Baptism is a work.

[Oneofhope]

Yes, I see how this approach is prudent. Not knowing the chronological order in which the NT was written, did this passage take place before or after Acts 10? That is the chapter where I read about St Peter's conversion to the allowance of Gentiles not being required to follow Levitical law.

I appreciate your patience and your willingness to add to my understanding of the larger picture of the Apostles' early days in church building,

I know how St Peter was mistaken at one point in time about the inclusion of Gentiles who were not required to get physically circumcised nor follow Jewish dietary laws. What I wonder like I said was this passage in the letter to the Galatians written before or after the passage of Acts 10th chapter.

Though I am pro St Peter being a Catholic, I acknowledge that my grasp of the New Testament (and old if I'm honest) is limited. I am open to education an instruction on these topics as long as it is a theology based on scripture.

One thing I am ignorant about is the order in which the books of the New Testament were written. Do you have a link to that information or should I just "google" it?

I appreciate your patience.

Wow! I like your attitude! You are the exact kind of person that I can communicate and learn with. Thank you for your humility!

Ok. So, Peter in Acts 10 is day 323 of the timeline, chronological reading plan. Galatians 2, however, is just Day 328. How about that! So, you are very wise to think about the timing of these two events. The fact that your brain even works that way is not only wise, but exceedingly rare.

So, as we approach Day 328, it is fresh in our minds that Peter had just received the most incredible and indelible visions that certainly, would change the remainder of his life. No one can undergo a genuine vision of God and not have it leave an impact. So while the Gal 2 Scripture appears to be dealing with specific foods, it more has to do with the Law of Moses. Paul wasn't just talking about eating with the Gentiles, but the larger context is the Law of Moses. Peter KNEW that the law was abandoned, which is why he himself was eating whatever he liked (as indicated in Gal 2). More than anything, though, Galatians 2 is about circumcision. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that if a person were to eat pork, they must be cut off from the Family of Abraham. However, Genesis 17 tells us that if a person refuses circumcision, they ARE to be cut off from the Family.

Therefore, circumcision is vastly more important and critical than the idea of eating certain foods. Eating food is one thing, but to refuse physical circumcision equates to refusing the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ. Water baptism is viewed much the same, whereas if a person were to refuse water baptism, this would indicate that they were not genuinely interested in the Life of Christ and learning to emulate Him and none other.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/assets/pdf/dbrp/1Yr_ChronologicalPlan.pdf

The above link takes "you" to a timeline, chronological reading plan for the entire year. It is awesome! I actually lead a small group of folks through the entire Bible in this way, sending out the audio recordings of each Day as well as a small "article" that deals with the most important concepts expressed in each "Day."

Again, I cannot stress enough how critical it is to learn the entire Bible in this format. But once you read through the entire Bible in this format, I guarantee that you will be encouraging others to do the same thing. Moreover, you will likely be irritated that your priests and teachers aren't pushing this idea upon you all. There are, however, reasons for keeping us "sheep" as "sheeple." Keeping us dumb is beneficial for a false system of Faith. If the "church," and I mean any church would teach the truth, it would harm business. Most people wouldn't want to attend.

Anyway, I could write for a week. Much respect to you, and may your evening be amazing!

 

[Strong in Him]

Ok. So, Peter in Acts 10 is day 323 of the timeline, chronological reading plan. Galatians 2, however, is just Day 328. How about that! So, you are very wise to think about the timing of these two events. The fact that your brain even works that way is not only wise, but exceedingly rare.

This looks like a good reading plan, but the fact is that there is some debate over when various books were written.
For example, some scholars think that Galatians 2 was written before the Council of Jerusalem (widely believed to have been held in 49 AD). And Galatians 2 refers to a different council - the one described in Acts 11. (Source New Bible Commentary, IVP)

Another problem is that some of the events had happened long before they were written down.
For example, during his ministry, Jesus spoke to, and healed, Gentiles. This was probably some time in the 30s. The disciples were surprised when they saw him talking to the Samaritan woman in John 4, for example. He healed 10 lepers, and the one who thanked him was a Samaritan, Luke 17. He also healed a Syrophoenician woman. The disciples were also told to bear witness to Jesus in Jerusalem, Samaria and the ends of the world. Jesus said this before his ascension, before Pentecost and before the 12 went out to preach the Gospel.
So it seems strange that in Acts 10 Peter seemed horrified at the idea of associating with Gentiles, when he had seen Jesus doing the opposite.

