if it were meant as a different thing, Paul would in fact supply the word again. As it is, the contrast is set between Peter and Paul, along with circumcision and uncircumcision. There are not two different gospels, there are two different appointments to two different men to save two different groups.

The translation is then something like this:

I was entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles, as Peter for the Jews.

(obviously I replaced circumcision with Jews and uncircumcision with Gentiles)

[joelkaki]

Very interesting and enlightening.

Joel

[dizzle]

Thank you Jaltus.. that is what the information that I had buried in my documents said, but you have confirmed my recollection. Thank you.

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
Very interesting and enlightening.

Joel
Yes, if you begin with the presupposition that dispensationalism can't possibly be true. And that presupposition acts as a filter for anyone who reads the verse; that should go without saying.

[joelkaki]

I started with the presupposition that the Bible is true, and have thereby concluded that dispensationalism is not true.


Joel

[joelkaki]

Acts912out, are you planning on answering my argument? Do you want to continue the discussion? I understand if you are just be too busy or something.


Joel

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
I started with the presupposition that the Bible is true, and have thereby concluded that dispensationalism is not true.

Joel
I'm sorry, Joel, but this is an utterly fallacious statement that has no value in the discussion.

I started with the presupposition that the Bible is true, and have thereby concluded that dispensationalism IS true.

So what? That doesn't get us anywhere at all. So what's your point?

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I apologize for taking so long to respond. I had lots of family things going on this weekend.

I will try to address each of your posts... You saidAh, but how did Paul answer? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." You have no way of knowing what all else Paul may have said to him. I think that this short reply given to us by Scripture indicates that the Philippian jailer had prior knowledge of Jesus Christ, or else the response "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" The fact that the Philippian jailer had a prior knowledge of Jesus Christ is irrelevant. I think we can indeed know what Paul preached to the Philippian jailer and his household. Paul's message remains consistent throughout his epistles. Shortly after the events in Acts 16, Paul travels to Thessalonica and preaches the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (Acts 17:3). Next, Paul goes to Berea and then to Athens. Paul reasons with the philosophers "in the midst of the Aeropagus" (Acts 17:22). He seems to hold his own during the debate, and again preaches the death, burial and resurrection (Acts 17:31-33). He is "mocked" because of the resurrection, and then goes on to Corinth. We know for sure that the central theme of the gospel that Paul preaches is the death, burial and ressurection (1 Cor 15:1-4). So, I believe that we can indeed know that Paul preached the death, burial and resurrection of Christ to the Philippian jailer and his household. I would ask that you show me anywhere in Scripture where Paul teaches belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah for salvation. Next you say,Jesus did prophecy his own death, and did require belief in that. Peter would obviously have believed in the death and resurrection later.Please show me where Jesus requires belief in His death, burial and resurrection for salvation. You are right, Peter later believes in the resurrection after it happens. Please show me that Peter believed in the resurrection for salvation. Next you say,So we do not need to believe that He is the Messiah? So Christ is not our Messiah?No to both questions. Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah for the nation of Israel (2 Sam 7:12-16). Again, they needed to believe that He was their Messiah for salvation (John 8:24). You continue,You need to think about what I argued from Eph 5:23-25.Ephesians 5:23-25 has nothing to do with salvation. Ephesians 5:23-25 speaks to the issue of the Christian life after one is saved. Paul is admonishing us jerky men to focus on loving God, and through His power, attempt to love our wives just as Christ loved the church. We, as sinful human beings, fail miserably, and do not treat our wives the way they deserve to be treated. Only through the power of God can we come close to loving our wives and avoid becoming part of the 50% who end in divorce. Paul expresses this same idea in Colossians 3:18,19. Next you said,I don't believe that Noah was merely saved by believing God to take care of him in building the ark,A couple of things here... Noah was saved because he did what God asked hime to do by faith. If Noah had rejected God, and refused to build the ark, then he would have died physically and spiritually. I would offer a couple of proof texts that say Noah was saved by building the ark-The New King James Version

Hebrews 11
11:7
By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

2 Peter 2
2:5
and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

1 Peter 3
3:20b
...when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.You continue,or in Abraham believing he would have a numerous seed. I believe that they were saved by believing in the ultimate seed, who is Jesus Christ.I already showed that Abram was accounted righteousness for his belief that his seed would be like the stars of the sky (Gen 15:1-6). You did not respond to that, and have not shown that Abram/Abraham or any other OT Saint believed that Jesus Christ would die for their personal sins in the future. Again, OT Saints believed God, and did whatever He asked of them by faith. If they did what God asked them to do by faith, then God applied the future blood of Christ to their account. Concerning 1 Peter 1:9, you say,Very dangerous territory there. No one must "continue working for their salvation."Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You did not answer 1 Peter 1:9, and I would like to offer a few more from the many...The New King James Version

Matthew 24
24:13
But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

2 Peter 1
1:10
Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;
1:11
for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

*An interesting note here... Why do the elect need to "make their call and election sure?" If they are diligent, an entrance "will be supplied" (future tense) into the kingdom.

