LoveofTruth
Christ builds His church from within us
Hi LoveofTruth, it appears you have not understood what all has been said. The tares grow up with the wheat, which you are, and therefore they are mixed already and must be purged, (and that is by fire).
Hello daq,
he tares and wheat are very different and the tares only will be "GATHERED" apart from the Wheat and thrown into the fire
Matthew 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
The tares are burned, and the wheat are not, they are gathered into the barn. This one verse shatters all talk of believers going into the lake of fire only the lost damned souls go there for ever and ever, eternally, never to have the fire quenched or their worm to die, tormented etc
As already said: goats and tares are essentially the same analogy, Esau was "hairy" or "shaggy" which is HSN#8163 "sa`iyr"-devil-goat-satyr in Genesis 27:11, (see also the symbolic usages of the same word in Leviticus 16:10, Leviticus 17:7, Isaiah 34:14, and Daniel 8:21).
When I spoke of devil or fallen angels and humans being together I was speaking of the lake of fire for those who were lost and the fallen angels, and the devils of hell as well. And the dividing of the sheep and the goats shows also that no believer will go through the lake of fire
"32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:"( Matthew 25:32-34)
One must ignore the overall context of the Acts 10 passage to respond in the way in which you have responded. The vision has nothing to do with eating physical food but rather testimony, and that is, Jews receiving the testimony of Gentiles which was until that time forbidden among the Jews. Peter is told to "Rise, kill, and eat" and this has nothing to do with physical food as Peter later comes to understand. It has to do with Cornelius and his household whom God explains to Peter have already been cleansed.
I also in my response said,
"God also used this to show that he can eat with Gentiles and that the Gentiles are also part of the salvation"
I am very careful with my words, its not so easy to try and twist what I say.
And yes it did have something to do with eating unclean animals as well. God told peter to eat these things and Peter said not so Lord. Peter was still struggling with the law and the clean and unclean animals, and that he should not eat with gentiles and that the gentiles were lost etc . Yes God was showing peter that He does save gentiles. But he also was showing peter other things as well.
You therefore left out large portions of the "Gospel of Paul" when you wrote at the top of one of your previous posts which I have quoted again herein for reference, where you said, "and the Gospel is". Who therefore is preaching a "different Gospel" if you left out critical portions from even Paul himself, such as Ephesians 2:11-19, where Paul clearly states that Yeshua has broken down the middle wall of partitioning and made a way for the Gentiles to enter into covenant relationship with God at Golgotha? at the cross of Messiah?
No I left out nothing, Paul clearly defines the gospel he preached in 1 Cor 15, no question about that. he preached that Gospel to Jews and gentiles. So clearly in the fact that he preached to gentiles this showed that Jews and gentiles can be saved and that the gospel s for them. Paul in his other letters defines all sorts of aspects of Gods work and teaches many things for the body. But the initial gospel of salvation is stated as clear as it can be in 1 Cor 15. To add more to that gospel is not what Paul is doing. Some will try with this kind of thinking you are presenting to add all things Paul spoke of, such as election , predestination, the rapture, the discussion of the law done away and sabbaths etc . But this is not the gospel , these are aspects of our faith and walk and understanding of Gods revelation to men. Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." (John 12:24). This dying and rising again is the gospel in type. Abraham the father giving His son to die and Knowing God was able to raise him up from the dead (Hebrews 11) was the gospel in type. Men looking to Gods righteousness and hungering and thirsting after it and when they believe this the Seed of God in them goes into their heart and rises up is the gospel in reality in their hearts, the power of the gospel, the hope of the gospel. But these are deep aspects and too much to get into here, maybe another thread.
...
12. Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Since it was done three times we may not be given the exact words which were spoken every time, or the same thing may have been stated all three times, we simply do not know: but we do know the interpretation of what Peter learned by what he says to Cornelius and his household. It is therefore undeniable that the passage I referenced previously to you is indeed part of the interpretation of the dream-vision which Peter received; and by the mouth of Peter himself Luke gives us this portion of the interpretation:
This first part is no doubt speaking about literal food AS WELL as a spiritual aspect towards gentiles. slay and eat is literal food. And Peter called the food common and unclean. God said not to say this anymore. This first part can also be used today towards those who forbidd to eat certain meat and other things. Paul said nothing is to be refused and we can eat all things. This shows peter also that the law was changed, and the clean and unclean animals are no more. Yes now God also was referring to the gentile and eating with them their food and that they can be saved and cleansed. Which Cornelius was already cleansed, he was like an OT saint.
28. And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation;
Peter goes over the law (NOT THE MOSAIC LAW) but this law was a Halakah law or oral tradition, and many of Peters day among the Jews were struggling with the law and traditions.
but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
29. Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
This is the statement from the dream-vision:
"What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."
This is the interpretation by the mouth of Peter himself:
"God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
When and where therefore were Cornelius and his household cleansed?
As far as "unclean" have you not read in the New Testament?,
It is interesting that you did not comment on the verses I gave you about unclean people and simply ignored the verses I will post them here again for you
"1 Corinthians 7:14 >>
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. "
And another correction to your thinking is this verse,
"Ephesians 5:5 >>
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."
