Church History, Epistemology, Papal Primacy, Roman Primacy

Apostle to the Jews

August 6, 2023 Timothy F. Kauffman 77 Comments

One of the blessings of the chronological record of the life of Christ’s apostles is the ability to peer into their personal growth as they transition from common men to passionate evangelists. The carnal ambition and obstinacy of John, James, Peter and the rest are on full display, and Paul’s unrestrained indignation at the New Way is well-documented. But they came around, and their transformations are both informative and inspiring.

But at one point in their sanctification, Peter and Paul appear to come to opposite conclusions about something that ought to have been quite clear: each appeared to think God had chosen him to be the apostle to the Gentiles.

At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter appeared to be quite sure God had chosen him for the task:

“Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” (Acts 15:7)

But in his letter to the Galatians, Paul was quite sure God had committed that ministry to him, and that Peter’s ministry was to the Jews:

“… the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)” (Galatians 2:7-8)

Their inscripturated teachings support Paul’s assessment, for Peter wrote to the “diaspora (διασπορά),” the “scattered exiles” in Asia minor: “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Peter 1:1). These “scattered exiles” are the same “twelve tribes of the disaspora” to whom James wrote (James 1:1). Indeed, many thousands of Jews had been relocated to Asia Minor by Antiochus III centuries earlier. The region is precisely where many of the “diaspora” had been scattered. Paul, on the other hand, wrote to the gentiles (Romans 11:13), as his many letters also attest, for God had sent him “far hence unto the Gentiles” (Acts 22:21).

So, who was “Apostle to the Gentiles”? Was it Peter? Or was it Paul? Was either, or were both, confused?

The Invalid Connection

Part of the confusion that exists with the interpretation of Acts 15:7 is that commentators of all stripes, in all ages, have attempted to interpret Acts 15:7 through the lens of Matthew 16:19, as if Peter in Acts was simply embracing his all-encompassing primacy. Jesus is alleged to have built His Church “upon this rock” Peter, so of course Peter was the Apostle to the Gentiles. He’s Peter! And he was the Apostle to the Jews, as Paul attests. Because as “the rock,” Peter was the apostle to everyone! Jew and Gentile. Because he was Pope!!! Thus do the Roman Catholics reason, and some Protestant commentators are not far behind them.

As one observed of Peter’s words — “God made choice among us” in Acts 15:7 — it is common to understand them as an interpretation of Matthew 16:19:

“Some have extended the reference as far back as to Matt. xvi. 19.” (Holy Bible According to the Authorized Version. Speakers Commentary Old & New Testaments & Apocrypha. Anglican Bishops & Scholars (1872-1888) (emphasis added))

Indeed it is remarkable that even Protestants have stumbled over themselves to imbue Peter’s claim in Acts 15:7 with unusually Papal superintendence, as if it was a simple restatement of Christ’s commission to him in Matthew 16:19. Anglican Charles John Ellicott—in a stunning lapse of judgment—actually attributes to Peter what relates to Barnabas and Paul! Paul’s work of evangelization of the Gentiles is on full display when they “glorified the word of the Lord: and … believed” (Acts 13:48), and when “a great multitude … of the Greeks believed” (Acts 14:1). Following this, he and his cohorts arrived in Jerusalem, rejoicing that God “had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27). The successful preaching of Paul and Barnabas in Pisidia and Iconium is in view here. It is not a passage about Peter’s preaching, and neither does it attribute the opening of the door of faith for the Gentiles to any of them.

What does Ellicott say of this? In his commentary on Matthew 16:19 about Peter, Ellicott cites Acts 14:27 about Paul together with Acts 15:7 as evidence that God “had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles” through Peter:

“But that power was now delegated to the servant whose very name, as an Apostle, marked him out as his Lord’s representative, and the after history of Peter’s work, when through him God “opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27; Acts 15:7), was the proof of his faithful discharge of the office thus assigned to him.” (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, Matthew 16:19)

If Protestants are wont to interpret Acts 15:7 through the lens of Matthew 16:19, we can hardly be surprised when Roman Catholics do the same. This is not new.

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 220 AD) linked Acts 15:7 to Matthew 16:19 in his Treatise On Modesty. After Peter’s “preface touching the calling of the nations” in Acts 15:7, he says Peter “both loosed … and bound … parts of the law” for them (chapter 21). In a similar vein, Augustine awkwardly took Peter’s observation in Acts 15:9 — “purifying their hearts by faith” — to mean that believing was to bind purification, and unbelief was to be “loosed” from purification (Homilies on the Psalms, 89.35). [Compare the Latin Vulgate “Thou hast made his purification to cease” (Psalms 88:45) to KJV “Thou hast made his glory to cease” (Psalms 89:44)].

Thus have men since ancient days tried to connect Peter’s words in Acts 15:7 to Christ’s words in Matthew 16:19. This has been going on a very long time, but the temptation to link them is strained and, to our point here, entirely counterproductive.

The Door of Faith was Already Open

Let us begin by acknowledging what the Scriptures plainly teach: that Jesus opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. While both Peter and Paul preached successfully to the Gentiles, neither can be said to have been the one through whom the Lord “opened the door of faith” to them. The door had already been opened before Peter or Paul ever began to preach.

When Jesus preached in the synagogue in Nazareth, he enraged the hometown crowd with prophetic evidence that the Lord had begun to visit the Gentiles with salvation. There were “many widows” and “many lepers” in the days of Elijah and Elisha, but these prophets visited “none of them” but Gentiles: the Widow of Sidon and Naaman the Syrian (Luke 4:24-27). Jesus left immediately from Nazareth to preach to the Gentiles and cast out unclean spirits (Luke 4:29-37).

When John the Baptist was imprisoned, Jesus immediately “departed into Galilee” to preach the Gospel so that the prophecy might be fulfilled: “Galilee of the Gentiles … saw great light; and … light is sprung up” (Matthew 4:12-17; see also Mark 1:14-15).

When Jesus healed a man’s withered hand, the Pharisees condemned Him, and immediately He “withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed Him, and he healed them all,” including one “possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb” (Matthew 12:15-22). Mark informs us that the “great multitude” was comprised of men from Galilee, Idumaea, Tyre and Sidon who suffered from “plagues” and “unclean spirits” (Mark 3:7-11). For this reason, Matthew tells us that Jesus’ actions, and the multitude’s response, fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy: “And in his name shall the Gentiles trust” (Matthew 12:21; see Isaiah 42:4, “the isles shall wait for His law.”)

When the Centurion believed in Christ, Jesus said He had “not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” (Matthew 8:10). And we must not forget the Canaanite woman who followed after Jesus, saying “Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David.” Jesus responded to her, “O woman, great is thy faith” (Matthew 15:21-28).

That was when “the door of faith” was opened to the Gentiles. Indeed, it had been open to them since the days of John the Baptist, when Jesus went about preaching the Good News to the Gentiles, and healing those oppressed by evil spirits — long before Peter preached to Cornelius (Acts 10) or Paul preached in Pisidia (Acts 13) and Iconium (Acts 14). Many Gentiles had already received the Gospel and believed. Paul had not opened the door of faith to the Gentiles in Acts 13 & 14, nor had Peter in Acts 10.

Thus we can see that neither Peter’s ministry to Cornelius, nor his words at the Jerusalem Council, were the “binding” and “loosing” many think they were. And his statement, “God made choice among us,” is absolutely unrelated to “thou art Peter, and upon this rock” in Matthew 16:18. Jesus had not built His Church upon Peter, and Peter had not opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. To think so only obscures the meaning of Acts 15:7.

The Invalid Assumptions

We may justifiably trace the confusion about Acts 15:7 to the perennial confusion about Matthew 16:19, which itself stems from two invalid assumptions that have long been made about it:

1) that Peter was the first of the apostles to believe, and

2) that Jesus’ use of “bind” and “loose” was based on Jewish Rabbinical legal theory.

Both assumptions are erroneous, and when corrected, not only liberate Acts 15:7 from the shadow of Matthew 16:19, but also illuminate its meaning. When that happens, we find that there is not an ounce of papal primacy to be squeezed from Peter’s words to the Council.

Peter was the Last to Believe

We addressed this in great detail in our series, Last to Know, so we shall not dwell too long on it here. We will let it suffice to say that Andrew, Philip and Nathanael all made professions of faith before Peter did (John 1:40-49), and by the time Peter confessed in John 6:69 he acknowledged that the rest had already believed: “we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ.” But Jesus knew something that Peter did not: only Eleven had believed, and only Eleven would. Judas would not, could not, and did not believe.

The significance of this fact manifests when we extract the passage from the constraints of that first assumption. When we read it as if Peter was first to believe, the focus of the passage is on Peter. Jesus seems to respond because He had finally found a convert in his inner circle. But if we read the passage knowing that Peter was last to believe, it takes our focus off Peter and puts it back on Christ’s mission. Why was He so salutary in his response to Peter’s confession? Because He had achieved one of His chief objectives.

“The LORD hath anointed me to preach“

Jesus had been commissioned to preach the Word of the Father. In fact, He was authorized to preach nothing else:

“My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” (John 7:16)

“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” (John 12:49)

Not only had Jesus been commissioned to preach His Father’s words, but He had been specifically commissioned to deliver His Father’s word to the Eleven. In His high priestly prayer, He reports his successful accomplishment of that specific task:

“I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.” (John 17:8)

Judas, of course, was excluded from that statement, for Jesus already knew Judas was not among the believing (John 6:64). Successfully delivering His Fathers words to the Eleven, therefore, was one of His highest priorities. It is a remarkable fact that His response to Peter’s confession and His report to His Father both allude to the satisfactory completion of that mission:

“Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (John 6:70)

“Those that Thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition.” (John 17:12)

Those Eleven were then commissioned to do exactly as Christ had done. Jesus had been commissioned by His Father to deliver His word to the Eleven, and they received it, believing “that Thou didst send Me.” The Eleven were about to be entrusted with that same commission, and Jesus’ prayer was for their success:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; … that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me” (John 7:20-21).

When understood this way, Peter’s confession was not the beginning of Jesus’ evangelistic mission to the Eleven, but rather heralded its conclusion. He had done what His Father had commanded Him to do. The next step was to send the Eleven as Christ had been sent by His Father.

That laser focus on His Father’s commission is utterly lost when Jesus’ response to Peter is construed as evidence that Peter was first to believe. It places the focus on Peter. But Peter was last to believe. Jesus’ salutary response was not because His task was beginning, but because it had concluded. And that task was to deliver the Father’s words to the Eleven.

Jesus did not Appeal to the Rabbinical Schools

The second erroneous assumption that clouds the meaning of Matthew 16:19 is that the “binding” and “loosing” refer to Rabbinical legal theory in which “to bind” is to forbid, and “to loose” is to allow. In the commentaries on Matthew 16:19, one does not have to search long to find such interpretations. The passage is understood as an expression of “the school of Shammai,” and “the Talmudic writings” and “Rabbinic canon-law.” By this interpretation, Peter is imbued with supreme judicial authority, and the myth of papal primacy is off and running. Protestants, in an attempt to flank the Roman Catholic presumption, afford themselves some small comfort from Matthew 18:18, in which that judicial power “to forbid and to allow” is ostensibly granted to all the apostles equally.

“He Hath Sent Me to Bind … to Proclaim Liberty to the Captives”

But this assumption, like the first, takes our focus off of Jesus’ mission. He had been sent by His Father to preach, and by preaching, to bind up the brokenhearted, and to loose the captives. This was the mission of the Good Shepherd who would “bind up that which was broken” and break “the bands of their yoke” (Ezekiel 34:16,27). His first public sermon (Luke 4:17-21) was based on Isaiah 61:1. That passage was about Him, and about His preaching ministry in particular. By preaching the Gospel, He would bind and loose:

“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.” (Isaiah 61:1)

What is translated here and in Ezekiel 34 as “bind up” is the simple Hebrew word “bind” (חָבַשׁ ḥâḇaš), and thus the Lord had been sent “to bind” and “to loose” by preaching the “good tidings unto the meek.” When He tells Peter that he, too, shall bind and loose (Matthew 16:19), and then tells them all that they, too, shall bind and loose (Matthew 18:18), He is simply referring to the preaching ministry He had received from His Father, and which they would soon receive from Him:

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. (John 17:8)

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:20-21)

Or, to put it more concisely, “Thy word is truth. As Thou hast sent Me into the world [to bind and to loose (Isaiah 61:1)], even so have I also sent them into the world [to bind and to loose (Matthew 16:19, 18:18)].” (John 17:17-18).

The focus of the passage in Matthew 16:19 had never been about Peter’s judicial power or papal authority but about Christ’s mission from His Father to deliver His Word. The other phrases in His response to Peter strike a similar chord: “upon this rock,” “the gates of hell,” “the keys of the kingdom” all speak to the foundational and effectual power of “the foolishness of preaching” the Word of the Father (1 Corinthians 1:21). All of which is lost when we assume Peter was the first to believe and that Jewish legal theory must govern our understanding of Jesus’ response to him. In fact, Peter was last to believe, and Jesus was referring not to the schools of the Rabbis but to Isaiah 61:1 and the prophecy of the Good Shepherd in Ezekiel 34. As noted above, we have expounded upon this in more detail in our series Last to Know. More information may also be found in our “Trinity Review” article, Of Broken Hearts and Broken Shackles.

“Men and brethren, ye know…”

Having liberated Acts 15:7 from the constraints of Petrine judicial and ecclesiastical primacy, we may now focus on the native context of the passage. Peter’s encounter with Cornelius is repeated three times in the Scriptures: in Acts 10, 11 and 15. Each time only part of the exchange is recorded by Luke, but we discern from the Scriptures that Peter’s oral accounts were actually detailed and consistent.

By way of illustration, in Acts 10 Luke records that Peter insisted that the Gentiles be baptized (Acts 10:47), but on a retelling of it in Jerusalem, Peter reveals that his insistence was based on Jesus’ words in Acts 1:5 (Acts 11:16). In his conversation with Cornelius, he mentioned the testimony of the prophets (Acts 10:43), but Luke omits this in his account of Acts 11, and then omits it from Peter’s testimony at the Council of Jerusalem, while including it in James’ summary decision (Acts 15:15). It is only in view of the three separate accounts that we gather the full sense of Peter’s interaction with Cornelius, and his full testimony at the Council of Jerusalem.

Our first clue to the meaning of Peter’s words at the Council is in his introduction. There was a simple but significant dispute before them: Shall the Gentiles be constrained “to keep the law of Moses” as a condition of salvation, or shall they not? (Acts 15:1-5). After much disputing, Peter reminded them that everyone gathered together already knew the answer to the question: “Men and brethren, ye know…” (Acts 15:7). What did they already know?