Therefore, circumcision is vastly more important and critical than the idea of eating certain foods. Eating food is one thing, but to refuse physical circumcision equates to refusing the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ.

No it doesn't.
Gentiles were not circumcised unless they wanted to convert to the Jewish faith - and circumcision completely excludes women.

Water baptism is viewed much the same, whereas if a person were to refuse water baptism, this would indicate that they were not genuinely interested in the Life of Christ and learning to emulate Him and none other.

Not necessarily.
These days, many are baptised as babies - and they get no say in the matter. I was baptised by immersion as an adult. Many Christians weren't; their baptism as a baby was sufficient.

If you want to draw a parallel with circumcision; Jewish boys are circumcised at 8 days, whether they want to be or not. There is no declaration of faith, or assent.

Moreover, you will likely be irritated that your priests and teachers aren't pushing this idea upon you all.

A wise Minister/teacher will not "push an idea" upon anyone.
They may highly recommend something, but that by no means makes it compulsory.

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm not saying this just to argue with you, by the way.
Commentaries sometimes indicate that there are differing views on when certain books were written. It may not have been the case that Acts 10 was written before Galatians 2.

 

[Guojing]

Another problem is that some of the events had happened long before they were written down.
For example, during his ministry, Jesus spoke to, and healed, Gentiles. This was probably some time in the 30s. The disciples were surprised when they saw him talking to the Samaritan woman in John 4, for example. He healed 10 lepers, and the one who thanked him was a Samaritan, Luke 17. He also healed a Syrophoenician woman. The disciples were also told to bear witness to Jesus in Jerusalem, Samaria and the ends of the world. Jesus said this before his ascension, before Pentecost and before the 12 went out to preach the Gospel.
So it seems strange that in Acts 10 Peter seemed horrified at the idea of associating with Gentiles, when he had seen Jesus doing the opposite.

Samaritans are considered half Jews, so they are not gentiles in a strict sense.

Jesus only spoke to 2 gentiles in the gospel accounts and both of them got their healing request, thru blessing the nation of Israel.

Once you realized that, Peter's response in Acts 10 was not strange at all.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I see, so what do you think Rev 14 is saying then?

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Once you understand the mark of the beast, you will understand why Jesus said he who endures to the end shall be saved, and why the little flock sold all their possessions and shared everything they had (Luke 12:33, Acts 4:32)

Biblically the idea of a mark/seal indicates a belonging to. The Israelites were commanded to have God's Law on their forehead and right hand (this evolved into the tradition of teffilin in Judaism). In the Apocalypse there are two kinds of marks or seals, one which marked a person as belonging to the beast, and one which marked one as belonging to Christ. It is impossible to worship both Christ and Caesar, there is room for only one lord. Either Christ is Lord or Caesar is. The beast being, specifically, a reference to Nero whose name is numerically 666; but the broader ramifications is that this is Roman imperial power. Nero had died from a fatal wound to the head, but was "revived" beginning with Domitian, who was emperor when John wrote the Revelation.

If one denies Christ, recants their faith, and submits to the beast, then that's a problem. And it was a problem, historically. Persecution produced many martyrs, it also produced those who turned away from Christ. The most significant example of this happened during the Diocletian persecution, the bloodiest and most horrific of the ancient persecutions. Eusebius tells us that many of the bishops who would go on to attend the Council of Nicea bore in their bodies the marks of martyrdom--bodily scars, missing limbs, missing eyes, etc. They had been tortured for the sake of Christ, but refused to recant. At the same time, there were those who did fall, the Traditors as they were called. It was such a significant problem that questions arose on what to do with those who had betrayed the faith but now wished to return. Resulting in the Donatist Controversy, and the condemnation of Donatism as heresy. The Church has insisted that God's grace means that even those who fell and betrayed Christ, who handed over sacred books to the fire, who sold out their brothers and sisters, who under threat of torture cursed the name of Jesus and offered incense to Caesar's image could return.

