ReformedAnglican said:
Whilst it is indeed true that the Jews held that they were 'under the Law' we know that the Law ended then because we are told later that it ended there. The earth goes around the Sun whether I know that it does or not. As Pink noted: "The Bible consists of many parts, exquisitely correlated and vitally interdependent upon each other. God so controlled all the agents which He employed in the writing of it, and so coordinated their efforts, as to produce a single living Book. Within that organic unity there is indeed much variety, but no contrariety. Man's body is but one, though it be made up of many members, diverse in size, character, and operation. The rainbow is but one, nevertheless it reflects distinctly the seven prismatic rays, yet they are harmoniously blended together. So it is with the Bible...". The law ended at the cross:
Matthew 27:51 "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"
How the Law could continue when the veil was split is beyond me.
YOU CANNOT SHOW ME ONE VERSE OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS THAT THE LAW WAS NO LONGER IN EFFECT BECAUSE THE VEIL WAS SPLIT. The veil had nothing to do with the Law. In fact, the temple was built long after the Law went into effect. There didn't need to be a veil then.
The only thing I know for sure that when the veil was split, it showed that God was not in the Holy of Holies. If fact, I can't even find that God dwelt in the Holy of Holies
AFTER the temple was rebuilt.
Dispy said:
Quote Originally Posted by: Dispy At Pentecost, there was still a "middle wall of partition" between the Jew and Gentile.
ReformedAnglican said:
Colosians 2:14 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"
Here Paul tells us what happened at the cross.
How in the world can you apply future revelation to past events? The purpose of the Cross was never revealed until
AFTER the conversion of Saul/Paul. Peter preached it as something to be repented of (Acts 3:19-21). When Jesus, Luke 18:31-34, told His disciples about His coming death, they didn't have a clue as to what His death would do. "And the understood none of these things:
and this saying was hid from from them, neither knew that the things which were spoken" (vs 34).
Peter
cannot preach faith in the shed blood of Christ for salvation, because it was still unknown. They still had to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" at Pentecost for their salvation/justification. That was still part of the kingdom messge. Had Peter preached any other message, he would have been out of the will of God.
Paul gloried in the Cross (Gal.6:14). He preached that God did not send him to baptize (1Cor.1:17). Had Paul preached what Peter preached at Pentecost, he would have been out of the will of God.
PLEASE explain to how how a future change in God's revelation be effective before it is known. Were Adam and Eve saved/justified because Noah believed God and preached for 100 years and built an ark. I don't think so, and I sure you don't either. Then, How can you tell me that the law was not in effect before it was ever revealed to Paul? How can you tell me that the Jew and Gentile are now on equal footing, and with out distinction before it was revealed to Peter in Acts 10, at least 7-10 years after Pentecost?
WHAT DOES COMMON SENSE TELL YOU?
Dispy said:
Quote Originally Posted by: Dispy At Pentecost, there was still a "middle wall of partition" between the Jew and Gentile.
ReformedAnglican said:
Not at all:
Eph 2:14-18 "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father."
This is still future revelation to Paul
several years AFTER Pentecost. Peter could not preach this at Pentecost because it was still unknown.
Dispy said:
Quote Originally Posted by: Dispy The council at Jeresulam took place AFTER AD50, which is several years after pentecost.
ReformedAnglican said:
Indeed yet Peter tells us what had happened at Pentecost:
Act 15:7-9 "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, 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. And God...bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us [on the day of Pentecost]; And put no difference between us [Jews] and them [Gentiles], purifying their hearts by faith."
Yes, Peter does say that they recieved the Holy Ghost, at Pentecost, but Peter is emphasizeing what happen in Acts 10 (several years after Pentecost), after the conversion of Saul/Paul, and after the setting aside of Israel, as a nation.
The Laws of Moses were not specific to Moses but rather a
re-publication of what already existed and was further developed. Adam was given the Law:
Gen 2:15-17 "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
[/QUOTE]
The only Law that was given to Adam was that he was not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He didn't even know what sin was at the time he was given that Law. Even when Cain killed Able, there was no Law against murder. That didn't go into Law until Genesis 9:6.