Now this is your error in this whole talk. You quote Peter saying, ""God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.". But you forget God's actual words to peter here in this teaching you are trying to show. God said, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."( Acts 10:15 KJV). Notice ONLY what God hath cleansed is clan, not what God has NOT cleansed. If you take the expression that God has cleansed all gentiles as Cornelius, then as you wrongly do you would say that all gentiles are saved. But this was not the case. Cornelius had been saved as OT saints were and God saw his prayers and works of faith and guided peter to Him to show him more fully what he must know and believe, and in doing so He had the fulness and baptism with the Holy Ghost given in the name of Jesus.
But God cleansed Cornelius and that is why he was not unclean. Peter realized that gentiles can be saved and come into the covenant. But this does not mean all Gentiles are saved or clean. If this was the case then paul, (speaking by the Spirit) would have been in error when he said,
""Ephesians 5:5 >>
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."
2 Corinthians 12:21
And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.
Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
1 Thessalonians 4:7
For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.
So clearly people can be called "unclean" if they are not saved and walk in such uncleaness. Such people have not been clean by God . But Corneli us was cleansed by God and God was also showing that all gentiles can come to God for salvation. Peter by no means after this revelation was saying that all gentiles and all men are now clean. he said this in the same context, of Acts 10
"34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34 KJV)
Clearly there is conditions here. If men do not fear God and work righteousness they will not be accepted with Him. And to work righteousness all men must be in faith, For God works in us to will and to do. The righteousness peter speaks of here is not self righteousness. This is the righteousness of of man that has fear of God and has repented and trusted in Gods righteousness even as Abraham did and others. John tells us that those who work righteousness this way are born of God,
"29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." (1 John 2:29)
But with your argument ,this is part of your error to take verses out of the biblical context and try to twist them to mean something else.
So to sum up this point. Cornelius, was cleansed by God being in the righteousness of faith and needed to know the salvation offered by Christ as all do, and having known this to be baptized with the Holy Ghost. This is Gods plan for all men.
1. Peter would not eat with gentiles following oral traditions of the Jewish law
2. God gave a vision to eat unclean and common animals that peter had never eaten.
3. God was showing Peter many things with this vision. Such as the law was changed all animals can be eaten, nothing o food is unclean of itself as Paul also wrote.
4. God was also showing Peter that the gentiles can be saved. In particular Cornelius who God has cleaned already.
5. Peter then realized that in every nation (Gentile nations as well) he that fears God and works righteousness will be excepted. But those who do not fear God and work unrighteousness will not be accepted.
6. Cornelius was accepted by God even before peter saw him and after.
7. Peter was not to be rash or quick to call men unclean who God cleansed. But Paul called men ( as he spoke the word of God ) unclean. This is because not all men are clean. Only those who God cleanses. If God has not cleansed them then they are unclean. As we see in other scriptures
This whole section shows how some universalist and others take parts of scripture and twist them to try and fit their views, but we must not do such things.
People can also be unclean when they have an unclean spirit in them it would seem, ""And they that were vexed with unclean spirits:..."(Luke 16:18 KJV)
"
Here is another critical portion of the "Gospel of Paul" you did not mention:
2 Corinthians 5:14 ASV
14. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died;
2 Corinthians 5:14 RSV
14. For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.
2 Corinthians 5:14 NJB
14. For the love of Christ overwhelms us when we consider that if one man died for all, then all have died;
2 Corinthians 5:14 YLT (Young's Literal Bible Translation)
14. for the love of the Christ doth constrain us, having judged thus: that if one for all died, then the whole died,
And now the love of Messiah compels us; having thus judged, that if one died for all, then surely all died in that Great Day of Atonement at Golgotha: for if the light of every man was slain, then every man likewise died; yea, even every living soul in the sea died . . .
Paul did say Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor 15:3) This "our" sins covers all men Jews and Gentiles" and the wages of sin is death. Paul would use the law to lead men to Christ by using the law to show sin, but preaching repentance from sin and exposing men in death, then telling men to believe the gospel are different things. Yes, all are dead in trespasses and sins, and all who are not born again are spiritually dead. But this is not the gospel. To preach repentance from sin exposed that all men are dead in sin is the preaching of repentacne. Then when men see that are all dead and in need of salvation and life ( Christ) they can come to Christ to have life. Only then are they alive and born again and only then are they no longer dead. This happens when they believe the gospel that Christ died for their sins and rose again.
"12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." (Romans 5:12-15 KJV)
So because of sin all are dead. Paul would preach the law to expose the sin. and preach repentance from sin, then the gospel. But men must repent and believe the gospel to be saved, as it is written. Repentance preaching is not the gospel. So as you can see Paul was right and so am I as I agree with him that the gospel is exactly what he said it was in 1 Cor 15. And you and anyone else who adds to that gospel is wrong. I am not talking about other teachings in Christ and understandings of Gods work etc. But the saving gospel is clear
"15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."(2 Corinthians 5:15 KJV)
Notice that only those who "LIVE" are the ones who are saved and alive. If they are not in "life" then they are in "death" and will go to the lake of fire. Death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, and so if men die in their sins they die in death and death and hell shall be cast into the lake of fire.
Also when Paul says that one died for all then all were dead . It's a comment on the gospel as well, it's like a man saying if Christ died for me THEN I needed him to because I couldn't do it myself I must be dead myself and incapable of dying for myself.
Last edited:
Upvote
0