The Gospel means that God forgives sinners, even the worst of sinners. Repentance is available, it is there, that we should fall prostrate before the Throne of Grace, where God in His mercy heals us, saves us, forgives us for Christ's sake. The Parable of the Prodigal Son tells us what God is like. Now, to fall and become apostate and to abandon Christ is spiritual suicide, there is--says St. John--sin that leads unto death. But "if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." There is nobody outside of God's mercy, there is no one whom the love of God cannot call, and then find rest in Christ. The worst sinner still can find redemption in grace.

The Gospel is the Gospel.
It will always be the Gospel.
It will never not be the Gospel.
There is only one Gospel.

It is the power of God to save all who believe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Oneofhope]

I'm not saying this just to argue with you, by the way.
Commentaries sometimes indicate that there are differing views on when certain books were written. It may not have been the case that Acts 10 was written before Galatians 2.

But you [are] arguing. In fact, you don't understand what a timeline, chronological reading plan is, thus enforcing the idea that you [are] just being argumentative and divisive. Please stop speaking with authority when it comes to the Bible.

 

[Strong in Him]

In fact, you don't understand what a timeline, chronological reading plan is,

Yes, I do.
All I was saying was that the events in the Bible did not happen in the order in which they are written in the Bible; some of them were written down some years after other things had happened. Reading through the NT, for example, it is obvious that Jesus' life and ministry comes before the events and teachings of the early church. But they were written down later. The earliest account that we have of the Lord's Supper is 1 Corinthians 11. But if you are reading the NT, you would have read 3 accounts by the time you get to 1 Corinthians.

I also said that some scholars believe that Galatians 2 was written before Acts 10, thus reversing the order in the timeline that you posted. Now you can dispute that if you like, but it's what the IVP New Bible Commentary says - I even quoted my source for you.

thus enforcing the idea that you [are] just being argumentative and divisive.

I'm sorry that - as you can't judge my tone from the written word, and have no idea what I was thinking - you have rushed to make the judgement that I am being argumentative.
In fact, I was just reflecting as I was writing.
Maybe that wasn't very wise and I should have worked out what I wanted to say before writing it - but it's a very different motive to that of arguing and wanting to cause division.

I might disagree with some/much of what you write, but if you post something interesting I am capable of saying so - and did.
Re the discussion on question, I was interested to see if commentators did in fact teach that Galatians was written after Acts - and found that some do, and some don't.

And I have just as much right to write about the Bible as you have.

 

[Strong in Him]

Samaritans are considered half Jews, so they are not gentiles in a strict sense.

But they were enemies of the Jews. The 2 groups did not associate with one another.
It's possible that the Jews, or some of them anyway, considered them to be Gentiles.

 

[Dan Perez]

Wow! I like your attitude! You are the exact kind of person that I can communicate and learn with. Thank you for your humility!

Ok. So, Peter in Acts 10 is day 323 of the timeline, chronological reading plan. Galatians 2, however, is just Day 328. How about that! So, you are very wise to think about the timing of these two events. The fact that your brain even works that way is not only wise, but exceedingly rare.

So, as we approach Day 328, it is fresh in our minds that Peter had just received the most incredible and indelible visions that certainly, would change the remainder of his life. No one can undergo a genuine vision of God and not have it leave an impact. So while the Gal 2 Scripture appears to be dealing with specific foods, it more has to do with the Law of Moses. Paul wasn't just talking about eating with the Gentiles, but the larger context is the Law of Moses. Peter KNEW that the law was abandoned, which is why he himself was eating whatever he liked (as indicated in Gal 2). More than anything, though, Galatians 2 is about circumcision. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that if a person were to eat pork, they must be cut off from the Family of Abraham. However, Genesis 17 tells us that if a person refuses circumcision, they ARE to be cut off from the Family.