From the days of Stephen’s martyrdom, the Church had been “scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1), but their preaching ministry had been focused on “the Jews only” (Acts 11:19). It had not yet occurred to them to preach to Gentiles, even though Christ had invested very much of His ministry doing exactly that. It took a special act of the Holy Spirit to open their eyes to the vast Gentile fields that were ripe for harvest. Cornelius was instructed to call on Peter “to hear words” from him (Acts 10:22), and then the Spirit revealed to Peter that he “should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). That was when Peter finally understood.

Peter originally believed that he must not “come unto one of another nation” (Acts 10:28), but the Lord had showed him something of which the prophets had long ago testified:

“Every nation he that feareth him … is accepted with him … To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:35-43).

God had elected for Himself a people from among the Gentiles, and Peter had finally realized it.

Peter became aware of that fact before “the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word” (Acts 10:44), for he testifies that Jesus’ gospel ministry to the Gentiles “began from Galilee” from the days of John the Baptist, when Jesus went about “healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him” (Acts 10:37-38). That is an explicit reference to Jesus opening the door of faith to the Gentiles in Matthew 4, Matthew 12, Mark 1, Mark 3 and Luke 4, which we cited above. That was when God first visited the Gentiles with the Gospel, healing the Gentiles. Matthew 4 & 12 and Luke 4 attest to the fact that Jesus’ ministry to them fulfilled the prophecies that God would visit the Gentiles with salvation. He, Jesus, had opened the door of faith to them.

It is in Cæsarea, in his visit to Cornelius, that Peter finally awakens to the realization that Jesus had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles since the days of John the Baptist. And importantly — most importantly — some of the circumcision were there to hear what he had realized, and to witness the response of the Gentiles to the preached word:

“And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 10:45)

News of this traveled fast, and “the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God” (Acts 11:1). Some of the circumcision in Jerusalem were not so eager to receive the news, but Peter explained it all to them again. They, too, came around, due in no small part to the testimony of the circumcision from Joppa who had accompanied him to Jerusalem. They abandoned any further resistance: “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18).

From this brief recounting of the events surrounding the conversion of Cornelius, and Peter’s retelling of it, we discover five important facts:

Peter was finally aware, before he had even begun to preach, that “all the prophets” attest that God had called a people to Himself from “every nation.”
Upon that realization, Peter declared that Jesus Himself “first did visit the Gentiles” with the Gospel of Grace “to take out of them a people for his name,” opening the door of faith to the Gentiles in the days of John the Baptist, just as Matthew, Mark and Luke also attest;
the circumcision in Joppa became aware of this fact immediately upon the conversion of Cornelius;
“the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea” (Acts 11:1) became aware of this fact in very short order; and
after minimal resistance, the circumcision in Jerusalem came to that same realization upon the testimony of Peter and “six brethren” of the circumcision who had accompanied him from Joppa to Jerusalem (Acts 10:45; 11:12,18).

Until that point, evangelization efforts had focused on the Jews only, but from then on, the church began as a matter of course to preach to the Gentiles, and to great effect (Acts 11:20-21). Why? Because together, they all — Peter, the circumcision in Joppa, the apostles and brethren in Judæa, and the circumcision in Jerusalem — had become aware of one very specific point in fact: Jesus Himself had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles by preaching the Gospel to them since the days of John, and therefore the Church should be preaching to them as well. That is what Peter realized in Cæsarea, and in the aftermath of that encounter, the “men and brethren” of Judæa and Jerusalem knew it, too.

The indisputable truth is that from Peter’s first preaching to the Gentiles, and from the moment of Cornelius’ conversion, both Peter and “they of the circumcision which believed” understood that Jesus had first opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. Then “the apostles and brethren” in Judæa understood it, and finally the circumcision” in Jerusalem understood it. All of this was well understood and widely known before the Council of Jerusalem was ever convened.

“Simeon hath declared…”

When the same controversy arose 15 years later in Antioch, after “there had been much disputing” Peter arose and reminded them once again of something that every one of them already knew: that the door of faith had been opened to the Gentiles since the days of John the Baptist when Jesus preached in Galilee, “healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.” In fact, though Luke does not record Peter’s words to that effect in Acts 15, James quotes it as the very centerpiece of Peter’s argument:

“Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets;” (Acts 15:14-15)

When, therefore, did “God at the first … visit the Gentiles”? In Peter’s own words to Cornelius, God first visited the Gentiles, beginning from Galilee in the days of John the Baptist, when Jesus “went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him” (Acts 10:15). To this, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, James and “all the prophets” attest. That was when God first visited the Gentiles “to take out of them a people for His name”. Not when Peter preached to Cornelius, not when Paul and Barnabas preached in Pisidia and Iconium, but when Jesus preached to the Gentiles.

Not one of those gathered at the Council of Jerusalem, therefore — neither the Apostles, nor the elders, nor the men and brethren of the circumcision, no not one of them — would have understood Peter or James to mean that God first visited the Gentiles through Peter by the Holy Spirit in Cæsarea under the roof of Cornelius. By now it was widely known, just as Peter had first realized in Acts 10, that “God at the first did visit the Gentiles” in Galilee through Jesus, “for God was with him,” just as the prophets had foreseen (Matthew 4:14-17; 12:15-21).

“God made choice among us…”

It is important that we establish Peter’s, James’, Mathew’s, Mark’s and Luke’s and all the prophets’ own testimonies of when the door of faith was opened to the Gentiles because so many of the commentaries assume Peter was claiming something that is demonstrably untrue: that God had chosen to open the door of faith to the Gentiles through him. Peter had not claimed that at all, and it obscures the meaning of Acts 15:7 to think that he did.

Having extracted Acts 15:7 from the Petrine primacy with which even Protestants are sometimes inclined to imbue it, we now return to Peter’s statement:

“Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” (Acts 15:7)

Indeed, when Cornelius desired to hear the truth, the Lord instructed him to send for Peter, and thus, it may fairly be said that, among the men, brethren, prophets and apostles throughout the land, Peter was selected to take the Gospel to Cornelius. In that sense, “God made choice among us,” and that choice was Peter. Just as God made choice among them that the Ethiopian eunuch should hear the Gospel from Philip (Acts 8:29), and that Ananias should minister to Saul (Acts 9:11), and that the prophets of Antioch should confirm Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13;2), and that Paul and Barnabas should “be a light of the Gentiles” (Acts 13:47), and that Paul should evangelize the Corinthians (Acts 18:9-10), and that Agabus should warn Paul of the dangers that awaited him in Jerusalem (Acts 21:11), and that Paul should minister to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21; 26:17), and that Paul should bear witness at Rome (Acts 23:11), and that Paul should be separated for the Gospel “from my mother’s womb” (Galatians 1:15). God made those “choices among us,” too.

We recite these many cases of God selecting one or another of the them for various evangelical tasks in order to demonstrate that there was nothing unique or unusual about Peter being called to the house of Cornelius. In that day, visions, revelations and trances calling them particularly to thus and so city, and to thus and so person, were the order of the day. Certainly God did not “choose” all men for all tasks at all times. Individuals or small groups were selected directly by the Lord for His purposes. So yes, “God made choice among us” that Peter should preach to Cornelius. That is a very far cry from the Roman Catholic and (it pains us to say) Protestant attempts to read God’s “choice” in Acts 15 through the flawed lens of Jesus’ “choice” of Peter in Matthew 16:19, or through the unscriptural assumption that God had not opened the door of faith to the Gentiles until Peter visited Cornelius. God had chosen Peter to preach, but had not chosen him to lead the Church in Matthew 16, and had not chosen him to open the door of faith to the Gentiles in Acts 10.

What the Men and Brethren Knew

It is sufficient to show, as we have, that Jesus had not made a choice of Peter in Matthew 16:19, for the Lord had simply recognized that Peter, at last, had confessed what ten other apostles already knew and believed. There was no “choice” in Matthew 16:19 and no bestowal of supreme judicial authority upon Peter. Therefore, there was nothing about the “choice” in Acts 10 that extends back to Matthew 16.

What is more, Peter was not addressing the Apostles only, but the entire Council of “apostles and elders” (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23) when he said “God made choice among us.” The “choice” was not in reference to Matthew 16:19 at all, and in fact was no different than any other “choice” God made in His providential propagation of the Gospel message. If we are to use the term as Peter did, God made a lot of “choices” among them all. Of course He did. The “choice” He made to evangelize Cornelius through Peter was no more special or momentous than the “choices” He made to evangelize through the others. What is more, by Peter’s own testimony, the Lord had not opened the door of faith to the Gentiles through him, and therefore the “choice” He made in Acts 10 was neither primal nor papal in nature.

When all the invalid assumptions are corrected, the resulting clarity divorces Matthew 16:19 from those who would conscript it as an interpretive lens for Acts 15, and divorces Peter’s ministry to Cornelius from the opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles, and divorces Petrine primacy from God’s “choice” in Acts 10. The Scriptures themselves prevent such invalid extrapolations of Matthew 16 and invalid interpolations of Acts 15.

But Cornelius’ “vision” (Acts 10:3) and Peter’s “trance” (Acts 10:10) had served an important purpose in the life of the Church. It was by means of these that the Lord revealed to the young Church that it was inappropriate for them to be “preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only” (Acts 11:19). Had they learned nothing from Jesus’ life and His ministry to the Gentiles? Did they not know that God had long ago ordained that He would stir the Jews to envy by saving the Gentiles (Deuteronomy 32:21, Romans 10:19)? Had they learned nothing from Jesus’ ventures, and great successes, in Galilee of the Gentiles?

It was by the prompting of the Spirit that Peter finally put the pieces of the puzzle together, and realized the significance of Jesus’ many forays into Gentile territory. As the prophets had testified, God would visit the Gentiles with salvation, and Jesus’ evangelical journeys to Gentile territories had fulfilled those prophecies. It was there that Jesus had healed them of their diseases and unclean spirits even as He largely refrained from doing so for His own people in His own hometown (Matthew 13:58; Mark 6:5-6; Luke 4:23-27).

Peter acknowledged as much in his preaching to Cornelius, for God had visited the Gentiles with salvation in the days of John the Baptist. That was the centerpiece of Peter’s realization, and became the fulcrum of his argument when resisting the Judaizers at the Council. God had long “opened the the door of faith unto the Gentiles” since the days of John, and that fact had been freely available to them all. The prophets had testified of that very thing.

Peter’s and James’ observations together therefore complete that story, which can be seen plainly in the reconstruction of Peter’s testimony to the Council, for James clearly understood its substance and quoted it in his closing:

Peter to Cornelius: “That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. … To him give all the prophets witness” (Acts 10:37-38, 43)

James to the Council: “Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets;” (Acts 15:14-15)

Indeed, that is precisely what the assembled men and brethren already knew, for that is precisely why the young Church had turned on its recalcitrant heels to evangelize the Gentiles in the first place.

When understood in this light, our perspective is expanded beyond Peter’s individual experience with Cornelius (where the commentaries typically stop), and we can now consider what the whole Church had learned from it — namely, that Jesus had long before opened the door of faith to the Gentiles:

“Men and brethren, ye know … how God at the first did visit the Gentiles … after the baptism which John preached … that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins … purifying their hearts by faith.”

The entire point of his testimony before the Council was not only that the door of faith had been opened to the Gentiles since the days of John, but that this truth had been widely known for years. All that remained was to counsel the integrated Church on how to assemble in unity without unduly offending one another.

For this reason, James prescribed a solution by which the Gentiles would deferentially abide by some aspects of the Law lest they unnecessarily offend their Jewish brethren, and the Jews would abandon their opinion that obedience to the Law was a condition of justification. This guidance would placate the Jews without compromising the Gospel of grace on the one hand, and would not be onerous to the Gentiles on the other because, as James correctly observed, they were already well familiar with these particular Mosaic proscriptions:

“For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” (Acts 15:21)

“For He … wrought effectually in Peter”

Which of these two then, Peter or Paul, was the Apostle to the Gentiles? Paul was, of course, and Peter was Apostle to the Circumcision. Peter’s preaching to Cornelius in Acts 10:34-43 did not make him Apostle to the Gentiles, any more than Paul’s preaching in the synagogue in Acts 9:20 made him Apostle to the Circumcision. Nothing about this, of course, is surprising since that is precisely what Paul revealed in Galatians 2:7-8.

The value of such an investigation, however, is to show that God did not open the door of faith to the Gentiles through Peter, and God’s choice of Peter in Acts 10 was not exceptional, or even unusual. For this reason there is no justification for interpreting Acts 15 through the lens of Matthew 16:19, which itself offers no special support to Peter. It simply affirms Jesus’ ministry of binding and loosing through the preaching of the the good tidings (Isaiah 61:1), which He passed on to the apostles after Him, as He plainly observed in His high priestly prayer (John 17:18).

The additional value on top of even this is to illustrate what perils await us when we bring our invalid assumptions to the text of God’s Holy Word. The invalid association that men have attempted to establish between Acts 15:7 and Matthew 16:19 is but one example of many that show that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). And what mystery, and what iniquity must have been at work, indeed, that even Protestants were willing to find a modicum of Petrine exceptionalism in Acts 15:7 in order to reconcile the Scripture to the invalid assumptions by which they interpreted it.

77 thoughts on “Apostle to the Jews”

Kevin says:

August 6, 2023 at 11:11 am

” the additional value on top of even this is to illustrate what perils await us when we bring our invalid assumptions to the text of God’s Holy word” and how does this happen imho after years of study, its a phony and faulty pneumonlogy. John’s admonition to his congregation in 1 John 2:27 should wake any believer up, and that is the only truth teller a person can rely on with the word, according to John, is God the Holy Spirit. This is how Protestants should know Roman Catholic assumptions are false because they are listening to the wrong vicar of the Son of God. Pope versus Spirit of God. In my dealings with Roman Catholics the Holy Spirit is null and void, for He is replaced by a man ( Pope, Peter etc.) The Holy Spirit is usurped by the Roman Catholic church and its henchmen. But John says you have no need of a teacher but you have an anointing( of course he isnt teaching not to listen to our leaders) . Those Protestants who misinterpret Acts 15 more broadly fail to understand that salvation from start to finish is a Supernatural operation of the Spirit of God. Period. As always clear and concise truth in this article because of the scripture presented and discerned. The big lie is that the Roman Catholic church is the same as Jesus Christ in the world, and that salvation is distributed thru it. Thx Tim.