Revelation 3
3:5
He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

What if they don't overcome? Their names will be blotted out of the Book of Life.You then reference Ephesians 2:8,9. I agree, the body of Christ does not need to show their faith by doing works. The body is asked only to believe in the death, burial and resurrection by faith. I would also like to offer James 2:14-26. I've heard all the pad answers for this passage, and would like to offer a few things to consider and to be answered. James 2:14b is literally, Can the faith save him?" The implied answer from the grammatical construct is NO! Faith alone cannot save according to James. James, writing to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad" (The dispersion of James 1:1), is a circumcision believer. The context of James 1:22-25 and James 2:8-12 clearly shows that James is instructing the circumcision believers to do works of the law to be saved.

Again Joel, thank you for your time and your eagerness to discuss...

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Act9_12Out]

Hi smilax,

Thanks for your thoughts. The point of the "epignosis" was because you have used greek many times here. I was not trying to be disrespectful in any way. You said,Galatians iii, 16-17: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."I think you are right. The discussion hinges on semantics. I agree, Abram/Abraham is the father of us all. He is the father of the circumcision and the uncircumcision (Romans 4:11,12). The point I'm beating to death :bonk: is that I believe that God asks man to show faith in different ways to have the blood of Christ credited to his account. In retrospect, Paul equates the true seed to be Jesus Christ. I agree. However, the discussion is, "What did Abram/Abraham need to believe in order to have the future blood of Christ accounted to him?" The reality is that Jesus Christ is the true "seed" but, Abraham did not have an experential knowledge of our Lord. He believed that God would give him a son, and in return, God applied the yet future blood of Christ on his behalf. Next you say,Ah, see the problem? You and I are working on different definitions of "believe."When I use the relative term "believe," I am referring to what a person needs to have knowledge of in order to be in a position of salvation. You continue,Does this refer to mental belief? By no means! Faith is loyalty. Pistis is used for both faith and faithfulness, and, really, what's the difference? In the Old Testament, people were saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by God (specifically Christ, though they didn't know it,Another semantical problem. I agree that OT Saints were saved by God's grace, however, they had to show their faith in different ways. Let me ask you this... Can a person be saved today without believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? I hope you will say "No." That's the point. God asks us to show our faith by putting trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Just as He asked OT Saints to show their faith by putting trust in the physical acts God asked them to do (ie - circumcision). When I asked if you thought the death, burial and resurrection was paramount for salvation, I knew you would agree. I would like to follow up by asking if belief in the death, burial and resurrection is essential for all mankind throughout all time. I would ask that you please show any reference outside of the Pauline Epistles that show belief in the death, burial and resurrection for salvation. You continue,Just so you know, I hold to perseverance of the saints.I figured as much!:) It works perfectly with my model. I don't see salvation as a single moment, but God's preservation. Those who persevere will be preserved. Faith in itself is not a one-shot moment of mental belief.I ask that you check my comments concerning 2 Peter 1:10,11 and Revelation 3:5 in my previous post to Joel. You say,I have no doubt that perseverance is necessary. As Matthew xxiv, 13 states, "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." And I view Peter's exhortation no differently than I do Paul's in Philippians ii, 12.I agree where Matthew is concerned, but disagree with the Philippians passage. In light of Philippians 1:6,The New King James Version

Philippians 1
1:6
being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;When we believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation, God begins that work of salvation in us.The New King James Version

Philippians 2
2:12
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
2:13
for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.God works our salvation in us, and we are called to work out our salvation in an outward fashion. God wants us to focus on loving Him, and do things that are motivated by the Holy Spirit who lives within us. In essence, Philippians 2:12 is referring to the Christian Life after we are saved. Next you say,As I noted at the end, progressive revelation is a reality. Perhaps the outworking is different, yes, and perhaps the specific things to believe (in the mental sense) differ over time, but the gospel, fundamentally, is salvation by grace through faith in Christ.When we define our terms, I agree. You conclude with,And to answer again the question of this thread regarding the body of Christ: as Galatians iii, 7 states, "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." Every believer, then, is part of this body, whether Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, or Paul. I'm sorry, but I disagree. We know that the twelve apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel in their promised earthly kingdom (Matt 19:28). Where does this leave Paul? Reigning "above the heavenlies" with the body of Christ (Philippians 3:20).Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad this has been so civil thus far.No, thank you.

In Christ, Jeremy Finkenbinder

[joelkaki]

RightIdea, I was responding to your post that I was seeing things through an anti dispy lense, and thus thought what Jaltus said was enlightening. My essential point was that I didn't just start out with the presupposition that there was no possible way for disp to be true, and worked around it as best as I could. I did start with the Bible, and decided that disp was not true. Now obviously I do not think of things in the dispy way, but that is not because I am trying to be distinctly antidispy but rather because I am trying to be biblical.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Acts 912out, I will get back to all of your post, but for now I need to make this point:

You have yet to offer any evidence that the body of Christ BEGAN at any certain point IN THE NT. These other issues we are discussing will flow from that understanding. I think we need to get back to the core issue, and provide Biblical evidence for the "starting point" of the body of Christ.