Therefore, circumcision is vastly more important and critical than the idea of eating certain foods. Eating food is one thing, but to refuse physical circumcision equates to refusing the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ. Water baptism is viewed much the same, whereas if a person were to refuse water baptism, this would indicate that they were not genuinely interested in the Life of Christ and learning to emulate Him and none other.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/assets/pdf/dbrp/1Yr_ChronologicalPlan.pdf

The above link takes "you" to a timeline, chronological reading plan for the entire year. It is awesome! I actually lead a small group of folks through the entire Bible in this way, sending out the audio recordings of each Day as well as a small "article" that deals with the most important concepts expressed in each "Day."

Again, I cannot stress enough how critical it is to learn the entire Bible in this format. But once you read through the entire Bible in this format, I guarantee that you will be encouraging others to do the same thing. Moreover, you will likely be irritated that your priests and teachers aren't pushing this idea upon you all. There are, however, reasons for keeping us "sheep" as "sheeple." Keeping us dumb is beneficial for a false system of Faith. If the "church," and I mean any church would teach the truth, it would harm business. Most people wouldn't want to attend.

Anyway, I could write for a week. Much respect to you, and may your evening be amazing!

Here is my answer as to what Peter believed ,

#1 Paul says that Peter is a JEW in Gal 2:14 !!

#2 Paul accuses Peter of HYPOCRISY in Gal 2:13 .

#3 Since he is a Jew , WAS living like a GENTILE , since you , being a Jew , live like the Gentiles ,

why do you COMPEL the Gentiles to ADOPT Jewish CUSTOMS and RITES

Peter was a Hypocrite and trying UNDERMINE the FAITH of those saved by GRACE .and verse 17 and 18 are very telling as to his HYPOCRISY .

dan p

 

[rturner76]

Wow! I like your attitude! You are the exact kind of person that I can communicate and learn with. Thank you for your humility!

Ok. So, Peter in Acts 10 is day 323 of the timeline, chronological reading plan. Galatians 2, however, is just Day 328. How about that! So, you are very wise to think about the timing of these two events. The fact that your brain even works that way is not only wise, but exceedingly rare.

So, as we approach Day 328, it is fresh in our minds that Peter had just received the most incredible and indelible visions that certainly, would change the remainder of his life. No one can undergo a genuine vision of God and not have it leave an impact. So while the Gal 2 Scripture appears to be dealing with specific foods, it more has to do with the Law of Moses. Paul wasn't just talking about eating with the Gentiles, but the larger context is the Law of Moses. Peter KNEW that the law was abandoned, which is why he himself was eating whatever he liked (as indicated in Gal 2). More than anything, though, Galatians 2 is about circumcision. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that if a person were to eat pork, they must be cut off from the Family of Abraham. However, Genesis 17 tells us that if a person refuses circumcision, they ARE to be cut off from the Family.

Therefore, circumcision is vastly more important and critical than the idea of eating certain foods. Eating food is one thing, but to refuse physical circumcision equates to refusing the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ. Water baptism is viewed much the same, whereas if a person were to refuse water baptism, this would indicate that they were not genuinely interested in the Life of Christ and learning to emulate Him and none other.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/assets/pdf/dbrp/1Yr_ChronologicalPlan.pdf

The above link takes "you" to a timeline, chronological reading plan for the entire year. It is awesome! I actually lead a small group of folks through the entire Bible in this way, sending out the audio recordings of each Day as well as a small "article" that deals with the most important concepts expressed in each "Day."

Again, I cannot stress enough how critical it is to learn the entire Bible in this format. But once you read through the entire Bible in this format, I guarantee that you will be encouraging others to do the same thing. Moreover, you will likely be irritated that your priests and teachers aren't pushing this idea upon you all. There are, however, reasons for keeping us "sheep" as "sheeple." Keeping us dumb is beneficial for a false system of Faith. If the "church," and I mean any church would teach the truth, it would harm business. Most people wouldn't want to attend.

Anyway, I could write for a week. Much respect to you, and may your evening be amazing!

