Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nor did I say that he did. What I DID say (because it is in scripture) is that Paul and Barnabas were ordained by the Church through the laying on of hands.
It was a church outside of Israel.
Quote:
Now that I understand that you are a dispensationalist, our discussion will be drawing to a close. I know very little about this 19th century heresy invented by Darby - just enough to know that I have no interest in the subject since it has not basis in truth.
LOL. Who said Darby invented it?
It is clearly stated in the Scriptures. For instance, the old covenant in the Old Testament was done away with and superseded by a new covenant by Christ. That in itself is a different dispensation.
Quote:
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I posted elsewhere that Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how ...” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised ..., you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
James included himself in the "we" along with Peter. Even Peter was trying to get the believers of the nations to Judaize. (Galatians 2:14) and Paul called him a hypocrite in front of all for trying to live amongst the Galatians as one not under the law but when some from James came to Galatia Peter was at "he shrank back" or sat away from those dirty, filthy, uncircumcised believers of the nations.
Quote:
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (singular), and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.
He built His church on the rock of truth that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God which Peter confessed. Even Jesus said "I have others who are not of this flock."
Quote:
Duh.
Double Duh.
Quote:
It's possible the cow really did jump over the moon, too, I suppose.
Not really.
Quote:
Linus was given the reins of the Church by both Peter and Paul thus, the alleged "two churches" would have recognized a single leader.
Your silly distinctions are of no value now, and they were eliminated in the Early Church as scripture shows:
Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
If they are of "no value" then NO ONE would waste precious time developing ridiculous theology and setting up separate churches.
The Bible doesn't say Linus was given the reins of the Church let alone by Peter and Paul. So why say it?
Galatians 5:6 has only to do with the Uncircumcision church in which **IN CHRIST" there is no Jew or Greek. But Paul wrote that **IN THE LORD" there are distinctions. For instance, in Christ Paul says there is no Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female but in the Lord Paul addresses how the slaves should act toward their masters and how the masters should treat their slaves. He tells the female wives how to treat their male husbands and writes concerning the Jews and the Greeks.
Besides that, Peter James and John told Paul and Barnabas that they (P.J.& J.) would only be for the Circumcision yet Paul for the nations. (see Galatians 2).
I would highly suggest you read more on the two very different allotments of the church of the nations and that of Israel. During the next two eons/ages, the Israelite believers are not resurrected to go to heaven but remain on the earth. The Uncircumcision believers of the nations go to the heavens during that same time. Peter remains on the earth with the 11 and Paul and we go UP.
Just a note about Peter in Antioch, Eusebius: Gal 2:11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.…
There were not two churches or two messages, the original message was only expanded to go to the gentiles as planned and the Jews gained new insight into the meaning of it.
The Bible doesn't say Linus was given the reins of the Church let alone by Peter and Paul. So why say it?
Uh...because we have historical records that prove it to be true? Yeah, let's go with that.
As for the dispensationalism nonsense, in the 1800s, some began to claim that the rapture would occur before the period of persecution. This position, now known as the "pre-tribulational" view, also was embraced by John Nelson Darby, an early leader of a Fundamentalist movement that became known as Dispensationalism.
Darby’s pre-tribulational view of the rapture was then picked up by a man named C.I. Scofield, who taught the view in the footnotes of his Scofield Reference Bible, which was widely distributed in England and America. Many Protestants who read the Scofield Reference Bible uncritically accepted what its footnotes said and adopted the pre-tribulational view, even though no Christian had heard of it in the previous 1800 years of Church history.
Just a note about Peter in Antioch, Eusebius: Gal 2:11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.…
There were not two churches or two messages, the original message was only expanded to go to the gentiles as planned and the Jews gained new insight into the meaning of it.
Your last point is nicely said, and I hope Eusebius is listening.
As to your first paragraph, here is a bit more on Galatians 2:
On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy
In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.
However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:
Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:
Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?
This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:
Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.
However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.
In his subsequent letters (1Cor 8: 9-13, Romans 14:13), Paul backtracks and admits that one might avoid controversial behavior for the sake of the "weaker brethren." Thus, he vindicates Peter's actions in retrospect.
In short, Peter and Paul both had valid points. Paul was right in principle whereas Peter was right pastorally.
Just a note about Peter in Antioch, Eusebius: Gal 2:11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.…
There were not two churches or two messages, the original message was only expanded to go to the gentiles as planned and the Jews gained new insight into the meaning of it.