Joel

[joelkaki]

I'm going to work on your post in bite size chunks.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus did prophecy his own death, and did require belief in that. Peter would obviously have believed in the death and resurrection later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please show me where Jesus requires belief in His death, burial and resurrection for salvation. You are right, Peter later believes in the resurrection after it happens. Please show me that Peter believed in the resurrection for salvation. Next you say,

I was not saying that Jesus said, "You must believe that I died , rose again, etc." What I was saying is that the disciples did need to believe that he rose again. For instance, when he appeared to them, Thomas doubted, but he showed them the holes in his hands, feet, side. He was declaring by all that that he had been raised from the dead, and they were to believe that. I was not saying that before Christ died, he said that people would have to believe in it. Please show me that Peter believed in something else for salvation. He even speaks of Christ's resurrection in Acts chapter 2. I'll come back to that point later.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we do not need to believe that He is the Messiah? So Christ is not our Messiah?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No to both questions. Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah for the nation of Israel (2 Sam 7:12-16). Again, they needed to believe that He was their Messiah for salvation (John 8:24).

I believe that He is our Messiah. Messiah, if I am not mistaken, means "anointed one" and also if I am not mistaken, so does "Christ." So if we are saying that he is the Christ, then we are also saying that He is the Messiah.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You said,You have yet to offer any evidence that the body of Christ BEGAN at any certain point IN THE NT.You never asked...:rofl: No, seriously, this is the crux of the issue. I will present my position on this, however, I am looking forward to your response to Paul and the Philippian Jailer, the fact that God asked Noah to show his faith by building an ark for salvation and the passages that show endurance for salvation for circumcision believers. Now, let's get started... In order to establish my position, I need to let you know again where I'm coming from. Again, I believe that the blood of Christ is the agent that saves all saved persons. Please keep in mind our previous discussions on "means" and "method" as we continue. Without going through all the dispensations, I will address the NT in general.

We see that the gospels open with John the Baptist's ministry. John was preaching "a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." The method of salvation at the opening of the gospels included going out to John's baptism by faith. This stays consistent throughout Christ's earthly ministry. Again, Christ was sent "for the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matt 15:24). He was the minister to the circumcision. Christ is the first person to be baptized with and have the indwelling Holy Spirit. The method of salvation here includes water baptism for salvation.

After the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, we see that the circumcision believers are expecting the earthly kingdom to be restored (Acts 1:6). About 10 days later on the day of Pentecost, we see that Peter addresses the Jews exclusively. Peter quotes a tribulation setting prophecy from Joel, and commands water baptism for salvation (Acts 2:38). This method of salvation remains consistent until God raises up the Apostle Paul. I have covered a lot of information that I believe is common knowledge. Before I get into the specifics of Paul's conversion, I would like to make sure we are on the same page. I'm not asking that you agree, I just want you to offer any rebuttal to the above points that I have not provided Scripture for. Please ask specific questions concerning the above points, and we'll go from there.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to think about what I argued from Eph 5:23-25.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ephesians 5:23-25 has nothing to do with salvation. Ephesians 5:23-25 speaks to the issue of the Christian life after one is saved. Paul is admonishing us jerky men to focus on loving God, and through His power, attempt to love our wives just as Christ loved the church. We, as sinful human beings, fail miserably, and do not treat our wives the way they deserve to be treated. Only through the power of God can we come close to loving our wives and avoid becoming part of the 50% who end in divorce. Paul expresses this same idea in Colossians 3:18,19. Next you said,

Nothing to do with salvation? "He is the Savior of the body..." That sounds like salvation. Christ is the Savior of his body, he saves the church. You are kind of missing my point here. Christ gave himself for the church. He died for the church. He is the Savior of that body. Now, if He is the Savior of those faithful in the OT, and if he died for them, I see no reason to exclude them from being included in the body.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe that Noah was merely saved by believing God to take care of him in building the ark,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of things here... Noah was saved because he did what God asked hime to do by faith. If Noah had rejected God, and refused to build the ark, then he would have died physically and spiritually. I would offer a couple of proof texts that say Noah was saved by building the ark-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Hebrews 11
11:7
By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

2 Peter 2
2:5
and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

1 Peter 3
3:20b
...when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salvation there is referring to physical mostly I think, but that is not the point anyway. I don't believe it was merely that. I think there had to be belief in the one promise of the seed in Genesis 3:15. They looked ahead to that Seed. Now, sure God used the Ark for Noah to show his faith, but I don't think you can say that they did not have to look ahead to the promised Seed. I know this concept is difficult for us as humans to understand, but I believe it is what Scripture says, "...and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:4) Central to salvation in the OT was "drinking" of the future Christ. Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day and was glad. (John8:56). Christ had not yet come, but they had to believe that He would come, because revelation is progressive, and he had not been fully revealed.


You continue,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or in Abraham believing he would have a numerous seed. I believe that they were saved by believing in the ultimate seed, who is Jesus Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I already showed that Abram was accounted righteousness for his belief that his seed would be like the stars of the sky (Gen 15:1-6). You did not respond to that, and have not shown that Abram/Abraham or any other OT Saint believed that Jesus Christ would die for their personal sins in the future.

I do not believe that they had to believe that Jesus Christ would die for their personal sins, for revelation is progressive, and that was not fully revealed. However, I believe that they had to look ahead to the Messiah, the Seed of the Woman, in faith relying upon God that He would come. (Genesis 3:15; 1 Corinthians 10:4). Yes I get what you are saying with the Genesis 15, but if you look at Galatians 3:16, it says that it was really to the one Seed. Abraham was saved by believing in Christ as his SEED. The way that all nations would be blessed was through the one Seed, for he is the Savior of all types of men, Jew and Gentile alike.