Reply
Kevin says:

August 18, 2023 at 10:44 am

Tim, its always amazed me how clear the scripture is in Jesus and Paul that salvation, faith, comes thru the ears, hearing the words of God and believing them , a constantly repeated clear presupposition in both , and yet Roman Catholicism is about salvation coming thru the stomach a crazy physical grace. Catholics who believe this are certainly the ones who walked away in literal understanding in John 6. But when people conceede the Spirit to a church or men, as you make clear in the current articles of yours that its the Father’s words Jesus relied on , otherwise it is complete deception. At the end of the day we all have to answer the question according to whom? And the only answer one can ever trust is the Spirit by and with the word of God, as you clearly point out the same words Jesus spoke, the words of the Father. The constant chide of scripture to avoid idols and false Christs can only be me by God himself thru his word with his Spirit. Men are only to be trusted as they are verified by the word. If one cannot see Rome as antichrist its because they are under delusion and they are because they believed the lie, and they believe the lie because they know not the Father’s words. What a simple thing hear the words believe the words of God, and yet people go to that mass to eat their salvation and earn their merits. Such a sad thing. Teach us to pray Lord.

Reply
Betty says:

August 27, 2023 at 10:58 am

Tim,
Long time since I have had a chance to look at your blog as Kevin et al have been keeping me busy on the Onefold blog. Unfortunately apparently related to some type of glitch on my phone I am unable to post there and the ATT guy could not help me figure it out. Kevin of course is your biggest fan, even declaring you to be the greatest Church historian in history. I would like to comment on your article above but first could you clarify a point of contention Kevin and I have had on the Onefold blog where Kevin claims you had identified me as Kevin’s previous friend Debbie who was in Kevin’s wedding. I am not Debbie, have never spoken to Debbie and am not a relative of Debbie. Brian verified that I do not live where Debbie apparently lives and that still has not satisfied Kevin. If you think I am Debbie I would like to know why?
Kevin, if you wish to continue the debate on Clement of Alexandria and Antitypes just let me know where.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 27, 2023 at 4:12 pm
  
  Betty, if you wish to comment on Apostle to the Jews, then comment on Apostle to the Jews. I have no intention of facilitating or resolving an argument you are having with Kevin on Onefold.
  
  Reply
Betty says:

August 29, 2023 at 3:17 pm

Tim, I appreciate your response so let me address your article. For the most part I have very little to disagree with your article as I am not aware that anyone familiar with the Bible was not aware that Christ included the Gentiles in His salvation ministry or as you write

“Which of these two then, Peter or Paul, was the Apostle to the Gentiles? Paul was, of course, and Peter was Apostle to the Circumcision. Peter’s preaching to Cornelius in Acts 10:34-43 did not make him Apostle to the Gentiles, any more than Paul’s preaching in the synagogue in Acts 9:20 made him Apostle to the Circumcision. Nothing about this, of course, is surprising since that is precisely what Paul revealed in Galatians 2:7-8.”

You then go on

“The value of such an investigation, however, is to show that God did not open the door of faith to the Gentiles through Peter, and God’s choice of Peter in Acts 10 was not exceptional, or even unusual.”.

Was it exceptional? Let’s go over the event again.

https://www.learnreligions.com/cornelius-becomes-a-christian-bible-story-700071
The subtitle for the above article is

The Story of the First Gentile Conversion to Christianity

From the article above

“The salvation of Cornelius and his household marks a key turning point in the early church’s commission to take the gospel “to the ends of the earth” as Jesus had instructed (Acts 1:8).”

Yes Christ included the Gentiles in his plan for salvation, but He chose Peter in a spectacular conversion story where an Angel visits Cornelius and Peter is put into a trance . It’s hard to imagine Tim that you don’t find the story exceptional.
Acts 10
“4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.

The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6 He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.”

7 When the angel who spoke to him had gone, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier who was one of his attendants.8 He told them everything that had happened and sent them to Joppa.”

AND

Peter’s Vision
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

17 While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. 18 They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.

19 While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three[a]men are looking for you. 20 So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”

Yes Christ opened the door but it was Peter who was chosen to preach the Gospel to Cornelius . And can you really blame those reading the Bible from not noticing the divine intervention in Matthew 16 and Acts

◄ Matthew 16:17 ►
Audio Crossref Comment Greek
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

And Acts 10

19 While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three[a]men are looking for you. 20 So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”
The question that has to be asked, why was Peter selected? Why not one of the other Apostles.

Tim, I would agree with you that God choosing Peter to baptize the first Gentile converts into the Church can hardly be seen as unusual for Peter given the evidence for his primacy found in Scripture. From David Armstrong’s article on the subject.

“ The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:

1. Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

2. Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

3. Matthew 16:19 “. . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the
Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

4. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he (“Cephas”) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

10. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).

11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

12. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

13. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).

15. Christ teaches from Peter’s boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a “fisher of men” (cf. Mt 4:19).

16. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).
17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).

18. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.

19. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).

20. Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

21. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

22. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

23. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!

25. Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17).

31. The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

32. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

33. Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus make the same distinction (Lk 24:34), in this instance mentioning only Peter (“Simon”), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Lk 24:33).

34. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).

35. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.).

36. Peter’s name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples (Peter, James and John – Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1 ff., Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24 ff.).

38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

39. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

40. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) – an example of “binding and loosing.”

41. Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

45. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or “elders.”

48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).

49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).

50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. “Babylon” (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.”

Tim, you finish with

“The additional value on top of even this is to illustrate what perils await us when we bring our invalid assumptions to the text of God’s Holy Word. The invalid association that men have attempted to establish between Acts 15:7 and Matthew 16:19 is but one example of many that show that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). And what mystery, and what iniquity must have been at work, indeed, that even Protestants were willing to find a modicum of Petrine exceptionalism in Acts 15:7 in order to reconcile the Scripture to the invalid assumptions by which they believe interpreted it.”

Tim, I would argue that your “ invalid assumptions “ as you approach scripture is a denial of Peter’s primacy despite the testimony of Scripture. Kevin speaks of Calvin saying we should follow the weight of the evidence and I would say the evidence of Peter’s primacy far outweighs the evidence that he did not hold a primacy.

So I agree with you, Christ clearly opened salvation to the Gentiles, and we should consider Paul as being directed to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles as his main mission. But you have to explain why God chose Peter in Matthew 16 and Acts for divine intervention and why Peter’s primacy is so clearly taught in Scripture when you consider the weight of evidence.

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  August 29, 2023 at 4:48 pm
  
  Thank you, Betty.
  
  Reply
Kevin says:

August 30, 2023 at 9:46 am

Betty ” he chose Peter in a spectacular conversion” He also chose Paul in what some could argue in a more spectaculor conversion. Salvation comes thru the Spirit of God, He regenerates men and brings them to faith Titus 3:5. What man had what title is insignificant in God’s sovereign plan. Although it seems clear that although salvation came thru Christ to both jews and gentiles and thru the Covenant with Abraham, Peter played the significant role to the circumcised and Paul to the gentiles. Thats what Paul said. I think Tim made a good case for Peter being the last apostle to believe. But again salvation comes thru the the word of God, the gospel, the Father’s words as applied by the Spirit, not the church. The church is not the same as Jesus Christ in the world. It can carry out his mission, but its not the substitute for the person of the Spirit of God, nor can the atonement be finished in the acts of a church. For Christians our salvation has already been won. 1 Corinthians 1:30. ” and because of HIM that you are in Christ Jesus, who became FOR us wisdom from God, our righteousness, holiness AND redemption. Past tense. Churches can only share his message and feed his flock, whether Peter or Paul or any other faithful pastor. Blessings K

Reply
Kevin says:

September 8, 2023 at 6:45 pm

Tim, am i right by saying you once said that Christ is neither a type or antitype and is never reffered to as such? And additionally did you not say that antitype means figure/ symbol the way it was used. I seem to remember you using an example of Hebrews the earthly sanctuary was the figure of the sanctuary in heaven. Im trying to recall the way you said antitype was used back then. I could be mistaken. K

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 12, 2023 at 6:15 am
  
  Here’s part of what you’re looking for. It’s a comment from years ago:
  
  Antitype in Greek simply means the counterpart or opposite. Opposite when two are paired against each other as a coin to its opposite image on the stamp, or counterpart when two share similar attributes but not equivalency, as in 2nd Clement chapter 14 (It was originally attributed to Clement of Rome, which has since been disproven, but it is considered authentically from that era). The pseudoClement writes, “No one then who corrupts the copy (ἀντίτυπον, antitype), shall partake of the original (αυθεντικον, authentikon)”. What is profoundly hilarious about this particular citation is that when scholars read the early greek sources they are constantly confronted with the uncomfortable truth that the word antitype back then was not used the way we use it today; so there are constantly footnotes and caveats explaining that the early sources used it in a way that is different than how we would define it today. So what to do about the pseudo Clement who said the antitype is the copy and not the original? Easy! Just reverse them so that it makes sense to today’s readers! One translation of 2 Clement simply inserts the wrong words to make it make sense (I’m inserting the greek here so you can see just how profoundly misleading the attempted english rendering is): “no one, therefore, having corrupted the type (ἀντίτυπον, antitype), will receive afterwards the antitype (αυθεντικον, authentikon).” Well, that’s not how scholars are supposed to handle things but that is exactly what they did. In the original, the pseudo-Clement used “antitype” to refer to the “copy,” contrasting it with the true original, the authentikon. Cyril of Jerusalem used antitype in a similar way when he calls the Unction “the antitype of the Holy Ghost.” Oil and the Holy Spirit are not against each other in Cyril’s lecture—they share attributes but not equivalency. Cyril did not mean that the oil is the fulfillment or reality of the rough draft of the Holy Spirit. He did not mean that the unction is the reality represented by the symbol of the Holy Ghost. In sum, he did not use the term the way modern english dictionaries—Websters, British, Vocab Malone—attempt to define it.
  
  Reply
2. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 12, 2023 at 6:21 am
  
  And this, from about the same time:
  
  There is no evidence from scripture on the use of type and antitype that way; e.g., “the Old Testament “type” or symbol prefigured the New Testament “Antitype””. At no point is Jesus said to be the NT type of an OT antitype, or to be the NT antitype of the OT type. That said, the earthly temple is repeatedly called the figure (parable), copy, shadow and antitype of the heavenly one which is the “true” temple:
  
  Hebrews 9:8-9 says “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;”
  
  Hebrews 9:24 says “For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies (ἀντίτυπα, antitypa) of the true things (ἀληθινός), but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.”
  
  Hebrews 8:5 says “They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, ‘See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.,”
  
  What do you suppose “antitype” means in this context when it says the earthy temple is the antitype of the true one in heaven?
  
  Reply
Kevin says:

September 12, 2023 at 6:44 am

Tim you are always so gracious. Thank you brother. K

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 12, 2023 at 7:30 am
  
  That type/antitype distinction is significant. What is ironic is that the Roman Catholic or medieval liturgists of our day insist that the ancient writers did not use figure, symbol, likeness as we do today, but rather meant it in a way that the “likeness” and the “symbol” ARE what they symbolize. That is a falsehood and it is easily shown that the ancients meant those words as we do today.
  
  On the other hand, the meaning of antitype (copy) has changed since the ancient days. As is clear from Hebrews and indeed from 2 Clement, “antitype” is the opposite of the “authentikon” such that “antitype” means symbol, not that which it symbolizes. So what do the apologists do here? They say the ancient writers used “antitype” in the same way we do today, to mean the original.
  
  But look at Hebrews 9 and 2 Clement and see if that bears out. Of course it does not.
  
  It’s a shell game, and the liturgical novelists have been playing it for more than a thousand years.
  
  Reply
Kevin says:

September 12, 2023 at 8:27 am

” what is ironic” well i agree with you on the utter importance of this, however im sure you would agree that what seems ironic to us is Satan working his plan as Corinthians tells us Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. I believe the reformers were no far enough away in time to fully understand that Roman Catholicism isnt a true Christian church, its a front for the kingdom of Satan, thats it. And no one imho has poured more fire on that notion than you. Im always acused on being some fanboy of this site and you, but its not true, im a avid supporter of all informed attempts to expose the utter work of Satan to turn truth into untruth and untruth into truth. And no example is more important as you said than the understanding of antitype and authenticon. Its why i use the chessy line read RC doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. Satan’s is using his church Rome to use opposite meanings of the truth to be truth. This example is exemplary and you have helped us all to see even ” scholars” were duped. People like Betty laugh at a biblical delusion, which is no laughable matter. Those who believed the lies of Rome are duped. Charles is a great example, Stellman, Hahn, all these guys because they werent grounded in the word which is truth. I truly believe this is why the Catholic church has usurped the Spirit, because he leads Christians in truth. Thanks Tim. Im looking forward to your next book. Keep fighting the fight. K

Reply
Betty says:

September 16, 2023 at 8:41 am

Tim, we obviously have some disagreement over the issue of Type and Antitype.

“There is no evidence from scripture on the use of type and antitype that way; e.g., “the Old Testament “type” or symbol prefigured the New Testament “Antitype””. At no point is Jesus said to be the NT type of an OT antitype, or to be the NT antitype of the OT type. That said, the earthly temple is repeatedly called the figure (parable), copy, shadow and antitype of the heavenly one which is the “true” temple:”

Our most obvious disagreement is over your statement

“At no point is Jesus said to be the NT type of an OT antitype, or to be the NT antitype of the OT type. “
“
Romans 5:14
English Standard Version
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.”

If Adam was the TYPE of the one who was to come, who else but Jesus Christ could be the Antitype? And how could Jesus Christ be thought of as a figure , a copy or a symbol?

You went on to write Tim

“That said, the earthly temple is repeatedly called the figure (parable), copy, shadow and antitype of the heavenly one which is the “true” temple:
Hebrews 9:8-9 says “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;”
Hebrews 9:24 says “For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies (ἀντίτυπα, antitypa) of the true things (ἀληθινός), but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.”
Hebrews 8:5 says “They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, ‘See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.,”
What do you suppose “antitype” means in this context when it says the earthy temple is the antitype of the true one in heaven?”

I agree Timothy that the earthly sanctuary is a copy of the heavenly sanctuary and therefore could be considered an antitype. But it wasn’t just a figure, a shadow, a symbol. It was a real sanctuary where Sacrifice was offered. As a general rule the Type precedes the Antitype, so one can see in this instance why Paul called the earthly sanctuary an Antitype. But as a shadow as I showed Kevin on Onefold in distinguishing the two sanctuaries there is a tendency for writers to reverse the designation.
https://www.stepstolife.org/article/question-answer-explain-type-anti-type-earthly-sanctuary/

Seems unbiblical but I suspect it results from the fact that in the Bible the Antitype in the New Testament is greater then the Type of the Old Testament. The heavenly sanctuary is greater then the earthly sanctuary. Christ is greater then Adam. The Eucharist as Antitype, the Body and Blood of Christ is greater then the Manna which came down from heaven.

Your argument Timothy that Antitype simply means Symbol for the early Fathers just doesn’t make sense Timothy when you consider the weight of evidence from the Fathers as Kevin likes to say. For example this quote from Irenaeus’s Fragment.

37

And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.