Thank you, and while I still lean on my Church's interpretation of the New Testament, I am always willing to take a lesson on Biblical interpretation from someone who has read, compared, and contrasted, more of the Bible than me. I think sometime people (including me) get caught up in supporting the "right" team. We can (or I can) sometimes be more concerned that "my Church's) interpretation be defended but there is a place where the plain reading of scripture is more important than what one has been taught about scripture. I will certainly check out the link you so graciously provided and ponder the truth of the written word.

I will still in my heart remain one of the Catholic faithful. Communion has always been the sacrament that even to this day gives me a sort of "high" and in the Church of Rome, it is available every day of the week. Still, I will use my own mind to wonder these truths about St Peter and no just put him on a pedestal because he founded the Church of Rome but accept that he (as all of the Apostles) has his own weakness and was not born a perfect man. The only man who was born and remained perfect was our savior Jesus Christ.

As a side note (not exactly on topic) do you believe that all baptized Christians are saved or like some people do you believe that the Catholic Church is false and not available for salvation? Personally, I believe that all who are baptized are saved from damnation. I have heard some "faith alone" believers (on this forum in particular) express the belief that the Pope is anti-Christ and his followers will be damned. I can see that you are a well-educated Christian so I respect your opinion. What do you think? I do understand if you don't want to indulge me in taking a detour off topic for this question but I thought I would ask.

 

[Oneofhope]

Here is my answer as to what Peter believed ,

#1 Paul says that Peter is a JEW in Gal 2:14 !!

#2 Paul accuses Peter of HYPOCRISY in Gal 2:13 .

#3 Since he is a Jew , WAS living like a GENTILE , since you , being a Jew , live like the Gentiles ,

why do you COMPEL the Gentiles to ADOPT Jewish CUSTOMS and RITES

Peter was a Hypocrite and trying UNDERMINE the FAITH of those saved by GRACE .and verse 17 and 18 are very telling as to his HYPOCRISY .

dan p

Indeed. Its pretty clear.

 

[Oneofhope]

Thank you, and while I still lean on my Church's interpretation of the New Testament, I am always willing to take a lesson on Biblical interpretation from someone who has read, compared, and contrasted, more of the Bible than me. I think sometime people (including me) get caught up in supporting the "right" team. We can (or I can) sometimes be more concerned that "my Church's) interpretation be defended but there is a place where the plain reading of scripture is more important than what one has been taught about scripture. I will certainly check out the link you so graciously provided and ponder the truth of the written word.

I will still in my heart remain one of the Catholic faithful. Communion has always been the sacrament that even to this day gives me a sort of "high" and in the Church of Rome, it is available every day of the week. Still, I will use my own mind to wonder these truths about St Peter and no just put him on a pedestal because he founded the Church of Rome but accept that he (as all of the Apostles) has his own weakness and was not born a perfect man. The only man who was born and remained perfect was our savior Jesus Christ.

As a side note (not exactly on topic) do you believe that all baptized Christians are saved or like some people do you believe that the Catholic Church is false and not available for salvation? Personally, I believe that all who are baptized are saved from damnation. I have heard some "faith alone" believers (on this forum in particular) express the belief that the Pope is anti-Christ and his followers will be damned. I can see that you are a well-educated Christian so I respect your opinion. What do you think? I do understand if you don't want to indulge me in taking a detour off topic for this question but I thought I would ask.

Great post. Thank you for sharing your ideas. I appreciate it.

"do you believe that all baptized Christians are saved" - No. And I base this upon the evidence of my own life. First, there was never a Holy Romans 12:2 Transformation in my life. That's a problem! I always believed I was a true Christian. In fact, I was in my mother's womb and going to church. I have always believed in the Jesus that was presented to me by preachers and teachers, be they live or through some form of media. It wasn't until I physically experienced the Circumcision of Christ and the engulfing Holy Spirit that I realized I was still under the Adamic Curse. For the first 49 years of my life, all I knew was what it was like to have the Sinful Nature. It was my "Normal." So, as I wondered if I was ever going to Transform into a new person so that I would change my behavior and even the way I perceived the world (I was very unhappy in life), it finally happened.