Again, OT Saints believed God, and did whatever He asked of them by faith. If they did what God asked them to do by faith, then God applied the future blood of Christ to their account. Concerning 1 Peter 1:9, you say,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very dangerous territory there. No one must "continue working for their salvation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You did not answer 1 Peter 1:9, and I would like to offer a few more from the many...

I do not see how 1 Peter 1:9 supports that idea at all anyway. The end of our faith, the result of our faith, is the salvation of our souls. When you see a verse like that, you need to check out the context, too. Look at verse 4:

4 to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7 that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8 whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9 receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

The inheritance was incorruptible and reserved. They couldn't lose it for not working for their salvation. Verse 5 caps the whole thing. It wasn't focused on man working for his salvation. Such could never happen. "who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation..." God keeps us in faith. We don't work for our salvation. Sure, good works are the result of our salvation (Eph 2:10), but never part of salvation, no matter what race or time period.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Matthew 24
24:13
But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

2 Peter 1
1:10
Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;
1:11
for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

*An interesting note here... Why do the elect need to "make their call and election sure?" If they are diligent, an entrance "will be supplied" (future tense) into the kingdom.

Revelation 3
3:5
He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

What if they don't overcome? Their names will be blotted out of the Book of Life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You then reference Ephesians 2:8,9. I agree, the body of Christ does not need to show their faith by doing works. The body is asked only to believe in the death, burial and resurrection by faith. I would also like to offer James 2:14-26. I've heard all the pad answers for this passage, and would like to offer a few things to consider and to be answered. James 2:14b is literally, Can the faith save him?" The implied answer from the grammatical construct is NO! Faith alone cannot save according to James. James, writing to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad" (The dispersion of James 1:1), is a circumcision believer. The context of James 1:22-25 and James 2:8-12 clearly shows that James is instructing the circumcision believers to do works of the law to be saved.

The fundamental reason we will not agree here, is that I don't see a distinction between the body of Christ and other believers, and I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Faith without works is dead. It doesn't do anything. But works still do not save. Works "justify" faith. They show us that our faith is alive, so that if you do not have works, then it is unlikely that you have faith, but it is still the faith that saves. Again, I have seen no evidence Scripturally for the term "circumcision believer." Please provide some. So are you saying by that that no Jew could ever be in the body of Christ? "By works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Romans 3:20). NO FLESH! That means no matter what time period, no matter what race, NO FLESH! No flesh can be justified by works of the law.
If someone does not endure to the end, then they are not saved, but as 1 John 2:19 tells us, that means they never truly had faith anyway. "19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." If they had been of us, they would have stayed. If someone is truly saved, they will endure to the end, because they are kept by the power of God. (1 Pet 1:5).



Again Joel, thank you for your time and your eagerness to discuss...

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

Thank you also. It has been a very good one so far.
Still, I need some hard core Biblical evidence that the Body of Christ began at some point in the NT.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

In order to establish the beginning of the body of Christ in the NT, we must first agree as to what the body of Christ is. I think this will be difficult from reading the previous discussions from both of us. I have attempted to show that I believe that body of Christ is a separate, distinct entity in God's eyes. I believe it is a body of believers that is separate and distinct form the nation of Israel. I believe that the two groups (Israel & the body) have two separate hopes which both have to do with Christ. Now, I know you disagree, and that's fine. That's what makes the discussion fun.

I will try to ask pointed questions and go from there... The first question is, "Do you believe that the Bible shows the body and believing Israel to be two separate groups?" Now, I know your answer thus far has been "No!" but I would like to offer the following verses. Please address each passage...The New King James Version

Galatians 6
6:16
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.You know that I believe that by the time Paul writes Galatians, he has an experential knowledge of the mystery that is the body of Christ. Paul understands that believing Israel showed their faith by keeping the law, being water baptized, circumcised, etc... Paul's letter to the Galatians stems from Judiazers from James coming to Galatia after Paul leaves Galatia and perverting the gospel of grace that Paul preached to them (Gal 1:1-12). Paul is admonishing the Galatians to stick to the message that he taught, and not to turn back again to the circumcision message that James, Peter, John, etc. are teaching. Paul tell the Galatians that circumcision is not important in the body of Christ (Gal 6:15) and wishes that peace and mercy be upon those who believe that circumcision is no longer profitable (body of Christ believers) and "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16). Paul draws a distinction between the two groups of believers. Next, we see that Paul refers to the church that is Israel as "the church of God" contrasted with the "body of Christ."The New King James Version

1 Corinthians 15
15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Corinthians 10
10:32
Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, Again, Paul draws a distinction between the two groups of believers (Israel & the body). Now, Paul is not the only one who makes this distinction. James recognizes it as well. Paul goes to James in Jerusalem (Acts 15:8) and tells James about the message he is teaching. The circumcision believers who are with James are confused and say,The New King James Version

Acts 21
21:21
but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
21:22
What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.What does James have to say about this matter?The New King James Version

Acts 21
21:24
Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.
21:25
But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."James affirms that believing Israel should continue to keep the law and the customs of Moses by faith, but concerning the Gentiles who believe (the body of Christ) they should observe no such thing... This is consistent with the decision James makes initially in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council.The New King James Version

Acts 15
15:19
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God.
15:20
but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
15:21
For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."Acts 21 is a direct result of this meeting in Acts 15. Who is the we? Isreal... Who is the "them" and "those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God?" The body of Christ.