Does it really make sense that Irenaeus would write “receivers of these symbols may obtain remission of sins and life
eternal.”?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  September 16, 2023 at 9:08 am
  
  As I said, “There is no evidence from scripture on the use of type and antitype that way; e.g., “the Old Testament “type” or symbol prefigured the New Testament “Antitype””. My observation should be easy to refute. All you would have to do is provide an Old Testament Type of which the New Testament fulfillment is identified in Scripture as the Antitype. Or an Old Testament Antitype of which the New Testament fulfillment is identified in Scripture as the Type.
  
  Reply
Betty says:

September 16, 2023 at 8:44 am

Timothy, you wrote

“That type/antitype distinction is significant. What is ironic is that the Roman Catholic or medieval liturgists of our day insist that the ancient writers did not use figure, symbol, likeness as we do today, but rather meant it in a way that the “likeness” and the “symbol” ARE what they symbolize. That is a falsehood and it is easily shown that the ancients meant those words as we do today.”

Again Timothy I hope anyone reading your blog will take the time to read Cyril of Jerusalem’s catechetical lecture 22 and 23. It’s hard to consider Cyril a “medieval liturgist of our day”, and yet he writes of the Eucharist

“20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good. Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical Body and Blood of Christ.”

Did Cyril consider the Eucharist to only be the symbolic Body and Blood of Christ? Of course not, because he starts off Catechetical lecture 22

On the Body and Blood of Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:23
I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc.
1. Even of itself the teaching of the Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, you have become of the same body and blood with Christ. For you have just heard him say distinctly, That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood. Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?

2. He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood , and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? When called to a bodily marriage, He miraculously wrought that wonderful work; and on the children of the bride-chamber Matthew 9:15, shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition of His Body and Blood ?
3. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4 .
4. Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.
5. In the Old Testament also there was show-bread; but this, as it belonged to the Old Testament, has come to an end; but in the New Testament there is Bread of heaven, and a Cup of salvation, sanctifying soul and body; for as the Bread corresponds to our body, so is the Word appropriate to our soul.

6. Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you.”

This is just not the language of one who believes in only a symbolic presence. Kevin denied that the Eucharist is it’s self a Mystery but Cyril obviously disagrees.

“I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc.
1. Even of itself the teaching of the Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, you have become of the same body and blood with Christ. “

Reply
Kevin says:

September 16, 2023 at 9:57 am

Romans 1:16″ for i am not ashamed of the gospel for IT is the power FOR salvation to everyone who believith” Paul and Jesus Mark 1:15 say believing the gospel is the sole power for salvation ALONE , not believing a symbol is Jesus physical body.

Reply
Kevin says:

September 16, 2023 at 1:51 pm

Betty” but it wasnt just a symbol, shadow, or figure” after saying” I agree it could be considered an antitpye. ” this is what i love about Roman Catholic reasoning, She agrees the earthly sanctuary is a figure of the heavenly one but then goes on to say but its also real because its a real sacrifice ( of Jesus). Its the same reasoning that says Ephessians 2:8 sallvation is by faith, says no works no you, really means faith plus works. The verse says the earthly sanctuary is a figure, which would mean that the early fathers used symbol because, well, they meant symbol. Only one entity changing meanings, Rome.

Reply
Betty says:

September 17, 2023 at 4:39 pm

Kevin, was the earthly sanctuary only a figure , a symbol or was it also in reality a true sanctuary? Yes or no?
Maybe reading the article from a Catholic convert might help you.

https://catholicconvert.com/do-the-fathers-claim-the-eucharist-is-a-symbol-and-not-the-real-presence/

Reply
Kevin says:

September 17, 2023 at 8:43 pm

” maybe reading the article from a Catholic convert might help you” help me how? Figure means figure. Symbol means symbol, not real presence I just read it your article . And how does his opinion change what the scripture says, that the earthly sanctuary is FIGURE of the one in heaven. This is what Tim said ” the type/ antitype distinction is significant” you know why Betty? Because if you dont understand that the bread and wine are antitypes/symbols then you end up worshipping a crust of bread instead of worshiping the God of the universe in Spirit and truth, the way Christians are commanded. And if you worship bread, as you have admitted you worship the Roman Eucharist, you are engaged in serious idolatry and your soul is in serious danger. JC Ryle called Roman Catholicism one gigantic system of idolatry, saint worship, sacrament worship, etc. But you can do no other than you do unless God changes your heart. Tim gave you the best advice ever when he told you to get off your knees and search the scriptures, because only in the word is the mystery of the gospel, faith alone in the only suppositions thru which your soul can be saved. You say there is no biblical apostasy and delusion, but Tim has shown even the most ” estute liturgist and historians were duped and deluded. May God open your eyes someday Betty. Be well k

Reply
Betty says:

September 19, 2023 at 7:33 am

Kevin, you claim you read the article I posted but you obviously did not comprehend the point the author was making. You wrote
.
“And how does his opinion change what the scripture says, that the earthly sanctuary is FIGURE of the one in heaven. This is what Tim said ” the type/ antitype distinction is significant” you know why Betty? Because if you dont understand that the bread and wine are antitypes/symbols then you end up worshipping a crust of bread instead of worshiping the God of the universe in Spirit and truth, the way Christians are commanded. “

Now Kevin, let’s go over this again. Was the earthly sanctuary and tabernacle that Moses was instructed to build a Sanctuary? Yes or No? Why won’t you address the question? We all agree the earthly sanctuary was a figure, symbol, shadow and even antitype of the heavenly sanctuary, but it also was a functioning Sanctuary. Read the article again because apparently you are having trouble understanding the concept.

“When an early father says that Eucharist is a symbol, it is not necessarily contradictory since the Eucharist can be both a symbol and the reality of Christ’s body and blood. A statement that would contradict Catholic teaching would be The Eucharist is ONLY a symbol.
This brings up the second stumbling block. Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is much more complex than saying it is Christ’s body and blood (as you know). It is a Sacrament, which is a visible sign (symbol, type, figure) that points to an invisible reality (Christ Himself). Many non-Catholics are surprised that the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is a symbol (in regards to the Sacramental species or its outward appearances).
The Council of Trent, for example, said, “This, indeed, the most Holy Eucharist has in common with the other sacraments, that is a “symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of an invisible grace (DS 1639). It elsewhere says that Christ “offered to the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine, and under the symbols of those same things gave to the apostles… so that we might partake.” (DS 1740).
The old Roman Catechism (the Catechism of the Council of Trent) speaks in the same way. When the early Fathers speak of the Eucharist in terms of its species (mode in which it is given to us), it is correct to use terms like symbols, figures, types, and the like. However, when one is speaking about the invisible reality of the Eucharist (Christ Himself) we cannot speak of it as a symbolic (see DS 1651). “

Hopefully this helps Kevin. The problem you face Kevin is the examples I gave you and Timothy of Irenaeus stating receiving the Antitype, the Eucharist leads to remission of sins and eternal life. Then you have Cyril of Jerusalem starting his catechetical lectures on the Mass acknowledging his belief n the Real Presence and then calling the Eucharist antitypical.
I agree Timothy is an extremely smart guy but your and his unwillingness to recognize Christ as the Antitype in

Romans 5:14
English Standard Version
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.”

just proves you both are hell bent on denying Christ is an Antitype. Now when Paul states Adam is a type inquisitive minds must ask who or what is the Antitype! And Paul tells us “who was a type of the one who was to come “!!!! And why deny Christ is the Antitype? Because you are both trying to argue against the real presence by claiming that an Antitype can ONLY be symbolic. But as we see with the earthly sanctuary that Moses was instructed to build, it was more then just a symbol of the heavenly sanctuary, it was a functioning sanctuary.

Reply
Kevin says:

September 19, 2023 at 11:56 am

” when an early father says the earthly sancturay is a symbol, it is not necessarily contradictory since the Eucharist can be a symbol and the reality of Christ’s body an blood” impossible. If its a symbol/ antitype then is is NOT his real blood and body, otherwise the early church wouldnt use the word symbol. Only in your church Betty does symbol include real thing. Thats why your wretched priest says the words of consecration in Latin that include Hocus Pocus. So in REALITY symbol is symbol, but i acknowledge in your and his mind and your church symbol includes reality. Thats why Betty when you read ” if its by works its NO longer of grace” really means grace +works. Thats the reasoning of Satan.

Reply
Kevin says:

September 19, 2023 at 12:08 pm

” The problems you face ……..Iranaeus stating receiving the antitype leads to the remission of sins” Iranaeus never says that. Tim has shown you obtain is better translated experience. If Iranaeus meant what you say he meant( which he didnt) it would violate scripture ” he who hears my words and believes him who sent me has eternal life and has passed out of judgement into life ” Jesus is saying the same thing Paul is saying in Romans 1:16 and 10:9,10 that in BELIEVING ALONE in the gospel is the immediate result of righteousness and salvation and an escape from judgement. But apart from God opening your eyes Betty has to do mental gymnastics to justify the go out and do your part gospel of her church. Incidentally any so called church father who ever inimated that salvation was dependent on sacramental efficacy will be judged by God. His gospel is a free gift by faith alone in Christ apart from human achievement. As ive told you all religions boil down to 2 divine accomplishment and human achievement. Hint, you’re in the wrong camp Betty. Thanks

Reply
Kevin says:

September 19, 2023 at 12:22 pm

” and why deny Christ is the antitype ” because it never says he is an antitype of anyone or thing. ” it says Adam was a type of the one who is to come, easily understanable. Christ is the real deal Betty, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, hes never a type or antitype of anyone. The earthly sancturay is a figure, and the bread and wine are symbols of Christ’s body and blood, thats why your own pope Gelasius literally says the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine remain. There isnt a bucket of blood and sheds of Christ’s flesh being delved out in heaven into bread and wine . Our pasover lamb has been sacrificed. This boils down to Rome’s inability to understand the difference between sarx and soma. K

Reply
Betty says:

September 21, 2023 at 9:32 am

Kevin writes

” The problems you face ……..Iranaeus stating receiving the antitype leads to the remission of sins” Iranaeus never says that. Tim has shown you obtain is better translated experience. If Iranaeus meant what you say he meant( which he didnt) it would violate scripture ”

Kevin, the quote was from what is known as Irenaeus’s Fragment

“37
And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”

Now Timothy tried to argue that the Greek word translated “may obtain “should be translated “experience” instead of obtain. In fact here is his exact quote.

 “The word at the end of the sentence in greek is τύχωσιν, which is rendered consequantur in latin and obtain in english. However, in that form, τύχωσιν is more properly translated as “experience” rather than “obtain.”

Timothy went on to write

” The two times it is used in the NT (2 Timothy 2:10, Hebrews 11:35) it gets translated as obtain, but in context it is better rendered “experience”.

Seriously? All the Bible translations are wrong? Again I love the Internet for allowing one to look up the different translations of a bible verse.
2 Timothy 2:10
https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/2-10.htm

“Obtain salvation” in this verse appears 27 times out of 32 translation of this verse. Experience salvation does not appear once!

For Hebrews 11:35

https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-35.htm

For example

King James Bible
Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

New King James Version
Women received their dead raised to life again. Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.

New Revised Standard Version
Women received their dead by resurrection. Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, in order to obtain a better resurrection.

At least in this list there was no translation “ in order to experience a better resurrection.” Timothy pointed out two translations where the Greek word was translated “find” , and then writes

“. The term τύχωσιν literally means “to chance upon” something, which is considerable less active and causal than “to obtain” and “to attain.” “

In none of the translations of the Greek word Timothy claimed should be translated “experience “ in 2 Timothy 2:10 or Hebrews 11:35 is the word translated “experience” or “to chance upon”.

So why would Timothy want to change “to obtain” to “experience “ or “to chance upon”? For the very reason he gave in the above quote. , the terms are “considerable less active and causal than “to obtain” and “to attain.”
Kevin and Timothy believe in Salvation by Faith alone and object to Irenaeus’s belief that we “OBTAIN remission of sins and eternal life” by receiving the Antitype, the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ.

Reply
Betty says:

September 21, 2023 at 10:15 am

Kevin writes

“” and why deny Christ is the antitype ” because it never says he is an antitype of anyone or thing. ” it says Adam was a type of the one who is to come, easily understandable”

Of course it’s easily understandable Kevin. Adam Type, Christ Antitype!!!!. The only reason you and Timothy refuse to accept the obvious is because you don’t want to accept the fact that an Antitype can contain the reality it symbolizes. It’s why you refuse to acknowledge that the earthly Sanctuary was a real sanctuary where Sacrifice was offered in accordance with God’s commands. Yes it was a figure, copy , shadow, but is was also a functioning sanctuary. It’s both/and Kevin, not either /or. Let me give you another type/Antitype. The Paschal Lamb was the Type. Jesus Christ , the Lamb of God is the Antitype. Do you disagree?

Reply
Kevin says:

September 21, 2023 at 1:38 pm

Betty” if you can show me where antitype includes the real thing show it to me, otherwise its a wrong assumption on your part. Good luck. Saying Jesus was the second Adam doesnt mean hes really Adam. They were 2 different men. One was God, the other was a sinful man. The reason hes a type of the one to come was because he put in a position to fulfill the law in the garden and had he done what God commanded, but he sinned. Jesus is the 2nd Adam because he had to finish what Adam didnt, ie. fulfill the law. Its finished. The atonement isnt being finished in the acts of the church, and the church isnt extensions of the incarnation. The church isnt the same as Jesus in the world, and bread isnt Christ’s literal body. The church can carry out his mission, feed his people, , but churches arent extensions of incarnation. Sometimes Jesus comes to us in the church, sometimes outside the church. This is all mitigated by the Spirit by and with the word of God.

Reply
Kevin says:

September 21, 2023 at 1:53 pm

Betty ” so why would Timothy want to change obtain to experience” because the greek word better translated experience” the more important question is why does Betty need to force her go out and do your part gospel bias into one quote that the greel translates experience. Incidentally, what part of free gift do you have problems with Betty? Free or gift? If you do something to OBTAIN salvation then it isnt a free gift is it Betty? And if Iranaeus meant you must do this to get that, the Jesus was all wet in John 5:24 when he said he who hears and believes has eternal life and has passed out of judgement. Today Betty im going with Jesus over you and pseudo Iranaeus who said in order to obtain eternal life you must do something. A good friend of my wifes who was a Catholic actually once told me that gifts werent really free. Salvation is a gift, you cant earn it and you dont deserve it. Iow there isnt a virtue that is attached to faith that merits eternal life. In fact anyone we are warned in scripture to trust ourselves or our obedience wil keep us out. Look at tge men in Mathew 7 who pkeaded their own works instead of just trusting alone in gat Christ accomplished. Someday hopefully you will see grace in Roman Catholicism is just the currency of trade on the church merit system, a false gospel. K

Reply
Betty says:

September 22, 2023 at 7:51 am

Kevin writes

“Betty ” so why would Timothy want to change obtain to experience” because the greek word better translated experience” “

Kevin, maybe you can explain why all those translations I provided of 2 Timothy 2:10 and Hebrews 11:35 translate the Greek word in question “obtain” and not a single translation translate the word “experience. “ I can post all the translations if you would like.