Thanks for pointing that out. But the fact is that Antioch was an Uncircumcision church and Peter was just visiting and playing the hypocrite. The Galatian epistle is all about the ecclesia there in Galatia being improperly influenced by those who came from James who were trying to bring them under the law. Paul addresses this whole issue. Please read Galatians.
Peter was eating with them as if they were clean. Some from James came and he sat away from the Gentile believers because those Gentile believers were not ceremonially clean under the law. Peter didn't want the Circumcision believers of James to see he was eating with Gentiles even if they were believers. Paul called him on the carpet for this hypocrisy. Even Paul said Peter's mission was to Judaize them. That's a no no.
The believers of the nations are not under the law of Moses but under grace. That in itself should tell you there are two different ecclesias/churches.
Thanks for pointing that out. But the fact is that Antioch was an Uncircumcision church and Peter was just visiting and playing the hypocrite. The Galatian epistle is all about the ecclesia there in Galatia being improperly influenced by those who came from James who were trying to bring them under the law. Paul addresses this whole issue. Please read Galatians.
Peter was eating with them as if they were clean. Some from James came and he sat away from the Gentile believers because those Gentile believers were not ceremonially clean under the law. Peter didn't want the Circumcision believers of James to see he was eating with Gentiles even if they were believers. Paul called him on the carpet for this hypocrisy. Even Paul said Peter's mission was to Judaize them. That's a no no.
The believers of the nations are not under the law of Moses but under grace. That in itself should tell you there are two different ecclesias/churches.
From #74:
In his subsequent letters (1Cor 8: 9-13, Romans 14:13), Paul backtracks and admits that one might avoid controversial behavior for the sake of the "weaker brethren." Thus, he vindicates Peter's actions in retrospect.
In short, Peter and Paul both had valid points. Paul was right in principle whereas Peter was right pastorally.
Uh...because we have historical records that prove it to be true? Yeah, let's go with that.
As for the dispensationalism nonsense, in the 1800s, some began to claim that the rapture would occur before the period of persecution. This position, now known as the "pre-tribulational" view, also was embraced by John Nelson Darby, an early leader of a Fundamentalist movement that became known as Dispensationalism.
Darby’s pre-tribulational view of the rapture was then picked up by a man named C.I. Scofield, who taught the view in the footnotes of his Scofield Reference Bible, which was widely distributed in England and America. Many Protestants who read the Scofield Reference Bible uncritically accepted what its footnotes said and adopted the pre-tribulational view, even though no Christian had heard of it in the previous 1800 years of Church history.
The apostle Paul pointed out the different administrations and dispensations long before Darby or anyone re-discovered it. Just because your church didn't see it since Paul, well, I won't hold that against you
I can't expect your church to know everything.
The apostle Paul pointed out the different administrations and dispensations long before Darby or anyone re-discovered it. Just because your church didn't see it since Paul, well, I won't hold that against you
I can't expect your church to know everything.
Thanks for pointing that out. But the fact is that Antioch was an Uncircumcision church and Peter was just visiting and playing the hypocrite. The Galatian epistle is all about the ecclesia there in Galatia being improperly influenced by those who came from James who were trying to bring them under the law. Paul addresses this whole issue. Please read Galatians.
..........
The believers of the nations are not under the law of Moses but under grace. That in itself should tell you there are two different ecclesias/churches.
No, Actually, it does not. Jews are free to follow the customs of their people, but they are no more under the Law in Christ than gentiles. It was at this point in the history of the church that the Jews began to realize this important truth of what Jesus said about giving them a "New Commandment." There is nothing really "new" about the "Commandment" except that it replaces Law as basids for faith and life in Christ. As Paul said in Ephesians 4 "4There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.…"
No, Actually, it does not. Jews are free to follow the customs of their people, but they are no more under the Law in Christ than gentiles. It was at this point in the history of the church that the Jews began to realize this important truth of what Jesus said about giving them a "New Commandment." There is nothing really "new" about the "Commandment" except that it replaces Law as basids for faith and life in Christ. As Paul said in Ephesians 4 "4There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.…"
When this was written, which was late in the Acts period, the Jewish believers were zealous for the law:
Act_21:20 Now those who hear glorified God. Besides, they said to him, "You are beholding, brother, how many tens of thousands there are among the Jews who have believed, and all are inherently zealous for the law?
The one hope and one calling Paul spoke of was only as it relates to the Uncircumcision believers. Remember Peter, James and John in Galatians 2 said Paul was the apostle of the nations, the apostle of the uncircumcision and that they would be for the Circumcision.
The one baptism for the uncircumcision believers was the baptism in spirit into His death.
The Jews had two baptisms: in water and in the spirit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