Again, thanks for the discussion...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

I don't have time to answer your post right now, but about the Messiah thing:

I was correct. Check out John 1:41. Christ is the Greek version of Messiah. So if we must believe that Jesus is the Christ, that is saying in a different language that he is our Messiah.(Both mean anointed one)


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I never disagreed that Jesus Christ was the Messiah / King of Israel. The context of our discussion is whether or not we, as members of the body must believe that He is Messiah to be saved.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

But you would agree that we must believe in Jesus CHRIST, correct? We have to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, right? If you say yes, then we must also believe that He is the Messiah, for they are essentially one and the same. If he is our Christ, he is also our Messiah.


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

Remember when this discussion started? I asked you, when you share the gospel with someone, if you included the fact that Jesus Christ was the Messiah? You said that you hadn't really thought about it. Now, I ask. if you now believe that we must believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah to be saved, then are you saying that the majority of mainstream Christianity has it all wrong? This seems to be a totally new idea to you... Obviously, the church you attend does not teach that, or you would have believed it before. The point again is, what is necessary for salvation today? What must one believe to be saved? Now, I do believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah for Israel, but do I absolutely have to believe this to be saved? I would say, "No way..."

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Look, I am not really saying one way or the other. I was just putting the "Christ-Messiah" thing out there for consideration. I mean, if Christ is the same thing is Messiah, and we must believe he is the Christ, then it would follow that we must believe he is the Messiah. Must it be included in the gospel message? I don't think so, but a proper and complete understanding of Christ would have to be that he is the Messiah, so that fact should be taught in churches.

But back to the actual topic of this thread. I have still not seen any evidence that the body of Christ started at some point in the NT.


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You said,...and we must believe he is the Christ...I'll wait to let you know what I think about this statement. However, I would ask that you show from Scripture that we must believe He is the Christ to be saved. I'll wait to hear from you.... You continue,But back to the actual topic of this thread. I have still not seen any evidence that the body of Christ started at some point in the NT.As I requested before, there are a few loose ends that need to be cleared up before we can proceed. Please see the above post referring to "means" and "methods" of salvation, and the post discussing two groups of believers. I will also wait to discuss your findings concerning Mark 16...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Acts9,

you would agree we have to believe in Jesus CHRIST, right? I think Scripture is abundantly clear that we believe in Jesus CHRIST, not just Jesus. If we believe in Jesus CHRIST, then I think you would be hard pressed to prove that we must believe in Jesus Christ, but not that he is the Christ.

As I requested before, there are a few loose ends that need to be cleared up before we can proceed. Please see the above post referring to "means" and "methods" of salvation, and the post discussing two groups of believers. I will also wait to discuss your findings concerning Mark 16...

I believe I answered all of your former posts, so what are you wanting me to do with that post? I believe I already answered that. Mark 16 was on another thread, and I don't think it is essential to this debate.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I think we are majoring in minors here. Yes I believe Jesus Christ is the Christ, Messiah, King, Lord, Way, Truth, Life, Savior, etc... The point of this discussion is, what must a person believe about Jesus Christ to be saved? You have yet to provide a definitive answer on this issue. You say things like "we should" or "if He is this, then He must be this." Like I said before, I never disagreed about who Christ is. Again, what is essential for salvation? Next you say,I believe I answered all of your former posts, so what are you wanting me to do with that post?I am referring specifically to my post on 021303 at 2:39 am (Post #15395) and concerning my post on 021403 at 11:26 am (Post # 16219) You said,I don't have time to answer your post right now, but about the Messiah thing:Again, I need to know if you agree with the points I made on 021303 so that we can move on. I would also like to hear what you have to say about the two groups of believers I spoke of on 021403.

Thanks for your time...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Acts9, I am not going to make a blanket statement at this point about that. I do not feel it is essential to this discussion, and thus think it maybe should have its own thread. I will still post some more on it though. Do you believe we must believe in Jesus CHRIST? If so, then mustn't we also believe that he is the Christ?

I'm going back and looking at those other posts.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Hmmm, sorry, I could have sworn I dealt with those posts...I guess not. I'll go through them and respond, though.


Joel

[joelkaki]

You never asked... No, seriously, this is the crux of the issue. I will present my position on this, however, I am looking forward to your response to Paul and the Philippian Jailer, the fact that God asked Noah to show his faith by building an ark for salvation and the passages that show endurance for salvation for circumcision believers. Now, let's get started... In order to establish my position, I need to let you know again where I'm coming from. Again, I believe that the blood of Christ is the agent that saves all saved persons. Please keep in mind our previous discussions on "means" and "method" as we continue. Without going through all the dispensations, I will address the NT in general.