Reply
Kevin says:

September 22, 2023 at 10:56 am

Betty ” Kevin and Tim believe in faith alone” here is why i believe in salvation in faith alone in Christ alone Betty. Paul ” for by grace you have been saved through faith and it is not that of yourselves it is a gift of God not a result of works” Jesus ” he who hears my words and believes him who sent me posesses eternal life and has passed out of judgement into life ” If Jesus and Paul says salvation is a gift apart from ourselves or our deeds by simply believing as a free gift given to us by God, i will never believe otherwise. Trent says salvation is to be offered in part to the one who works well to the end as a reward. Paul and Jesus say believe apart from ourselves or our deeds, Trent says as partially a reward to our work and deeds. Betty, if you cant see the difference refer to 2 Thessalonians 2:11, since its clear and simple. All the Christians i know understand what a gift is apart from ourselves and what we do. Roman Catholics who are lost in its doctrine dont. Thats delusion. If you think Iranaeus was saying what Trent says you’re deluded. A verse you never deal with Betty is Romans 11:6″ and if its by grace it is NO LONGER of works, otherwise grace is no more grace” what part of if you pursue your salvation by what you do you are disqualified are you having problems with Betty? Your faith iis in your church doctrine its obvious by what you say that your salvation involves earning it at the mass. But scripture says its a gift apart from what we do. The difference is stark.

Reply
Betty says:

September 22, 2023 at 1:56 pm

Once again Kevin

“Kevin, maybe you can explain why all those translations I provided of 2 Timothy 2:10 and Hebrews 11:35 translate the Greek word in question “obtain” and not a single translation translate the word “experience. “ I can post all the translations if you would like.”

Reply
Kevin says:

September 22, 2023 at 4:02 pm

Betty, you are free to believe the barbaric translation. Your continued denial and avoidance of the scriptures i provide that say salvation is a gift of faith alone apart from human achievement tells the story. Happy merting.

Reply
Betty says:

September 23, 2023 at 6:24 pm

Kevin writes

“Betty, you are free to believe the barbaric translation. “

First Kevin, although you claim to have a photographic memory I don’t believe Timothy ever suggested the verse from Irenaeus we are discussing was a barbaric translation. You are thinking of another verse where he complained of the translation. But again the problem you face is if you claim the translation of Irenaeus’s Fragment was barbaric, you are labeling as barbaric most of the Bible translations of 2 Timothy 2:10 and Hebrews 11:35. The Greek word τύχωσιν that is translated “may obtain” in Irenaeus’s Fragment is translated as follows in 2 Timothy 2:10.

◄ 2 Timothy 2:10 ►
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

New Living Translation
So I am willing to endure anything if it will bring salvation and eternal glory in Christ Jesus to those God has chosen.

English Standard Version
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Berean Standard Bible
For this reason I endure all things for the sake of the elect, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

Berean Literal Bible
Because of this, I endure all things for the sake of the elect, so that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

King James Bible
Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

New King James Version
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

New American Standard Bible
For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.

NASB 1995
For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.

NASB 1977
For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.

Legacy Standard Bible
For this reason I endure all things for the sake of the elect, so that they also may obtain the salvation, which is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

Amplified Bible
For this reason I [am ready to] patiently endure all things for the sake of those who are the elect (God’s chosen ones), so that they too may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it the reward of eternal glory.

Christian Standard Bible
This is why I endure all things for the elect: so that they also may obtain salvation, which is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
This is why I endure all things for the elect: so that they also may obtain salvation, which is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

American Standard Version
Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Because of this, I endure everything for the sake of The Elect Ones, that they also may find the life which is in Yeshua The Messiah with eternal glory.

Contemporary English Version
and so I am willing to put up with anything. Then God’s special people will be saved and given eternal glory because they belong to Christ Jesus.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation, which is in Christ Jesus, with heavenly glory.

English Revised Version
Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

GOD’S WORD® Translation
For that reason, I endure everything for the sake of those who have been chosen so that they, too, may receive salvation from Christ Jesus with glory that lasts forever.

Good News Translation
and so I endure everything for the sake of God’s chosen people, in order that they too may obtain the salvation that comes through Christ Jesus and brings eternal glory.

International Standard Version
For that reason, I endure everything for the sake of those who have been chosen so that they, too, may receive the salvation that is in the Messiah Jesus, along with eternal glory.

Literal Standard Version
because of this I endure all things, because of the chosen ones, that they also may obtain salvation that [is] in Christ Jesus, with perpetual glory.

Majority Standard Bible
For this reason I endure all things for the sake of the elect, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

New American Bible
Therefore, I bear with everything for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, together with eternal glory.

NET Bible
So I endure all things for the sake of those chosen by God, that they too may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus and its eternal glory.

New Revised Standard Version
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, so that they may also obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

New Heart English Bible
Therefore I endure all things for the chosen ones’ sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with everlasting glory.

Webster’s Bible Translation
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Weymouth New Testament
For this reason I endure all things for the sake of God’s own people; so that they also may obtain salvation–even the salvation which is in Christ Jesus–and with it eternal glory.

World English Bible
Therefore I endure all things for the chosen ones’ sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Young’s Literal Translation
because of this all things do I endure, because of the choice ones, that they also salvation may obtain that is in Christ Jesus, with glory age-during.

Kevin, are you really arguing that most of these translations should be considered barbaric. And not one translation “that they also may “experience “ salvation” or “chance upon” salvation .

Kevin I also can’t help but notice when you start losing the argument over the Real Presence, Baptismal Regeneration, the necessity of Baptism etc you tend to resort to your “one trick pony show”, or as Joe Biden likes to call it a “one horse pony show”. There is no question you can string together a number of bible quotes especially from Paul to support salvation by Faith alone if you chose to ignore those quotes that undermine that belief.

I am still fascinated by what St. Augustine wrote

“Let us now consider the question of faith. In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved.
This, in fact, is what some had thought even in the time of the apostles. For at that time there were some who did not understand certain rather obscure passages of St. Paul, and who thought therefore that he had said: Let us do evil that there may come good [Rom. 3:8]. [….]
When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law [Rom. 3:28]. he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but after justification. But there is no need to discuss this matter any further, especially since I have treated of it at length in another book entitled On the Letter and the Spirit.
As we have said above, this opinion originated in the time of the apostles, and that is why we find some of them, for example, Peter, John, James, and Jude, writing against it in their epistles and asserting very strongly that faith is no good without works. [….] We can see, then, why St. Peter in his second epistle urges the faithful to live good and holy lives, reminding them that this world will pass away and that they are to look for new heavens and a new earth which the just will inhabit, and that, consequently, they ought to live as as to be worthy of such a dwelling place. He was aware of the fact that certain unrighteous men had interpreted certain rather obscure passages of St. Paul to mean that they did not have to lead a good life, since they were assured of salvation as long as they had the faith. He warns them that, although there are certain passages in the epistles of St. Paul which are hard to understand – which passages some have misinterpreted, as they have other passages of Sacred Scripture, but to their own ruin – nevertheless, St. Paul has the same mind on the question of eternal salvation as have all the other apostles, namely, that eternal salvation will not be given except to those who lead a good life.”

Reply
Kevin says:

September 23, 2023 at 7:52 pm

Betty, you are arguing that the word in those verses means ” do this to get that” i believe you were shown the better way to understand it is to receive or experience. Your translation doesnt stand up because ” for by grace you have been saved through faith and it is not that of yourselves it is a gift of God not a result of works” surely Paul cant say that salvation is a free gift apart from what we do and apart from ourselves ourselves IF we have to do this [obtain] to get that” sorry Betty your defenition doesnt hold up to the scriptures, and your view of Iranaeus is faulty. Tim had it right when he said experience. We dont GET salvation by DOING something. We receive/obtain/experience salvation by believing alone in the gospel John 3:16, 5:24, Romans 10:9,10, 4:16, 4:5, 1:16 etc. But again if you want to base your works righteousness salvation on what you think Iranaeus means be my guest. Ill believe Paul and Jesus who clearly say salvation comes simply by hearing and believing, not only that but the immediate results of believing is passing out of judgement into life and being righteous and saved. Peter says with an inheritance that cant pass away. Paul says Christians are sealed in the Spirit, seated in heaven, adopted justified. God could not seat t me in heaven if he hasnt imputed Christ’s righteousness to me, because i am not righteous in myself. But these are things you just dont know because you have not searched the bible. Again Tim as a former Catholic gave you great advice, quit worshipping bread and search the scripture, pray God will reveal his truth to you. You’re hanging on one word by a” church father” . If Iranaeus meant you have to do this to get that, then Jesus lied to the theif on the cross, who didnt obtain salvation by receiving these antitypes. The Lord’s supper helps us experience salvation because it remimds us in faith of the cross, my great day. K

Reply
Pingback: As God Sitteth in the Temple | Out of His Mouth
Betty says:

September 25, 2023 at 5:44 pm

Kevin responds

“Kevin
SEPTEMBER 23, 2023 AT 7:52 PM
Betty, you are arguing that the word in those verses means ” do this to get that” i believe you were shown the better way to understand it is to receive or experience. Your translation doesnt stand up because ” for by grace you have been saved through faith and it is not that of yourselves it is a gift of God not a result of works” surely Paul cant say that salvation is a free gift apart from what we do and apart from ourselves ourselves IF we have to do this [obtain] to get that” sorry Betty your defenition doesnt hold up to the scriptures, and your view of Iranaeus is faulty.”

Kevin, you are just providing evidence that your theology ignores the evidence and is totally based on a “one trick pony show”. You just can’t change the words Irenaeus wrote to fit your theology. As you acknowledged above the thought “do this to get that” is most consistent with Irenaeus’s use of the Greek word “τύχωσιν” which in the Bible verses provided by Timothy overwhelmingly is translated “obtain”, not “experience or “chance upon”. Kevin, you just can’t go back to the Bible and based on YOUR interpretation of the Bible claim Irenaeus didn’t really mean what he wrote. But what a wonderful exercise this has been not only linking the Antitype, the Body and Blood of Christ, the Eucharist with the remission of sins and eternal life but as you wrote “do this to get that “. An action
is performed, ie receiving the Antitype . And why was this action performed? So that receivers of the Antitype “MAY OBTAIN”. ? And what do they “OBTAIN”? Remission of Sins and eternal life. Even if we were to allow you to change Irenaeus’s words as I pointed out to Timothy when we had this discussion previously to “experience “ something you first must obtain it.
Again Kevin, we must accept the entire Bible. As Augustine wrote

“As we have said above, this opinion originated in the time of the apostles, and that is why we find some of them, for example, Peter, John, James, and Jude, writing against it in their epistles and asserting very strongly that faith is no good without works. [….] We can see, then, why St. Peter in his second epistle urges the faithful to live good and holy lives, reminding them that this world will pass away and that they are to look for new heavens and a new earth which the just will inhabit, and that, consequently, they ought to live as as to be worthy of such a dwelling place. He was aware of the fact that certain unrighteous men had interpreted certain rather obscure passages of St. Paul to mean that they did not have to lead a good life, since they were assured of salvation as long as they had the faith. He warns them that, although there are certain passages in the epistles of St. Paul which are hard to understand – which passages some have misinterpreted, as they have other passages of Sacred Scripture, but to their own ruin – nevertheless, St. Paul has the same mind on the question of eternal salvation as have all the other apostles, namely, that eternal salvation will not be given except to those who lead a good life.”

Kevin, I believe I posted this summary before as to why the teaching salvation by Faith alone is unbiblical.
https://leewoof.org/2015/10/12/what-is-the-biblical-basis-against-sola-fide-salvation-by-faith-alone-apart-from-works/

There are a few biblical verses we did not point out that you need to review. I have a number of questions I would like to ask you and Timothy.

Reply
Kevin says:

September 25, 2023 at 7:21 pm

Betty, John 5:24 and Ephessians 2:8, Romans 10::9,10 are the plague for you, you avoid them because they say one OBTAINS salvation by simply believing in God’s words( gospel) Or as you say ” Betty” your theology ignores the evidence.” You said ” youre a one trick pony” , well it takes one to know one Betty. Youve aregued your whole work’s righteousness based on one Iranaeus trick, a barbaric latin translation of one word which as Tim showed you in its original language means to experience. But you will get no argument from me that your earn your salvationnat the trough of the hanus mass. I hope you read Tim’s new article. Its excellent. K

Reply
Betty says:

September 28, 2023 at 8:13 am

So Kevin writes

“Kevin
SEPTEMBER 25, 2023 AT 7:21 PM
Betty, John 5:24 and Ephessians 2:8, Romans 10::9,10 are the plague for you, you avoid them because they say one OBTAINS salvation by simply believing in God’s words( gospel) Or as you say ” Betty” your theology ignores the evidence.” “

Kevin, again you claim a photographic memory so when you claim those Biblical verses contain the word “OBTAINS” you obviously did not remember Timothy Kauffman’s quotes

“The word at the end of the sentence in greek is τύχωσιν, which is rendered consequantur in latin and obtain in english. However, in that form, τύχωσιν is more properly translated as “experience” rather than “obtain.”
Timothy went on to write
” The two times it is used in the NT (2 Timothy 2:10, Hebrews 11:35) it gets translated as obtain, but in context it is better rendered “experience”.

Kevin, apparently the Greek word “τύχωσιν” translates to obtain only appears according to Timothy twice in the New Testament and Timothy did not list the verses you claim used the word “OBTAINS”. I pulled up the verses you cited and they are not translated obtain so it appears Timothy is probably correct. The words “simply believing” also does not appear in those verses, just as salvation by Faith Alone does not appear in the Bible.

Kevin,
Romans 10:9-10

9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Now Kevin, where do you see the word “simply” in those verses. And since Catholics declare Jesus is Lord, and that God raised Him from the dead, and we profess our faith with our mouth every time we recite the Creed, are all Catholics saved?
Kevin also wrote

“Youve aregued your whole work’s righteousness based on one Iranaeus trick, a barbaric latin translation of one word which as Tim showed you in its original language means to experience.”

Kevin, we apparently have the Greek word that the Latin and English translation was made from and Timothy tells us it is “τύχωσιν”. Now the word was translated into English as “obtain” in most translations of Irenaeus’s Fragment and of the Bible verses 2 Timothy 2:10 and Hebrews 11:35. So Kevin, Yes or no. Are all those Bible translation of that word barbaric?

And of course our subject matter is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You claim Kevin

“Or as you say ” Betty” your theology ignores the evidence.” You said ” youre a one trick pony” , well it takes one to know one Betty. Youve aregued your whole work’s righteousness based on one Iranaeus trick, a barbaric latin translation of one word which as Tim showed you in its original language means to experience. “
Seriously Kevin. I just debunked your barbaric translation claim but have you forgotten these quotes from Irenaeus?

1. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made.
2. And as we are His members. we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30
4. And as we are His members, we are also man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,
5. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
6. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”

Kevin, follow the weight of the evidence! The statement from the Fragment is just a piece of the evidence in support of Irenaeus’s belief in the Real Presence. Why don’t you give us a list of quotes from Irenaeus where he denies the Real Presence and then we can compare the quotes as we engage in further discussion.
I just finished Timothy Kauffman’s article and I’ll be glad to respond to it. He brings up some very interesting points.

Reply
Kevin says:

September 28, 2023 at 9:40 am

” the words ” simply believing also do not appear in those verses” the words simply believing appear in the verses telling us how we are saved, you know the direct verses you ignore Betty. Instead of looking at the verses with the grrek words for experience, look at the 3 verses i provide for you literally telling us how to be saved. John 5:24, Ephessians 2:8, Romans 10:9, 10. These verses specifically on salvation tell us simply believing the gospel saves us. Betty when you need the broom do you look in the car. The vesrses you must avoid, you know the clear ones on salvation I gave you all say salvation comes thru hearing the gospel and ” simply believing” Running interference with the other verses is no logical, and its amusing. Betty said ” Kevin follow the weight of the evidence” i have, when will you, ” He who HEARS my words and BELIEVES him who sent me HAS eternal life and has passed out of judgement into life ” Jesus is the only evidence one ever needs, and he says simply believing God’s words one HAS salvation and is no longer ever judged. The question you should ask yourself Betty is if Christ says simply believing guarantees salvation and escape from judgement, then why does Trent say ” to the one who works well to the end and believes salvation is to be offered in part to their good works. Anyone with the Spirit of God and a bible can see Rome opposes the gospel. And finally here is great evidence that salvation is obtained thru simply believing. Romans 1:16″ I’m not ashamed of the gospel for IT is the power FOR salvation to all who believe ” Betty Paul says the SOLE power for receiving salvation lies in believing alone in the gospel. ” Abraham believed God and he counted it to him as righteousness ” you see any working well to the end, or rewards to their merits and good works in that verse Betty?! No you dont. Abraham simply believed the promise and he was righteous. The truth as Fesko says, that for a believer the judgement is moved up in a forensic sense, because true Christians have passed out of it into the kingdom of light and have the guarantee of God’s promise just like Abraham. Romans 4:16. Your complete idolatry with the real presence hopefully someday will be replaced with knowing the real gospel. K

Reply
Betty says:

September 28, 2023 at 6:59 pm

Kevin writes

“Betty. Instead of looking at the verses with the grrek words for experience, look at the 3 verses i provide for you literally telling us how to be saved. John 5:24, Ephessians 2:8, Romans 10:9, 10. These verses specifically on salvation tell us simply believing the gospel saves us. “

So Kevin, we don’t need to repent, we don’t need to be baptized, we don’t need to obey the commandments , we don’t need to worship God and we don’t need to love God or our neighbors . Kevin, you are still pushing the “one trick pony show”. What a fitting description of your theology.

Reply
Kevin says:

September 28, 2023 at 9:25 pm

Jesus” he who hears my words and believes him who sent me HAS eternal life and has passed out of judgement into life ” looks like Jesus was peddling the ” one trick pony show.” He called it something else the gospel truth., ” so we dont need to …..” Luther said God wil have no compulsory. People with true faith repent, obey God etc., what they dont do is obtain their salvation by their obedience, repentance, merit. Thats your whole system, grace in Rome is just the currency of exchange on the church merit system, a complete rejection of the gospel of grace. Can we really trust any institution that has a touchdown Jesus in the end zone. Scripture says out of the abundance of the heart…. i think weve exhausted this discussion, thank you. Ill look forward to your retort to Tim’s new article. K

Reply
Betty says:

September 29, 2023 at 7:42 am

Was Jesus peddling a “one trick pony show”. Of course not Kevin. Did you read the article I provided you?

“In the Gospels:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:34-40)

And Jesus stated very clearly who from all the nations would be saved, and who would be condemned:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.

“Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’

“And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’

“Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’

“Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46)”

Kevin, those who were sent to eternal punishment called Him Lord but were punished for what they did not do.

Reply
Kevin says:

September 29, 2023 at 9:29 am

Betty, ignorance of the distinction between law and grace by the Roman Catholic church is their downfall. Galations 2:16 for by the works of the law no man will be justified” ive told you this before, when Paul speaks of the law hes talking about the whole law. Sometimes he says works, sometimes works of law, sometimes law. It a whole. No man will be saved by what we do, not you Betty, not your wrteched pope, i gave you 3 verses on how men are saved and your answer is well what about all these other things my church told me growing up that are requirements. And the answer was clarified for us by the reformers. Rome saw the gospel as the enablement to aquire salvation by obedience satisfaction for their lack, not understanding that Christ lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. Betty how clear can it be in scripture Romans4:5 . ” but to the one who DOES NOT WORK but believes in him who justifies the ungodly his faith is CREDITED as righteousness ” in Rome God justifies the righteous man who works, in Christianity, the bible, God justifies an ungodly man who does not work by counting him righteous because of Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to us by faith. Betty said ” those sent to hell were punished for what they did not do” again Jesus in the gospels was setting the standard of the law which requires perfection so yes those that didnt obey it would be sent to hell, He says if you even lust in you mind youve commited adultry, or hate your brother commited murder. Thank God im not saved by the law, but by grace in the gospel which is a free gift by faith. Unfortunately you are unable to distinguish between law and gospel, just like Ratzinger and every other pope who conflates them. Rome didnt understand the discontinuity between law and grace. We are saved by the gospel and we obey the law, but as Jesus says the law can only condemn a man, if he had not faith.

Reply
Betty says:

September 29, 2023 at 1:49 pm

Kevin, i’m working is a response to Timothy but since you apparently didn’t read that post I gave you let’s try this again

“3. Paul did not teach Sola fide

The Bible passages most commonly cited as supporting the doctrine of justification by faith alone come from the writings of Paul. For example, Paul says:

For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. (Romans 3:28)

And:

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

First, notice that Paul did not say “by grace alone have you been saved through faith alone.” Paul never attributes justification to grace alone or to faith alone. Rather, he attributes salvation to grace and to faith.

Beyond that, interpreting the above and similar passages as teaching Sola fide betrays a fundamental ignorance of the historical and doctrinal context in which Paul made these statements.

Here is the short version of what Paul was actually saying:

By these statements Paul, “an apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 11:13), was asserting, against the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, that it was not necessary to observe the works of the Jewish Law, orTorah, such as sacrifice, circumcision, and the various dietary laws in Hebrew Bible. He recognized that Jesus’ teachings superseded those old ritual laws. And being a pragmatist as well, he recognized that Christianity would never spread far and wide in the pagan world if it required its converts to be circumcised and obey all of the Jewish ritual laws.

If you read Paul’s statements about being justified by faith apart from the works of the law in their context, you will almost always find a mention of “circumcision” or some other tell-tale word indicating that when he said “the law,” he was talking about the Torah, which is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.

It is well-known that Paul relied heavily on the Septuagint, a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible commonly used by Greek-speaking Jews. Many, if not most of Paul’s quotations from the Old Testament come from the Septuagint. In that translation, the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word תּוֹרָה (towrah), “law,” was νόμος (nomos). When Paul used the Greek word νόμος (law), he was very often referring to how that word is commonly used in the Septuagint to refer to the Law of Moses.

For a statement in Paul that rejects Sola fide, see point 4 below. And the main passage from Paul quoted below is by no means the only one in which he says that we must do good works in order to be saved.

Summary: Paul did not teach justification by faith alone. When he spoke of being “justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the Law,” he was arguing that Christians are not required to follow the ritual Law of Moses, which is required of faithful Jews“

Reply
Kevin says:

September 29, 2023 at 2:19 pm

Betty” rather he attributes salvation to grace and faith” no thats not true, he attributes salvation to grace and faith APART from works and you, thats grace alone and faith alone. If our works and ourselves cant particiapte in our salvation then faith and grace are indeed alone. Sola grazia, sola fede, sola Christus, sola gloria. And incidentally, you are wrong about the law, here is how we know Paul included the moral law. Galations 3:10″ for ALL who rely on the works of the law are under a curse ( this is from Deuteronmy 25 directly about the moral law ) for it is written ” cursed be EVERYONE who does not abide in ALL things written in the book of the law” Betty, the reformed position on the law is spot on. Rome is wrong, and so are you . If you seek to be justified by your deeds holy or otherwise, you better abide in all the moral law perfectly. As Calvin said of Rome, as if they really believe the can love God with all their heart. This stern warning from Paul who wrote Galatians to those underming justification by faith alone. You would do well to heed the words of Paul in Galatians 3:10.

Reply
Betty says:

September 29, 2023 at 3:37 pm

Galatians 5
King James Version
5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.

9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Reply
Kevin says:

September 29, 2023 at 5:05 pm

Betty whats amazing is you quote ” anyone who gets circumcised is a debtor to the WHOLE law, Christ has become no effect for you whosoever of you are justified by the law, you have fallen from grace” this is you Betty, and it is chilling that you use this quote from Galatians 5 that condemns Roman Catholics who are seeking to be justified by law in part. Paul says to be in violation of one part of the law is to be in violation of the whole thing. This is what ive told you. And what does he ssy those being justified by the law in some way are NOT under grace ( Romans 11:6, 4:5, Galatians 3:10). In 3:10 his example is the moral law. No works in justification. As Tim has pointed out before, Romans 3 says now apart from the law. One is justified by faith. Titus 3:5 he saved us, NOT BY RIGHTEOUS THINGS WE HAVE DONE. Sorry Betty, if an RC wants to be saved by grace alone it. Will have to be by faith alone. You cant participate by your works in salvation otherwise Paul says your severed from Christ. Thx

Reply
1. Phil from Denver says:
  
  October 3, 2023 at 3:59 pm
  
  Hi Kevin,
  
  I told you that salvation does not always mean the same in Scripture: Romans 13:11 says: “… salvation is NEARER to us NOW than when we first believed.”(emphasis mine)
  
  Your answer was that “salvation” in Rom 13:11 refers only to our “walk” with the Lord. Does it mean that we don’t have to believe in Him to “walk” with Him?
  
  Blessings
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin says:
    
    October 3, 2023 at 9:41 pm
    
    Phil, if i say to you death is nearer to you that you first were born, does that change the way you were born? No. Likewise the culmination of my salvation is surely nearer to me at 65 then it was at 40, but im still saved by faith alone in Christ alone. Ephessians 2:8
    
    Reply
    1. Philfromdenver says:
      
      October 7, 2023 at 6:05 pm
      
      Hi Kevin,
      
      Thank you for your comment and your analogy. Can you clarify for me what do you mean by “the CULMINATION of my SALVATION is surely NEARER to me …”? (emphasis mine)
      
      Blessings
      PS – There is no ALONE in Eph 2:8
      
      Reply
      1. Kevin says:
        
        October 8, 2023 at 7:57 am
        
        Phil ” thank you for your comment” to you as well. ” can you clarify culmination of my salvation” yes, by faith alone in Christ alone i have a promise, a guarantee from God John 5:27 Romans4:16, , Romans 4:5, Ephessians 2:8 that im no longer under judgement for my sins, that i am seated in heaven in Christ with a guarantee from God to live eternally with him . Fesko calls it the already/ not yet, meaning judicially, forensically i have already received it because of Christ’s perfect righteousness Colossians 2: 13″ having forgiven you ALL trespasses, blotting out the handwritting of ordinaces that was against us, took it out of the way nailing it to the cross”, having received salvation which Peter says is an inheritance that cant go away, it will all culminate with being face to face with God. I guess you could say Christians have a ticket that guaratees and reserves them a seat at a concert, in a sense they are already seated their thru the promise made to them, of course the difference is this guaranteed ticket cant be revoked because it is God who has made the promise based not on us but on Christ’s righteousness akone. Romans 5:12. In your false religion, your salvation depends partly on you doing your part. You do and God gives you grace, thats law not promise. God gives us grace then we do, thats grace. ” there is no alone in 2:8″ i beg to differ. No you no your works is salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. Notice he calls it a gift, you cant earn it, you cant pay for it,you dont deserve it, in fact he says it is not of yourselves. So Phil if it is not of yourself according to Paul, why would you ever be in a religion who doctrine says ” and as a reward to THEIR good works and merit” its contrary to Jesus and Paul’s gospel Ephessians 2:8, Romans 10:9,10, John 3:16.
Betty says:

October 3, 2023 at 6:35 pm

Kevin, again I quoted all of Galatians 5 and we can go over it for you. You start off

“Betty whats amazing is you quote ” anyone who gets circumcised is a debtor to the WHOLE law”
And finish with
“You cant participate by your works in salvation otherwise Paul says your severed from Christ. “

Seriously Kevin? Let’s go over this again. I posted from the article

“It is well-known that Paul relied heavily on the Septuagint, a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible commonly used by Greek-speaking Jews. Many, if not most of Paul’s quotations from the Old Testament come from the Septuagint. In that translation, the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word תּוֹרָה (towrah), “law,” was νόμος (nomos). When Paul used the Greek word νόμος (law), he was very often referring to how that word is commonly used in the Septuagint to refer to the Law of Moses.”

Now Kevin says we severe ourselves from Christ by our good works. Again Kevin’s quote

“You cant participate by your works in salvation otherwise Paul says your severed from Christ. “

And what does Jesus Christ say?

Matthew 25

“Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’
“And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’

So Kevin says those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and those in prison are severed from Christ, but Christ says

“Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”.

So where does Kevin come up with the idea that we are severed from Christ from our good works? I gave him the verse

Galatians 5:2
2 “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”

Kevin refuses to acknowledge that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, but we are still under the Ten Commandments!!!

Now Kevin writes

“Betty how clear can it be in scripture Romans4:5 . ” but to the one who DOES NOT WORK but believes in him who justifies the ungodly his faith is CREDITED as righteousness ” in Rome God justifies the righteous man who works, in Christianity, the bible, God justifies an ungodly man who does not work by counting him righteous because of Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to us “

Again Kevin, do you seriously believe that Paul is promoting that we be ungodly so that God can justify us because of our faith. So Kevin , God will not justify the righteous man who has Faith? Paul understood there were people like yourself who did not understand what he was saying.

◄ Romans 3:8 ►

New International Version
Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—”Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just

Augustine commented on the same point

“For at that time there were some who did not understand certain rather obscure passages of St. Paul, and who thought therefore that he had said: Let us do evil that there may come good [Rom. 3:8]. [….]
When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law [Rom. 3:28]. he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more.”