During my incredibly Powerful engulfing of the Lord took place, I was released from the captivity of the Devil. In a matter of moments I was from possessing the Sinful Nature to being given the Divine Nature. At this moment I became the property of Christ, released from the Devil, and brought into the captivity of God. It was this day that I lost control over my life. My life was no longer my own. Little did I know that God had and still has a Plan for my life, as well as all our lives and that there was nothing I could do to stop it. I can no more change the Plan of God than anyone else. And so I finally began to Transform after those decades of wondering if it would ever happen. Slowly, I changed as much as I humanly could, but in other areas, God has had to be in control and take me through some difficult times. These moments of difficult were moments of training. Yes, I suffered mightily, but I can look back and recognize that there was never a need or reason for me to react the way that I had been.

Though I thought I was "saved," my behavior was horrific . . . my former life describes an evil person, not a Holy, Righteous, and Pure person. Even though I fit the Biblical definition of a child of the Devil, there's no way those definitions applied to me! There's no way that I am not a true Christian! But I was deceived, yet I didn't know it until that Spiritual experience. That made so many things extremely obvious.

Do I believe the Catholic church is false? Yep, just like every other church out there. I've yet to see or hear of a single church that understands the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ. Any system that does not understand the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ is preaching and teaching a partial Gospel. When Spiritual Circumcision is removed from the Gospel, the Work and Effect of Christ are no longer needed nor expected because they are not taught. Who can expect something they are unaware of? Removing the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ from today's church "system" has turned our Faith into a circus.

Is salvation available through Catholicism? Well, we can attend your services, but if you were to study your own Catholic Bible, I would show you a completely different Gospel than the one you've been falsely given. You sound very reasonable and in fact, you may have already had your eyes and ears open so that you could see and hear Spiritual things. But yes, the Gospel, AKA the Story of God is absolutely within the Catholic Bible. In fact, I have checked and the Catholics have not made any attempts to hide the doctrine of Spiritual Circumcision from their Bibles. It's all there, but it is God who has kept the Mysterious Plan of His a hidden secret. I cannot be seen, recognized, or understood unless it has been pointed out . . . which happens to be my role in the Body of Christ.

The Pope. I don't know much about that anymore. I used to have thoughts and ideas about Catholicism, but these titles don't mean anything to me anymore. All teachings are the same to me in that they all dance around the Core teachings of the Bible. It's boring. There is no depth in teaching. I listen to the teaching and struggle because it is obvious that they do not understand the messages being given. So, my objective is to keep trying to learn all that God wants me to learn from His Story. My objective is not to be right for my own sake, but to be right for the sake of our Powerful, Almighty God.

 

[Guojing]

Now, to fall and become apostate and to abandon Christ is spiritual suicide, there is--says St. John--sin that leads unto death. But "if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." There is nobody outside of God's mercy, there is no one whom the love of God cannot call, and then find rest in Christ. The worst sinner still can find redemption in grace.

-CryptoLutheran

To confirm, from this paragraph, you believe one can take the mark of the beast, and if he asked God later to forgive him for doing that, he can still be righteous later?

 

[Guojing]

But they were enemies of the Jews. The 2 groups did not associate with one another.
It's possible that the Jews, or some of them anyway, considered them to be Gentiles.

So, you also believed that Peter was being stubborn at Acts 10?

As in you believed Jesus made it clear that Peter was to preach to gentiles simultaneously with Israel but he was very reluctant to do that?

 

[rturner76]

Great post. Thank you for sharing your ideas. I appreciate it.

"do you believe that all baptized Christians are saved" - No. And I base this upon the evidence of my own life. First, there was never a Holy Romans 12:2 Transformation in my life. That's a problem! I always believed I was a true Christian. In fact, I was in my mother's womb and going to church. I have always believed in the Jesus that was presented to me by preachers and teachers, be they live or through some form of media. It wasn't until I physically experienced the Circumcision of Christ and the engulfing Holy Spirit that I realized I was still under the Adamic Curse. For the first 49 years of my life, all I knew was what it was like to have the Sinful Nature. It was my "Normal." So, as I wondered if I was ever going to Transform into a new person so that I would change my behavior and even the way I perceived the world (I was very unhappy in life), it finally happened.