We see that the gospels open with John the Baptist's ministry. John was preaching "a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." The method of salvation at the opening of the gospels included going out to John's baptism by faith. This stays consistent throughout Christ's earthly ministry. Again, Christ was sent "for the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matt 15:24). He was the minister to the circumcision. Christ is the first person to be baptized with and have the indwelling Holy Spirit. The method of salvation here includes water baptism for salvation.

I must vehemently disagree. Water Baptism was never required for salvation. "By works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Romans 3:20) That is not specific to a time period--no flesh is pretty conclusive. NO FLESH--that means no flesh. Not a single person has been, is, or will be justified by works of the law. Sure, they went out to John's baptism, but the baptism did nothing towards their salvation. Baptism is a symbol of what happens on the inside--cleansing.


After the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, we see that the circumcision believers are expecting the earthly kingdom to be restored (Acts 1:6). About 10 days later on the day of Pentecost, we see that Peter addresses the Jews exclusively. Peter quotes a tribulation setting prophecy from Joel, and commands water baptism for salvation (Acts 2:38).

"Tribulation setting prophecy" Hmmm, then the tribulation was in Acts 2?? That Joel prophecy was fulfilled in Acts 2. "Commands water baptism for salvation"???I don't see that anywhere. Baptism is a matter of obedience, not salvation, in any age--"By works of the law shall NO FLESH be justified." (Rom 3:20). By the way, something interesting to note is that Paul, immediately after his conversion, was baptized. Was he then following this "circumcision gospel"? No, because there really wasn't one. Why would Paul have been baptized, though? Was that part of his salvation also? Not to mention, if the "method" changed with Paul, why did he "immediately" baptize the Philippians jailer and his family? There is a huge tension in your system here. The fact must remain that baptism is a matter of obedience, showing outwardly your identification with Christ, not a matter of salvation --No flesh shall be justified by the works of the law.


This method of salvation remains consistent until God raises up the Apostle Paul. I have covered a lot of information that I believe is common knowledge. Before I get into the specifics of Paul's conversion, I would like to make sure we are on the same page. I'm not asking that you agree, I just want you to offer any rebuttal to the above points that I have not provided Scripture for. Please ask specific questions concerning the above points, and we'll go from there.

In Christ, --Jeremy

Woops, I guess I kind of went on to Paul's conversion and a few things prematurely--didn't remember you said that. I still need to see some evidence that the church started somewhere in the NT.

Jeol

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I guess I haven't been clear thus far. Again, I thought I had established that I believe that the blood of Christ is the agent that saves. Man must have faith, and God sometimes asks man to show saving faith in different ways. You said,I must vehemently disagree. Water Baptism was never required for salvation.God asked man to show faith by being water baptized. Was the water some magical thing that gave man access to heaven? No way! The point again is, God asked man to show faith by being baptized. It was definitely part of their salvation message. You continue, "By works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Romans 3:20) That is not specific to a time period--no flesh is pretty conclusive. NO FLESH--that means no flesh. Not a single person has been, is, or will be justified by works of the law.I agree. They are justified by the finished work on the cross. How does man have access to that saving blood? By doing what God asks them to do by faith. John the Baptist's ministry was a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." What do you think that means Joel? Could a man have access to the blood of Jesus Christ if they refused baptism? The Bible says "No!"The New King James Version

Luke 7
7:30
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.Check the word for "will" here. It is God's boule will. God's determined will. God's will was not thwarted, but rather, they rejected it for themselves, not having been baptized. You continue,Sure, they went out to John's baptism, but the baptism did nothing towards their salvation.Again I ask, what then is a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?" You continue,Baptism is a symbol of what happens on the inside--cleansing.Where does the Bible say that? You continue,"Tribulation setting prophecy" Hmmm, then the tribulation was in Acts 2??The tribulation started in Acts 2. I partially agree when you say,That Joel prophecy was fulfilled in Acts 2.The Joel prophecy was partially fulfilled. The Spirit was poured out on the believing Jews who were there (Acts 2:5-10, 14, 22, 30) Verses 19-21 were not fulfilled. They refer to a time at the end of the seven year tribulation. You comment on Acts 2:38, "Commands water baptism for salvation"???I don't see that anywhere.Let's read it...The New King James Version

Acts 2
2:38
Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.Again, this is how God asked man to show his faith. You continue,Baptism is a matter of obedience, not salvation, in any age--What verse was that again? You say concerning Paul,By the way, something interesting to note is that Paul, immediately after his conversion, was baptized. Was he then following this "circumcision gospel"?We're finally making some progress. Keep this in mind when we start discussing Pauls conversion. If there is anything you want answered right away, just ask a specific question. I'll be happy to respond. For now, humor me as we continue discussing events leading up to Paul's conversion.:yipee: As a side note, notice that the Ethiopian eunich also recognized that he needed to be water baptized to show his faith to God (Acts 8:36,38 - there is textual criticism on verse 37 - verse 37 is not in the original).

Thanks for your patience with me and your willingness to discuss. I promise, we will get to the things you're asking for...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Ok, here's my response to the other one:

Joel,

In order to establish the beginning of the body of Christ in the NT, we must first agree as to what the body of Christ is. I think this will be difficult from reading the previous discussions from both of us. I have attempted to show that I believe that body of Christ is a separate, distinct entity in God's eyes. I believe it is a body of believers that is separate and distinct form the nation of Israel. I believe that the two groups (Israel & the body) have two separate hopes which both have to do with Christ. Now, I know you disagree, and that's fine. That's what makes the discussion fun.