ReformedAnglican said:
Abraham kept the Law:
Gen 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
Abram/Abraham believe God and did what God required of him. He didn't have a clue as to the Laws of Moses. Can't find anywhere in Scripture where Abraham or any other before kept the 4th commandment concerning the Sabbath Day. That didn't go into effect until Israel was wandering around in the desert.
ReformedAnglican said:
The Moral Law runs throughout the Scriptures and was never made null. The ceremonial law pointed to Christ and was done away with at the Cross as the Scriptures teach. The civil law was a specific application of the moral law to the nation of Israel.
There is but one Law, the 10 Commandments were simply a re-publication of what already was true.
With the fall of Adam, God gave to man a conscience to know what is right or wrong. Man still has this conscience today, therefore he should follow the moral laws that his conscinece dictates.
The Mosaic Laws were given to the children of Israel for their instruction in righteousness.
ReformedAnglican said:
Not at all, whilst they may have believed that was true God showed to them through Paul, Peter and James that this was not the case.
Don't have a clue what you are trying to say here.
ReformedAnglican said:
Your attempt to divorce the Pentecostal reception of power from the Spirit's baptism cannot stand in the light of the total development in Acts. The church began when believers in the crucified and risen Christ were baptized by the Spirit into one body (Acts 2:38, 41, 44, 47; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13) to which the Spirit added Samaritans (Acts 8:17) and Gentiles (Acts 10:28, 34 - 35, 45 - 48; 11:18).
My understanding of the book of the Acts is quite clear. Also the power of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.
There was already a Jewish church present at Pentecost. That church happened be be celebrating the Passover. They were all Jew that believed the Law and made an honest attempt to follow it. That is why they were all in Jerusalem at that time. There is no doubt that there were even Jews present that did believe that Jesus was their long promised Messiah.
At Pentecost, there were many Jewish worshipers there that believed Peters message at Pentecost and then became believers that Jesus was their long promised Messiah. Therefore, thousands were added to that Jewish Church.
There
IS NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT that at Pentecost that there were Jews and Gentile, on equal footing and not under the Law in attendance. Only Jews and proselytes were in attendance (Acts 2:8-11)
There are at least 12 different baptisms mentioned in the Bible. You are trying to make the ones you reference all the same baptism. The water baptism for the remission of sins is not the same baptism that Jesus baptized with at Pentecost. That baptism had no water connected to it. The Spirit baptism in 1Cor.12:13 is not water baptism or the Spirit baptism by Jesus at Pentecost. It is the Holy Spirit baptizing the believer into the Body of Christ - dry-cleaned.
You better do a study of the different baptism in the Bible. It just might help you.
ReformedAnglican said:
1Pe 2:5, 9-10 "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."
Notice especially: "Which in time past were not a people [the gentiles], but are now the people of God"
Peter is writing to the Jewish believer that were saved under the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom." They were the scattered Jews of the dispersion that James, Cephas (Peter), and John agree, with Paul, that they would stay with, while he and Barnabas went to the heathen. Peter is not writing to members of the Body of Christ. It is the Jews that are to be a "holy nation," and a nation of priests. There is no priesthood connect with the Body of Christ, neither are we called a nation.
ReformedAnglican}[size=3 said:
Compare with:[/size]
Rom 9:24-26 "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God."
Being Israel was set aside after the stoning of Stephen, there is no longer a distinction between the Jew and Gentile.
Those saved during the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom," were still under the Law. While that gospel was being preached, for one that was a Gentile who wanted to serve the true and living God, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Laws of Moses, in order to receive Israels blessings.
Paul is preaching to all mankind with "the gospel of the grace of God." It is based upon the preaching "...of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" Rm.16:25.
ReformedAnglican said:
So much for Peter and Paul preaching different gospels!!
Which gospel did Peter preach, and what gospel did Paul preach, according to Galatians 2:7?
So much for Peter and Pau preaching the same gospel.
God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!