During my incredibly Powerful engulfing of the Lord took place, I was released from the captivity of the Devil. In a matter of moments I was from possessing the Sinful Nature to being given the Divine Nature. At this moment I became the property of Christ, released from the Devil, and brought into the captivity of God. It was this day that I lost control over my life. My life was no longer my own. Little did I know that God had and still has a Plan for my life, as well as all our lives and that there was nothing I could do to stop it. I can no more change the Plan of God than anyone else. And so I finally began to Transform after those decades of wondering if it would ever happen. Slowly, I changed as much as I humanly could, but in other areas, God has had to be in control and take me through some difficult times. These moments of difficult were moments of training. Yes, I suffered mightily, but I can look back and recognize that there was never a need or reason for me to react the way that I had been.

Though I thought I was "saved," my behavior was horrific . . . my former life describes an evil person, not a Holy, Righteous, and Pure person. Even though I fit the Biblical definition of a child of the Devil, there's no way those definitions applied to me! There's no way that I am not a true Christian! But I was deceived, yet I didn't know it until that Spiritual experience. That made so many things extremely obvious.

Do I believe the Catholic church is false? Yep, just like every other church out there. I've yet to see or hear of a single church that understands the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ. Any system that does not understand the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ is preaching and teaching a partial Gospel. When Spiritual Circumcision is removed from the Gospel, the Work and Effect of Christ are no longer needed nor expected because they are not taught. Who can expect something they are unaware of? Removing the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ from today's church "system" has turned our Faith into a circus.

Is salvation available through Catholicism? Well, we can attend your services, but if you were to study your own Catholic Bible, I would show you a completely different Gospel than the one you've been falsely given. You sound very reasonable and in fact, you may have already had your eyes and ears open so that you could see and hear Spiritual things. But yes, the Gospel, AKA the Story of God is absolutely within the Catholic Bible. In fact, I have checked and the Catholics have not made any attempts to hide the doctrine of Spiritual Circumcision from their Bibles. It's all there, but it is God who has kept the Mysterious Plan of His a hidden secret. I cannot be seen, recognized, or understood unless it has been pointed out . . . which happens to be my role in the Body of Christ.

The Pope. I don't know much about that anymore. I used to have thoughts and ideas about Catholicism, but these titles don't mean anything to me anymore. All teachings are the same to me in that they all dance around the Core teachings of the Bible. It's boring. There is no depth in teaching. I listen to the teaching and struggle because it is obvious that they do not understand the messages being given. So, my objective is to keep trying to learn all that God wants me to learn from His Story. My objective is not to be right for my own sake, but to be right for the sake of our Powerful, Almighty God.

Thank you for sharing your testimony. I can totally see your point of view in that many churches hid the true meaning of scripture

I just wanted to share with you my feelings on Catholicism. I believe like I gleaned from your post that no church is perfect, only God and his finished work through Jesus Christ. I have certainly had my trials (and continue to) which have brought me to my knees in bewilderment,

About baptism, I don't believe that being baptized will save a person's soul in and of itself but I believe that going through that is an outward expression of one's faith and it's our introduction to God's family by washing away your old life and publically proclaiming one's newly found faith and embracing the Lord's way of life. It;s a physical manifestation of our repentance. which is our renouncement of sin and acceptance of a new way of Life,

I was not raised in the Catholic Church. I chose it because if one lives near a large Parosh, Mass is available five times daily including the ability to accept the gift of the Eucharist every day up to five times a day and even when I was a kid and not Catholic communion was always my favorite part of Sunday service. To be given the gift of taking the Lord Jesus Christ physically into my body literally gives me a natural high. My heart flutters and I can get all teary-eyed because I know I'm not worthy of taking the Lord our God into my body but he has made his body and blood available to me. I ended up on the Catholic side because instead of the first Sunday of the month (the way I grew up, like I said it's available every day up to 5 times a day. No matter their doctrine or Pope, I love communion. It makes me feel whole and happy.