Kevin, the “ungodly” are those Paul speaks of again in Galatians 5

“15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.”

Kevin, if you are walking in the Spirit you are doing good works.

“Galatians 5

13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Kevin, the liberty is from the Mosaic Law. We don’t have liberty from the Ten Commandments. We don’t have liberty from loving our neighbor as ourself. Paul says “by love serve one another”. Kevin, how do you serve one another without performing works?

Galation 5

“1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”

I hope if there is anyone who is out there and reading this correspondence that they will read all of Galatians and ask yourself do you really believe Paul considers the Ten Commandments should be considered a “yoke of bondage”?

Reply
Kevin says:

October 3, 2023 at 9:57 pm

Betty Galations 3:10. You are missing the point of Galations. Paul is saying if you seek to be JUSTIFIED/ saved by your works you are severed from Christ. The ten comandments are certainly a yoke of bondage if you are being justified by the law, which includes the moral law 3:10 says exactly that since it is referring to Deuteronmy 25 with the moral law in its context. Incidentally ive tol you and wont say it again when Paul speaks of the law hes talking about all of it, its a WHOLE. There is no justification with any part of the law. Sometimes he says law, sometimes works of law, sometimes works, you cant seek to be accepted/ justified before God by any works, not even holy deeds. Have you actually ever read Ephessians 2:8 Betty? Your whole religion is based on being finally justified by your works in some way. So apply 3:10 and 5:1 and Romans 11:6 to yourself by your own admission Betty. The book of Galations was specifically written to those undermining jbfa.

Reply
Kevin says:

October 4, 2023 at 5:16 am

Betty ” we dont have liberty from the ten comandments” who is we, do you have a frog in your pocket. I am commanded to obey his commandments, but not to be saved, thats a free gift. Romans 6:23″ for the wages of sin is death, but the FREE GIFT of God is eternal life thru Jesus Christ our Lord” Christians are stunned by Roman Catholics that dont understand what a free gift is, it means i didnt earn it nor can i merit of pay for it. Its free by faith alone in Christ alone. I am not under the bondage of the law and commandments for my salvation, i already possess it and am guaranteed heaven, not based on my works, but his perfect works.

Reply
Philfromdenver says:

October 12, 2023 at 3:18 pm

Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your comment. As usual, I find it short of a full answer. Don’t forget that we are still dealing with Rom 13:11 and your response to my last request re. your idea of “culmination of salvation”).
Since I deal only with a point at a time, let me get straight to it and avoid going in circles. We are dealing here with what Paul wrote to the believers in Rome. “For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed” Rom 13:11 At first your answer was that salvation here refers only to our walk with the Lord and then you changed it to the “culmination of salvation”. Using your own analogy of ticket and performance are you saying that they are concurrent when they cannot be?
Blessings

Reply
Philfromdenver says:

October 12, 2023 at 3:20 pm

Thank you Kevin for your comment. As usual, I find it short of a full answer. Don’t forget that we are still dealing with Rom 13:11 and your response to my last request re. your idea of “culmination of salvation”).
Since I deal only with a point at a time, let me get straight to it and avoid going in circles. We are dealing here with what Paul wrote to the believers in Rome. “For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed” Rom 13:11 At first your answer was that salvation here refers only to our walk with the Lord and then you changed it to the “culmination of salvation”. Using your own analogy of ticket and performance are you saying that they are concurrent when they cannot be?
Blessings

Reply
Kevin says:

October 12, 2023 at 6:44 pm

Phil, ” we are dealing here with what Paul wrote to believers in Rome” you have an uncanny ability to state the obvious Phil lol. ” are you saying they are concurent, when they cannot be” im not sure what specifically you are asking are concurent. But if your asking is justification concurent with sanctification, absolutely, Horton put it this way, there are judicial apescts to the relationship and life ones. For instance we start in the courtroom where we are adopted, justified, all charges dismissed, reconciled etc. then we move to the living room where we commune with Christ. The fathers sanctifies us thru his word, which culminates in glorification face to face with Christ, hence the older i get the ” nearer to my salvation that we thought” This isnt rocket science, 11:13 is easy to understand, it simply means the show iis closer that when you received the free ticket, thats all. Of course your fixated on it Phil because the final judicial verdict on your salvation comes at the end based of your efforts in part. But thats not how it works. A parent doesnt legally adopt their kid or accept them without condition at the end of their life Phil, but at the beggining of the relationship. So the legal runs concurent with the living. Phil, if a believer is justified at the moment of faith, with an inheritance that cant go away, seated in heaven, sealed in the Spirit, then the judicial is at the moment of faith and this seurity of the believer runs concurrent with his sanctification. Incidentally, Phil one can never harmonize free gift by faith apart from you or your works Ephessians 2:8 and ” to the one who works well to the end salvation is to be offered ” never. That should drive you away from Roman Catholicism right there.

Reply
1. PhilfromDenver says:
  
  October 16, 2023 at 1:44 pm
  
  Thank you Kevin for your comment.
  
  You said:
  Phil, “we are dealing here with … from Roman Catholicism right there.”
  I agree with your answer but not with your logic.
  
  Blessing
  
  Reply
  1. Kevin says:
    
    October 16, 2023 at 4:58 pm
    
    Phil” i agree with your answer but not with your logic” well Phil please explain where my logic is wrong?! Paul ” there is therfore NOW no condemnation ( or there is now justification since the word for condenationand justification daikaiou/ logizomai if im not mistaken, both legal accounting terms. Even Brown the RC theologian admits as much) for those which are in Christ Jesus ” notice Phil the sentence is dropped at the beggining of the relationship, faith, we are no longer condemed. This is consistent with John5: 24 and Romans 4:5 which specifically says that a sinner is justified by faith apart from deeds. The logical question then that arises, ( with overwhelming clarity that God removes condemnation and penalty at the moment of faith apart from anything we do, by counting the righteousness that comes by faith to our account) is why would Rome ever say that final justification depends on your sanctification. Now that Phil defies all logic, and more importantly it defies scripture. Scripture says salvation is a free gift. Rome says it is offered to the one who works well to the end. Only one person here has a logic problem, and its not me. Thx Phil.
    
    Reply
  2. Kevin says:
    
    October 18, 2023 at 7:29 am
    
    Phil, iust one more thing. Luke 14:14 Jesus says ” for you will be repaid at the resurection of the just/ righteous” Jesus calls the resurection a resurection of righteous and just. It is not logically possible for Jesus to call people who are about to be resurected already righteous and just unless FINAL justification were in place at the moment of faith. Romans 5:1″ therfore HAVING BEEN justified by faith. So Phil, in light of this please consider the ” logic” of a religion who says salvation/ justification is conditional in part based on what you do. Thx k
    
    Reply
Betty says:

October 16, 2023 at 10:15 am

Kevin writes

“Betty Galations 3:10. You are missing the point of Galations. Paul is saying if you seek to be JUSTIFIED/ saved by your works you are severed from Christ”

Kevin, again you have to define the word “works” in context. Is Paul speaking of works associated with the Mosaic Law or is Paul speaking of charitable works associated with the moral law and the Ten Commandments. Kevin, you just ignore Christ’s lesson where both the saved and unsaved addressed the King as Lord, but which group was saved?

“for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’
But let’s take it a step further Kevin. Christ when asked which was the greatest commandments wrote

Mark 12

The Greatest Commandment
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[b] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”

So Kevin, do you actually believe loving God and our neighbor separates us from Christ? Kevin, do you really believe worshiping Christ as we participate in our salvation actually as you claim leads to our being “severed from Christ”?

Now let’s look at Galatians 3:10 and put it in context

Galatians 3:10
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

So let’s go over Galatians for Kevin. In the first chapter Paul writes

6I am amazed how quickly you are deserting the One who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is not even a gospel. Evidently some people are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ.

In chapter 2 Paul starts to identify who these people are who are distorting the gospel of Christ

“3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.
4This issue arose because some false brothers had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. 5We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.”

So what “works of the Law” is Paul speaking of and is he speaking of the Mosaic Law or the Ten Commandments?
Now the Mosaic Law has dietary restrictions, the requirement for circumcision, and observance of Jewish special days, months, seasons and years?

So how does Paul address the Yoke of these requirements under the Mosaic Law in Galatians?

1. Dietary
Paul Confronts Cephas
11When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, for fear of those in 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 walking in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

2 . Circumcision

Galatians 5
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

3. Observance of Jewish feasts
Galatians 4:10
“ But now that you know God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you are turning back to those weak and worthless principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that my efforts for you may have been in vain. 12I beg you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. You have done me no wrong.”

Kevin, let’s look at Ellicott’s commentar”

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
(10) Ye observe.—A compound word, signifying not only “to observe,” but “to observe scrupulously.” The word is used by Josephus in his paraphrase of the fourth commandment: “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy” (Ant. iii. 5, § 5).
Days—i.e., in the first instance and especially, the Jewish sabbaths; but other fasts or festivals which occupied a single day may be included.
Months.—The description mounts in an ascending scale—days, months, seasons, years. The “months,” however, mean really “the first day of the month,” the “new moon.” (See Leviticus 23:24; Numbers 28:11; Psalm 81:3.)
Times.—Seasons: such as the Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles.
Years.—Such as the sabbatical year and the year of jubilee. The Apostle is giving a list which is intended to be exhaustive of all Jewish observances, so that it would not necessarily follow that the Galatians had actually kept the year of jubilee, or even that it was kept literally by the Jews at this time.
As to the bearing of this passage on the general question of the observance of seasons, it is to be noticed that the reference is here to the adoption by the Galatians of the Jewish seasons as a mark of the extent to which they were prepared to take on themselves the burden of the Mosaic law. “

Notice Kevin, “the burden of the Mosaic Law”!!!!

Kevin writes
“The book of Galations was specifically written to those undermining jbfa.”

But St Augustine writes

“As we have said above, this opinion originated in the time of the apostles, and that is why we find some of them, for example, Peter, John, James, and Jude, writing against it in their epistles and asserting very strongly that faith is no good without works. [….] We can see, then, why St. Peter in his second epistle urges the faithful to live good and holy lives, reminding them that this world will pass away and that they are to look for new heavens and a new earth which the just will inhabit, and that, consequently, they ought to live as as to be worthy of such a dwelling place. He was aware of the fact that certain unrighteous men had interpreted certain rather obscure passages of St. Paul to mean that they did not have to lead a good life, since they were assured of salvation as long as they had the faith. He warns them that, although there are certain passages in the epistles of St. Paul which are hard to understand – which passages some have misinterpreted, as they have other passages of Sacred Scripture, but to their own ruin – nevertheless, St. Paul has the same mind on the question of eternal salvation as have all the other apostles, namely, that eternal salvation will not be given except to those who lead a good life.”

No Kevin, according to St Augustine

“Peter, John, James, and Jude, writing against it in their epistles and asserting very strongly that faith is no good without works”

Kevin goes on to write

The ten comandments are certainly a yoke of bondage if you are being justified by the law, which includes the moral law 3:10 says exactly that since it is referring to Deuteronmy 25 with the moral law in its context. “

No Kevin, Galatians 3:10 does not use the words “Ten Commandments” or “Moral Law”!!!! Galatians 3:10 mentions the “works of the law” and “the book of the Law”. Have you read Deuteronomy 25?

So what does Christ say?
Mark 12:28-34

New International Version
The Greatest Commandment
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[b] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”

So Kevin, Loving God is a “yoke of bondage”? Yes or no? Do you really believe that?

Reply
Kevin says:

October 16, 2023 at 11:55 am

” so Kevin loving God is a yoke of bodage” Galatians 3:10″ cursed is anyone who does not abide in ALL things written in the book of the law, to DO them” YES Betty if you are trying to be saved by loving God you better DO it perfectly. Certainly Roman Catholics are under law Romans 10:1-4. Galatians 10 is talking about the 10 comandments Betty, maybe somebody hasnt told you enough Paul ALWAYS speaks of the law as a whole INCLUDING the 10 commandments when it comes to being justified before God. Roman Catholics are not saved people because they are seeking their justification thru sacramental efficacy. Grace is just the currency of exchange on the church merit system. ABSOLUTELY Galatians applies to Catholics who are lost in works righteousness. The Jews ( Roman Catholics) in Romans 10:4 Paul said had a zeal for God but not in accordance with knowledge rejecting the righteousness that comes by faith SEEKING to establish their own. Paul prayed for their salvation. You could just hear them now couldnt you ” so Paul is loving God a yoke of bondage” and Paul saying you rejected the righteousness that comes by faith by seeking to establush their own. Same as the men who came to Jesus in Mat. 7, same as the rich yound ruler. He said the same thing as Betty, i really loved God how is that not qualify me. ” if its by WORKS it is NO longer of grace 11:6.

Reply
philfromdenver says:

October 18, 2023 at 8:29 pm

Hi Kevin,

In short and directly to the point; the way I see it, correct me if I’m wrong, is the fact that if salvation and justification are running concurrently does not necessarily mean that they are one and the same: that would be conflating them. When we are living on earth with Christ ( before we die ) we certainly cannot be condemned by Him and justified ( after we die ) at the same time. That would be a contradiction and not logical.

You said to me: “Phil please explain where my logic is wrong?! Paul ” there is therfore NOW no condemnation ( or there is now justification since the word for condenationand justification daikaiou/ logizomai if im not mistaken, both legal accounting terms. Even Brown the RC theologian admits as much) for those which are in Christ Jesus ” notice Phil the sentence is dropped at the beggining of the relationship, faith, we are no longer condemed. This is consistent with John5: 24 and Romans 4:5 which specifically says that a sinner is justified by faith apart from deeds. The logical question then that arises, ( with overwhelming clarity that God removes condemnation and penalty at the moment of faith apart from anything we do, by counting the righteousness that comes by faith to our account) is why would Rome ever say that final justification depends on your sanctification”

We have many agreements and disagreements. We do not interpret all scripture passages the same way. We do not “ever say that final justification depends on your sanctification” That would not be logical, indeed, since a sanctified person has to have faith and is already justified. We do not conflate justification and salvation. It is you who said that salvation and justification are running concurrently and did not explained it That was what I meant by not being logical and now it is you who have to do the explaining.

Blessings
PD. Your interpretation of Luke 14:14 about the resurrection of the just being the “ONLY” resurrection is not scriptural.