First let me clear up something. I do not in any way believe that there is no distinction between the Body of Christ now and national Israel. They are most certainly distinct. Physical Israel is completely distinct from the church because it is unbelieving. What I believe is that believing Jews are included in the body of Christ. I believe the "Church" (the group of God's people we see today called the church--Here specifically referring to the "church" during this present time) to be the continuation of "Israel" (the group of God's people seen in the OT). Israel was the visible form of God's one people in the OT, while the church is the visible form of God's people in the NT, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. There is only one people of God, but the outward manifestation of that has changed--once national Israel, now the church. Israel foreshadowed the true Israel.
Now, I have yet to see any evidence that national Israel is a separate distinct entity in God's eyes. Nor have I seen evidence that they have different hopes.


I will try to ask pointed questions and go from there... The first question is, "Do you believe that the Bible shows the body and believing Israel to be two separate groups?" Now, I know your answer thus far has been "No!" but I would like to offer the following verses. Please address each passage...

I believe that believing Israel is part of the body.


The New King James Version

Galatians 6
6:16
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

You know that I believe that by the time Paul writes Galatians, he has an experential knowledge of the mystery that is the body of Christ.

I disagree that the body of Christ was the mystery. That Gentiles would be in the same body with equal status with Jews was the mystery (and even this mystery was partially revealed in the OT).


Paul understands that believing Israel showed their faith by keeping the law, being water baptized, circumcised, etc... Paul's letter to the Galatians stems from Judiazers from James coming to Galatia after Paul leaves Galatia and perverting the gospel of grace that Paul preached to them (Gal 1:1-12). Paul is admonishing the Galatians to stick to the message that he taught, and not to turn back again to the circumcision message that James, Peter, John, etc. are teaching.

I disagree that James, Peter, John, etc taught a "circumcision message" other than Paul's.


Paul tell the Galatians that circumcision is not important in the body of Christ (Gal 6:15) and wishes that peace and mercy be upon those who believe that circumcision is no longer profitable (body of Christ believers) and "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16). Paul draws a distinction between the two groups of believers.

I'm afraid I do not see such a distinction. As I am sure you are aware, "kai" can, and is sometimes, be translated "even." I believe that is the proper rendering of it in this text. Notice that it says nothing about the "Body of Christ" believers. It says "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. " Would you agree that there is no possibility of salvation outside of being in Christ? I believe those who walk according to this rule are the Israel of God ("And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, even upon the Israel of God." The text actually makes more sense that way, for if circumcision avails nothing, then why would there be a group of the circumcision that is special in God's eyes over those of the uncircumcision.) I do not believe he draws such a distinction. Christ broke down the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile AT HIS DEATH ON THE CROSS, not at Acts9. Gentiles were brought near by his blood shed on the cross.


Next, we see that Paul refers to the church that is Israel as "the church of God" contrasted with the "body of Christ."

Where is believing Israel contrasted with the body of Christ?


The New King James Version

1 Corinthians 15
15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Corinthians 10
10:32
Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God,


Again, Paul draws a distinction between the two groups of believers (Israel & the body).

I am afraid I see no such distinction. How can you say that the "church of God" is any other than the body of Christ? Are you saying that "Jews " and "Greeks" here refers to believing Jews and Gentiles? I would definitely disagree with that. I don't think that is an argument you can hold up. How can you say that 1 Cor 15:9 refers to any other than the body of Christ?
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct, that Paul taught a different gospel for those believing in Christ after Acts 9 than did the other apostles. So those saved before Acts 9 would have had to have been circumcised. So what happens to Gentiles saved before Acts 9? Were they required to be circumcised? Are they part of another group of people? How many peoples of God does that make now?


Now, Paul is not the only one who makes this distinction. James recognizes it as well. Paul goes to James in Jerusalem (Acts 15:8) and tells James about the message he is teaching. The circumcision believers who are with James are confused and says


The New King James Version

Acts 21
21:21
but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
21:22
What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.

What does James have to say about this matter?


The New King James Version

Acts 21
21:24
Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.
21:25
But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."


James affirms that believing Israel should continue to keep the law and the customs of Moses by faith, but concerning the Gentiles who believe (the body of Christ)

Here is where I believe you make a fatal mistake. You equate Gentiles with the body of Christ. Certainly they are part of the body of Christ, but they are not the sole makeup of it. Jews and Gentiles are of the same body (Ephesians 3:1--6). Believing Jews and Gentiles together make up the body of Christ.


they should observe no such thing... This is consistent with the decision James makes initially in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council.


The New King James Version

Acts 15
15:19
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God.
15:20
but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
15:21
For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."


Acts 21 is a direct result of this meeting in Acts 15. Who is the we? Isreal... Who is the "them" and "those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God?" The body of Christ.

Again, thanks for the discussion...

In Christ, --Jeremy

Again, I don't believe you can simply equate "Body of Christ" with " believing Gentiles." Believing Jews and Gentiles together make up the body of Christ. I will have more to say about ACts 15 and 21 soon, but I believe because of that fatal mistake, the rest falls to pieces. I hope I dealt with this adequately for the time being.
I have answered every one of your posts, and I have yet to see a Scripture passage clearly differentiating between "the body of Christ" and believing Israel, and I have not seen a Scripture passage indicating that the body of Christ began at some point IN THE NT.