I can always do the study and the theology on my own but I can only get the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ from The Communion bread

I wanted to share my testimony as you so graciously shared yours. I thank you for walking me through the obstacles that St Peter faced and how he eventually came around to understand the spiritual circumcision that we all must accept and apply to our lives.

 

[biblelesson]

Should be easy , by giving a verse that explains BAPTISM being a WORK ??

John 1:31 BAPTISM was given to ONLY Israel . PERIOD !and NOT to the BODY OF CHRIST !!

dan p

Although baptism is not a work, that is, in the same manner as the works of the law, baptism was not only given to Israel. All are to be baptized,
Matthew 28:19 KJV
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

So we see baptism is a command, not works. Works as defined in James, is a show of faith after we are saved.

John 1:31 KJV
“And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.”

The reason Jesus was manifest to Israel was because Jesus could not break the Old Testament law. Jesus being a Jew, operated under the Old Testament laws that was in force at that time. The Jews were under those laws, not the Gentiles, so because of what the law demanded, Jews could not communicate with Gentiles.

That’s what this verse is about:
Matthew 15:22-26 KJV
22 “And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.”
23 “But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.”
24 “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
25 “Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.”
26 “But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.”

But, because of her faith, He healed her daughter,
Matthew 15:27-28 KJV
27 “And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.”
28 “Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”

This faith points to the faith of the New Testament.

It was only after Jesus death that the Gentiles could be saved because Jesus death brought in the New Testament whereby all can be saved.

If you notice, Matthew 28:19 KJV, is after Jesus death and resurrection where He could now offer baptism to all because at that point the Old Testament had ended; His death brought in the New Testament.

 

[Guojing]

That’s what this verse is about:
Matthew 15:22-26 KJV
22 “And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.”
23 “But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.”
24 “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
25 “Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.”
26 “But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.”

But, because of her faith, He healed her daughter,

You might want to cross reference that to the Mark's account to understand better

Mark 7:28-29 “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” 29Then Jesus told her, “Because of this answer, you may go. The demon has left your daughter.”

 

[Aussie Pete]

You could not "work" on the Sabbath by God's definition of "work", but you could be circumcised because it is not a work. Worship is not a "work", just because you "worship" does not mean you are deserving of anything. allowing others to baptize you is an act of worship, so it is not a work.

Baptism an act of worship? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Strong in Him]

So, you also believed that Peter was being stubborn at Acts 10?

Where did I say anything about Peter being stubborn?

As in you believed Jesus made it clear that Peter was to preach to gentiles simultaneously with Israel but he was very reluctant to do that?

I never said he was even reluctant, never mind very reluctant.
Jesus said that his disciples would be witnesses for him in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth. It seems to have taken Peter, and maybe others, a while to realise what that meant in practice.
Yes, I did say that was puzzling. But Peter, and the others, had no doubt grown up with the idea that Gentiles were unclean, and not God's people; I would think it took them a while to get rid of that ingrained teaching.

Peter wasn't the first to hear God say something which challenged his long held beliefs. How many of us would be willing to re-examine, and maybe give up, certain beliefs because God asked us to?

 

[Guojing]

Where did I say anything about Peter being stubborn?

I never said he was even reluctant, never mind very reluctant.
Jesus said that his disciples would be witnesses for him in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth. It seems to have taken Peter, and maybe others, a while to realise what that meant in practice.
Yes, I did say that was puzzling. But Peter, and the others, had no doubt grown up with the idea that Gentiles were unclean, and not God's people; I would think it took them a while to get rid of that ingrained teaching.

Peter wasn't the first to hear God say something which challenged his long held beliefs. How many of us would be willing to re-examine, and maybe give up, certain beliefs because God asked us to?

Perhaps the clue is found in Luke version of the GC as well as ot prophetic timetable in places like Isaiah 60:1-5

Israel must be saved first, before gentiles can be reached.

Would that be acceptable?