Reply
Kevin says:

October 19, 2023 at 9:46 am

Phil, thats right justification and sanctification arent the same. They run concurrently. True faith that receives Christ our righteousness/ justification embraces sanctification. Where Rome gets it wrong is they confuse sanctification the process of God making us holy thru his word with the sentence rendered to us at faith, not guilty justification. You said ” we dont ever say that” final justification depends on your sanctification” this is where you are flat wrong Phil. Final justification/ acceptance in the Roman Catholic religion, before God is indeed BASED on your sanctification in part( what you do) , hence ” to the one who works well to the end and believes salvation is to be OFFERED” this is conditional salvation Phil against the tenets of scripture that says salvation is not dependent on our obedience/ works but is a FREE GIFT Romans 6:23, 4:5, and Ephessians 2:8. You finally said ” your interpretation…… is not scriptural” what are you talking about Phil, it says resurection of the just! These are believers who are being resurected being described as already just. Thats the only resurection in view in our discussion. Incidentally, when i say justification is concurrent with sanctification. I mean its a declared past event of not guily at faith that the believer positionally posesses finaly and eternally. Since its final it is certainly is posessed while sanctification goes on. Remember a true believer will die at some point in IMPERFECTION in their sanctification. Christ’s perfect righteousness covers any lack because the believer has already been declared just. Its not that way in your religion, in fact you have to go to purgatory to get things worked out if youve been a good Catholic. But Jesus said the JUST will be resurrected. God doesnt seat people in heaven who need to get temporal punishment burned off. It says we are ALREADY seated in the heavelies in Christ. Your religion is conditional, but Christianity isnt. Paul says salvation is a free gift, Rome says its conditional. Ill leave you figure out the obvious illogic of the Rome position. K

Reply
Betty says:

November 29, 2023 at 7:55 am

Despite Galatians where Paul specifically points out three laws we are no longer under the bondage of , 1) circumcision 2)dietary restriction and 3) observance of days, months, seasons and years”

Kevin writes

“Paul ALWAYS speaks of the law as a whole INCLUDING the 10 commandments when it comes to being justified before God. “

So Kevin refuses to recognize the distinction Paul makes when he specifically identifies the Mosaic Laws we are no longer under. The problem is not only does Paul’s writings make the distinction between the Mosaic Law and the Ten Commandments but God makes that distinction.

https://www.christiantruthcenter.com/difference-between-god-laws-and-mosaic-law/

Christians do not believe we are under the Mosaic Laws, but we are still under the Ten Commandments. And how obvious should it be to anyone studying the Bible that God’s Law, the Ten Commandments are permanent, not temporary. God wrote His Law on stone, the Mosaic Law was written on parchment. The Ten Commandments were held inside of the Ark of the Covenant. The Mosaic Law was placed outside the Ark.
Paul writes
Galatians 2

“
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Kevin, to “live like Jews” was to follow the Mosaic Law!!! Move on to Galatians 5

Christ Has Set Us Free
“5 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified[a] by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.”

Kevin, you are ignoring the context! What severs you from Christ. The belief that you would be justified by being circumcised.

Kevin, Peter wrote

2 PETER 3:16

KJ21
“as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. Therein are some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Kevin, what do you think the misunderstanding was that Peter was warning that the “unlearned and unstable” were falling into?

Reply
1. Timothy F. Kauffman says:
  
  December 8, 2023 at 10:33 am
  
  Sorry, this was in the spam folder. I didn’t notice until today.
  
  Reply
Kevin says:

December 8, 2023 at 3:05 pm

Betty, ” not only does Paul in his writings make a distinction between the 10 Commandments and the Mosaic law” oh my gosh Betty you’re lost!! The ten Commandments are PART of the mosaic law. I will say it one more time Gal. 3:10 is reffereing to THE MORAL LAW( ten commandments) in referencing the Dueteronomy 25. No one is justified by any part of the law, but by faith alone in Christ alone. Romans 3:20. Your tragic religion fails to understand this. Thats why there was a reformation. Galations 3:6 any man who God has ever saved has been accepted, justified by faith ALONE apart from any works, works of law, law. Romans 3:10. You deny this, iu deny God.

Reply
Kevin says:

December 8, 2023 at 3:08 pm

Last scripture reference should be Romans 11:6, not 3:10.

Reply
Betty says:

December 11, 2023 at 3:42 pm

Tim, not sure how my post ended up in your Spam but I appreciate your posting it. Let’s try again.

Kevin wrote

“The ten comandments are certainly a yoke of bondage if you are being justified by the law, which includes the moral law 3:10 says exactly that since it is referring to Deuteronmy 25 with the moral law in its context. “

Kevin’s concept that the Ten Commandments is a yoke of bondage just shows he really does not understand the Scriptures. Sin Kevin is the yoke of bondage, not God’s command that we love God and love our neighbors. The moral law is not a yoke of bondage so let’s look at Galatians 3:10 and then Deuteronomy 25 which Kevin claims this verse is referring to.

Galatians 3:10

New International Version
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

So Kevin claims this verse is referring to the moral law and Deuteronomy 25.

Deuteronomy 25

King James Version

“25 If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.
2 And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number.
3 Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.
4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.
6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.
8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
9 Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.
10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.
17 Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
18 How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.
19 Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.”

Now Kevin, do you believe the command that a man marry his deceased brother’s widow is a great moral law or part of the Mosaic Law. And I would be interested in why you believe Galatians 3:10 “is referring to Deuteronmy 25 with the moral law in its context. “.

Reply
Kevin says:

December 11, 2023 at 3:57 pm

Betty, my bad. Deut. 27:26. Paul explicitly references Deut. In abiding in ALL things written in the book of the law WHICH INCLUDES the ten commandments. No man will be justified by the law, works, works of law. Your whole false religion and the sacramental efficacy of your synagogue is based partly on your obedience to the ” new law” but Paul says if you seek to be justified by law, ALL of it your under a curse and severed from Christ Gal. 3:10, 5:1-4. May God open your eyes to the gospel which is a free gift by faith alone in Christ alone Ephessians 2:8 , and may God save you from the idolatry of the bread god and the gospel of go out and do your part, and from a false religion in which you were raised, and may God save those beautiful children. God bless

Reply
Betty says:

December 24, 2023 at 11:35 am

Kevin, Satan is not behind the Catholic Church. Satan is behind the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which has led to the ridiculous division seen in Christianity. It’s all about me and my interpretation of Scripture. So Kevin, I asked you before and you refuse to answer. What do you think the heresy was that Peter warned us about?

2 PETER 3:16

as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. Therein are some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
St Augustine tells us the heresy was belief in Salvation by Faith alone! He wrote

“ As we have said above, this opinion originated in the time of the apostles, and that is why we find some of them, for example, Peter, John, James, and Jude, writing against it in their epistles and asserting very strongly that faith is no good without works. [….] We can see, then, why St. Peter in his second epistle urges the faithful to live good and holy lives, reminding them that this world will pass away and that they are to look for new heavens and a new earth which the just will inhabit, and that, consequently, they ought to live as as to be worthy of such a dwelling place. He was aware of the fact that certain unrighteous men had interpreted certain rather obscure passages of St. Paul to mean that they did not have to lead a good life, since they were assured of salvation as long as they had the faith. He warns them that, although there are certain passages in the epistles of St. Paul which are hard to understand – which passages some have misinterpreted, as they have other passages of Sacred Scripture, but to their own ruin – nevertheless, St. Paul has the same mind on the question of eternal salvation as have all the other apostles, namely, that eternal salvation will not be given except to those who lead a good life”

Kevin, we know Augustine believed Peter was concerned that the unstable and unlearned where misinterpreting Paul believing Paul was teaching salvation by Faith alone in his writings. What do you believe was the heresy that Peter was warning about?

Reply
Kevin says:

December 24, 2023 at 2:41 pm

Ephessians 2:8″ for by grace you have been saved by faith, it is NOT your own doing, it is a gift of God, NOT a result of works” Betty says Augustine said that eternal salvation will not be given except to those who lead a good life( as a reward i imagine) ” but Paul says salvation is given to faith APART from yourself or your doing. And its right there as clear as day in Ephessians 2:8. If Augustine meant that any part of salvation was a reward for your doing, as in the Roman Catholic church, then he was at odds with the Apostle Paul. But we know that Augustine isnt wasnt a Pharisee like Betty, because he said this on justification ” how was Abraham justified, what does the Apostle ( Paul) say? Abraham was justified by FAITH. Paul and James dont contradict each other, good works FOLLOW justification. ” In your synagogue Betty good works merit/ earn justification, and God knows you’re the pied piper for that system. Merry Christmas k

Reply
Betty says:

December 24, 2023 at 10:44 pm

Kevin , you never answered the question what heresy was Peter writing about when he warned his readers about misinterpreting Paul’s writings. Augustine obviously felt Peter was addressing the belief in salvation by Faith alone.
Kevin, the following article addresses this issue but also your hesitancy to admit Augustine sides with the Catholic Church on issues where we disagree with Protestants. I just find it fascinating that you continue to try and argue that Augustine was a Protestant. Merry Christmas and I look forward to continuing this discussion .

https://shamelesspopery.com/did-st-augustine-believe-in-salvation-by-faith-alone/

Reply
Kevin says:

December 25, 2023 at 6:25 am

Betty, it was Paul that came face to face with Peter Gal. 2 and confronted and rebuked him on his hypocrisy. Peter withdrew from the Gentiles and ate with the Jews who insisted on the yoke of the law being put on the gentiles. Paul drew the line in the sand on the purity of the gospel. The gentiles as all men are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, and no other yoke of the law. Our works are simply our resonable service of worship as Paul says. Peter was obviously misled but repented when confronted by Paul. I have confronted you numerous times on the false gospel of go out and do your part/ gracious merit, and you have not repented and believed the gospel of scripture, but instead you have defended your synagogue. Incidentally, you are now arguing on the very site whose author condemns the Roman Catholic church rightly as being from the power of the devil. Peter could not have meant what you inply to me because in Galatians Paul confronts him and Peter acknowledged Paul was right. Ephessians 2:8, Romans4:5 condemn your RC gospel. But you ignore scripture. Its Christmas day Betty, what better oppurtunity to repent of your works righteousness and bread god and believe the gospel of scripture Mark 1:15. K

Reply
Betty says:

January 25, 2024 at 9:25 am

So Kevin continues to refuse to answer my question as to what heresy was St Peter likely referring to when he warned of

2 PETER 3:16
“as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. Therein are some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Instead Kevin just makes my case writing

“Betty, it was Paul that came face to face with Peter Gal. 2 and confronted and rebuked him on his hypocrisy. Peter withdrew from the Gentiles and ate with the Jews who insisted on the yoke of the law being put on the gentiles. Paul drew the line in the sand on the purity of the gospel. The gentiles as all men are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, and no other yoke of the law. “

Kevin, Paul is quite clear that he was confronting Peter not over the “yoke” of the Ten Commandments but over the yoke of the dietary restrictions as imposed by the Law of Moses, just as you just admitted!!!!

Galatians 2

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

Kevin, Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentiles because they were not following Jewish dietary restrictions imposed by the Mosaic Law. And Paul writes “why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews”. Context Kevin, context!!! You obviously are aware of why Paul confronted Peter, but then you write

“Paul drew the line in the sand on the purity of the gospel. The gentiles as all men are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, and no other yoke of the law. “

Kevin, Paul never says in confronting Peter that we “are saved by Faith alone”. Let’s go over this again.

Galatians is quite clear with Paul citing three examples concerning the “yoke of the law” we are no longer under, One – Jewish dietary restrictions ! Two- Circumcision and Three- Observance of Jewish Holy Days. It’s the Mosaic Law we are no longer under Kevin.
Paul did not attack Peter because Peter was following the Ten Commandments or performing charitable acts , Concerning Circumcision Paul specifically writes
“5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing”
And
“4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”

Kevin, where do you see Paul writing a single verse stating that if we follow the commandments or perform charitable works “Christ shall profit you nothing”? In fact Paul goes on to write of the necessity of Love!

“Galatians 5
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Kevin, remember our discussion of the necessity of Love for salvation. Paul writes

“◄ 1 Corinthians 13:2 ►

New International Version
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing”

Paul goes on in Galatians 5 stressing our need to “Walk in the Spirit”, a WORK!!!

“15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.”

Now Kevin, what was the heresy that Peter was warning about that is leading the “unstable and unlearned….unto their own destruction”?

Reply
1. Kevin says:
  
  January 25, 2024 at 5:51 pm
  
  Betty, seek to understand Galatians 3:10, maybe then God will help you to understand the false system you are in, one that will certainly usher you into hell. I can do no more for you. You just dont understand the law and the gospel, you conflate them. When Paul speaks of the law hes talking about ALL of it. Its a whole. Sometimes he says works, sometimes law, sometimes works of law. Nothing we DO can justify us before God. You have an oppurtunity to repent of your perceived goodness and believe in the gospel Mark 1:15, otherwise you will perish. The rich young ruler and the men who came to Jesus in Mathew 7 were trying to get in on their goodness and righteousness, God said no. Ephessians 2:8, Romans 11:6 should shake you to a core and open your eyes to your false church and gospel of go out and do your part. Christ lived the law in my place, fulfilled all righteousness, and offers it to us as only a gift by faith alone in Christ alone. You cant earn or merit salvation, its a free gift Romans 6:23. K
  
  Reply
Kevin says:

January 26, 2024 at 8:27 am

Betty, in adressing 2 Peter 3:16 specifically you would do well to learn. Peter certainly is warning those who wrest and twist the scriptures in the things Paul teaches. He says they are unlearned men. At the time of the reformation it was widely known that Roman Catholic priests were ignorant of scripture, ( as they are today since Satan’s minions cannot receive the truth), as many didnt even know the ten comandments. The RCC was were superstition was rampant and ignorance and disunity was immense. Hence the Reformation where all confessions were unified in truth, ex. WCF, Belgic, London Baptist etc. But the time of the Reformation wasnt the only time thru history that Rome perverted the scriptures and was it utter ignorance. It goes back to the early church as Tim has shown with early bishops such as Steven etc. So its interesting that you bring up 3:16 since your synagogue is the poster child of unleaned men wrest the scriptures. The irony is Paul wrote the book of Galatians to those who were undermining justification by faith alone in Christ alone. You continue to say he was adressing dietary law, but you cant be right since he was adressing jbfa as the topic and was saying the entirity of the mosaic law including the 10 comandments are excluded from justification before God. Your failure to understand that Galatians 3:10 is about the MORAL law since it references Deuteronmy specifically where its talking about the moral law. It is your church that has a system contrary to Paul and contrary to Galatians 3:10. Tim showed you along time ago that Romans 3 says ” now APART from the law” a man is justified by belief. Did you get that Betty, apart from all law. Yes true Christians obey God’s law, but not to earn God’s salvation in any way, it comes as a gift by faith alone in Christ. Now you are ba system totally contradictory tothe bible in which the gospel is the enablement to merit and earn salvation thru your obedience. Iow, Jesus is a softer Moses who only requires love and heartfelt surrender to be saved. But Rome failed to realize that Christ lived the law in my place and fulfilled all righteousness. He gives his righteousness to me by imputation at the moment i believe. Anyone trusting in their obedience to earn salvation, even partialy, is severed from Christ Galatians 5: 1-4. K

Reply

Out of His Mouth