Joel

[doogieduff]

Joel

You should make a new user name for your friend instead of typing his things under your name! :thumb:

[joelkaki]

Uh, that was just part of his post. He was writing to me.:smile:

Joel

[PastorPenn]

02-08-2003 @ 08:14 AM
joelkaki:

Joel, with all due respect, surely you can't be serious. Surely you realize the word &quot;THE&quot; isn't written there in the Greek?


Sorry, my mistake--very dumb thing for me to do. I didn't even check the Greek before I posted. RightIdea is right, there is no Greek word for &quot;the&quot; in the Greek. That does not mean I agree with everything you have said, though.

Joel :read:

Sorry to break into the middle of this thread, but for the record, here is a transliteration and literal translation of Galatians 2:7
from the Majority Text- Hodges and Farstad, 2nd Edition.

alla tounantion, idontes hoti pepisteumai to euaggelion tes
But (strong adversitive) on the other hand, when they saw that having been entrusted the gospel of the

akrobustias kathos Petros tes peritomes
uncircumcision even as Peter the circumcision.

There is a definite article before gospel (euaggelion), uncircumcision (akrobustias), and before circumcision
(peritomes). Koine Greek uses a definite article. When there is no definite article, or anarthrous noun, the author usually is stressing quality. cf. John 1:1b " kai Theos en ho Logos". And the Word was divine(quality) not "and the Word was a God" as the JW's believe. We can supply an indefinite article in the translation when context demands, otherwise, the quality of the noun is indicated. But, I digress, the verse in question has three definite articles in two noun cases: accusative and genitive.

Now I know that you are thinking, who gives a care? :argue: Speaking for all Greek Geeks everywhere, Greek is a wonderful language but dangerous in the wrong hands. Like guns, never point one at someone since it may be loaded!

[joelkaki]

The Joel prophecy was partially fulfilled. The Spirit was poured out on the believing Jews who were there (Acts 2:5-10, 14, 22, 30) Verses 19-21 were not fulfilled. They refer to a time at the end of the seven year tribulation. You comment on Acts 2:38,


On what basis do you claim that. It clearly says "THIS IS THAT"


Joel

[joelkaki]

God asked man to show faith by being water baptized. Was the water some magical thing that gave man access to heaven? No way! The point again is, God asked man to show faith by being baptized. It was definitely part of their salvation message.


Jesus would disagree, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." (John 6:47).

No mention of water baptism. The one believing will have everlasting life.


Joel

[joelkaki]

I agree. They are justified by the finished work on the cross. How does man have access to that saving blood? By doing what God asks them to do by faith. John the Baptist's ministry was a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." What do you think that means Joel? Could a man have access to the blood of Jesus Christ if they refused baptism? The Bible says "No!"

Jesus said that if one believes, he will have everlasting life(which would mean that he had access to the blood of Jesus.--John 6:47). If water baptism was also required for salvation, then Jesus was either mistaken or a liar. Now of course, those who believed would have wanted to be baptized also. So those believing would also be baptized. But the baptism was not part of the salvation. Jesus said that he who believes will be saved.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Jesus and Paul taught the same message, "He who believes in Him is not condemned..." (John 3:18). "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus..."(Romans 8:1) No difference. Neither required water baptism. Same gospel message.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You ask,On what basis do you claim that. It clearly says "THIS IS THAT"I agree wholeheartedly. Peter, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit changes Joel's prophecy from...The New King James Version

Joel 2
2:28
"And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions.to...The New King James Version

Acts 2
2:17
'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.We agree that Peter's statement of This is that is definitely referring to Joel's tribulation, last days prophecy. The reason I say it was partially fulfilled is because these things happened,The New King James Version

Acts 2
2:17
'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.
2:18
And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy.However, these things did not...2:19
I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
2:20
The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
2:21
And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.'We see when we read Matthew 24:29 that the events described in Acts 2:19-21 will take place at the end of the tribulation...Matthew 24
24:29
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I hope you realize you have taken John 6:47 out of it's context and have made it a pretext. You say,Jesus said that if one believes, he will have everlasting life(which would mean that he had access to the blood of Jesus.--John 6:47).If it's that simple, why is there so much dissention in the church today? You continue,If water baptism was also required for salvation, then Jesus was either mistaken or a liar.By your line of reasoning, you make John's entire ministry as the forerunner a lie. He was preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. You also make Peter's glorious sermon on the day of Pentecost a lie. Peter commanded baptism for salvation in Acts 2:38. I find it convenient that you fail to address John's ministry, Acts 2:38 and the fact that the lawyers and pharisees rejected God's boule counsel, by not being baptized by John (Luke 7:30). I know you hold tight to your beliefs, as do I, but I remember your comments about my lack of exegesis. I ask that you exegete the above passages. You continue,Now of course, those who believed would have wanted to be baptized also. So those believing would also be baptized.Again, what passage was that? Scripture Please! You continue,But the baptism was not part of the salvation.You need to address Mark 1:1-5, Luke 7:30 and Acts 2:38...

--Jeremy</