Is believing/faith a work ?

[Right Divider]

God in His foreknowledge knew every human that would ever live and He comprehended all future events before the earth was created. Furthermore, Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8

You'll try anything to support your false doctrine.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I doubt it.

The entire thread is still here for everyone to read, Hoping.

Again with the nobody but Gentiles are in Christ fable?

There aren't Gentiles in the Body of Christ either.

How many times do we have to keep beating you over the head with these verses before you finally get it?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians3:28&version=NKJV

where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all. - Colossians 3:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians3:11&version=NKJV

I don't believe that for a nanosecond.

You don't believe scripture? Shocker...

God wants all to be saved,

Yup.

and He supplied one way for both Jew and Gentile to walk in order to obtain that salvation.

By covering one of your eyes when looking at an autostereogram, you render yourself incapable of seeing the hidden image.

Likewise, you render yourself incapable of comprehending the mystery given to Paul, because you have blinded yourself in one eye by basing your beliefs on the idea that there is no difference between Israel and the Body of Christ.

And I am hoping I will find my name in the book of life at the last day's judgement.

This should tell you, based on the fact that scripture tells us that we can know whether we are saved or not, that your name is NOT in the Lamb's slain Book of Life.

You hold the notion that Hebrews are not in the body of Christ, so where is the lie?

Your entire premise is wrong, therefore this is impossible to address briefly.

Suffice it to say that prior to Paul's dispensation of Grace, the entire nation of Israel was, by definition, part of the New Covenant

They were the first folks to be baptized into Christ Jesus. (Acts 2:41)

Nope. Pentacost was totally in line with the New Covenant, NOT with a mystery that would later be revealed to Paul. The people in Acts 2:41 were still Jews after.

But in the Body of Christ, when one is saved, "there is no longer Jew nor Greek."

The post has not been edited. It still says exactly what it said before.

Sometimes it takes a moment for the edit info stamp to show up.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Does God hate those that hate God? I think so.

It's telling that you ignored everything below the first line in my post.

Psalm 139:20-22
King James Version

20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
21 Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.​

What does this have to do with the above? The person speaking in this chapter is David, not God...

God in His foreknowledge

Begging the question.

knew every human that would ever live

Wrong.

and He comprehended all future events before the earth was created.

Wrong.

Furthermore, Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Nope. You, like many before you, and many more to come, get this wrong.

The title of the book is "the Book of Life." It belongs to the Lamb, who was slain. Names have been added to that book "since/from the foundation of the world."

Revelation 13:8

Revelation 17 refers to the same book, and it shows us what I just said, that "from the foundation of the world" is not referring to the Lamb slain, but describes when and how long names have been added to the book.

"...whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world..."

 

[Right Divider]

Sometimes it takes a moment for the edit info stamp to show up.

That post has still not been edited: https://theologyonline.com/threads/is-believing-faith-a-work.43909/post-1876126

 

[Hoping]

The post has not been edited. It still says exactly what it said before.

We are talking about post #692...right?

 

[Hoping]

That is false. I believe that anyone can be in the body of Christ.

Based on your previous posts, that surprises me.

You have a totally confused reading of scripture. They were Israelite's fulfilling prophecy for Israel.

Which prophesy?
I see many thousands of folks being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and if their repentance from sin was true...they would have received the gift of the Holy Ghost...as Peter prophesied in Acts 2:38.

 

[Right Divider]

Based on your previous posts, that surprises me.

Quote me. Then we can know what you're talking about.

Which prophesy?

Many prophecies related to the nation of Israel.

I see many thousands of folks being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and if their repentance from sin was true...they would have received the gift of the Holy Ghost...as Peter prophesied in Acts 2:38.

Yes, they were all Jews and proselytes. Not a gentile to be found then and there.

Acts 2:5-13 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:5) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (2:6) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. (2:7) And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? (2:8) And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? (2:9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, (2:10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, (2:11) Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (2:12) And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? (2:13) Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

 

[Clete]

I believe God hated Esau for his rejection of God.

Psalm 139.

Who cares what you believe?

Make an argument or find a different hobby.

Psalms 139 is talking about a babies development inside the womb and says nothing at all about God unjustly despising unborn babies.

 

[Clete]

I don't agree with you that Romans 9 must be translated in the only way you have translated it without any other applications.

No body cares what you agree with, marke! Your personal opinions carry no weight whatsoever.

MAKE AN ARGUMENT!

 

[Clete]

John Calvin isn't canonical Calvinism though.

These people ...

Westminster Assembly - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... created three works ...

Westminster Confession of Faith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Westminster Shorter Catechism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Westminster Larger Catechism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... which are canonical Calvinism. These are my sources for what constitutes Calvinism, and even if John Calvin himself contradicts any their contents ... Calvin is wrong.

I challenge you to find a single example where anything in any of those three publications contradicts a syllable of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion or anything in the twenty-two volumes of biblical commentaries that Calvin wrote.

Just one!




You won't even try because you know there are no such examples.

 

[Idolater]

I challenge you to find a single example where anything in any of those three publications contradicts a syllable of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion or anything in the twenty-two volumes of biblical commentaries that Calvin wrote.

Just one!




You won't even try because you know there are no such examples.

Look, I was trying to make it easier for you. The Westminster standards are way briefer than Calvin, and like I said, they are canonical Calvinism and Calvin himself isn't. You're attacking a straw man, I'm giving you the steel man. If you want to refute Calvinism refute the real Calvinism, not whatever you think you understand Calvin to be saying in his scribblings.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Look, I was trying to make it easier for you. The Westminster standards are way briefer than Calvin,

Then it should be easy to find something that shows Calvin to be wrong, or at least that contradicts what he says. No?

and like I said, they are canonical Calvinism and Calvin himself isn't.

Again, if what was said in Westminster disagrees with anything Calvin said, then you have a valid point. But first you have to show that it disagrees with Calvin.

You're attacking a straw man, I'm giving you the steel man. If you want to refute Calvinism refute the real Calvinism, not whatever you think you understand Calvin to be saying in his scribblings.

If Calvin and the Westminster "standards" don't disagree, then we're not attacking a straw man. Thus, what Clete said stands. Find something in any of those publications that contradicts Calvin, and you'll have a strong case against what we say. Otherwise, Calvin is canonical enough, and what I said earlier stands.

How about John Calvin himself?

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)



“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)



“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)



“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)



SO WHAT?! It means that there are NO ALTERNATIVES! It PRECLUDES the very notion of "CHOICE"!



The portion I was responding to was a tangent.



Apologies, it's a typo. I meant #647.



NOT according to Calvinism.

"At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition,—to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness. Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of man’s fall he might extract materials for his own glory." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 15, Paragraph 8)

By the way, in case it wasn't extremely obvious, I am most definitely not a Calvinist.

So it should be obvious also that when I said what I said above, it was not talking about myself personally.



“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)



God only intervenes for those whom He has elected, according to Calvinism.



"As the human mind is unable, from dullness, to pursue the right path of investigation, and, after various wanderings, stumbling every now and then like one groping in darkness, at length gets completely bewildered, so its whole procedure proves how unfit it is to search the truth and find it."(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 2, Paragraph 15)



"...free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by grace; indeed, the special grace which the elect alone receive through regeneration." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 2, Paragraph 8) Emphasis added



"...our freedom is not to the extent of leaving us equally inclined to good and evil in act or in thought, but only to the extent of freeing us from compulsion. This liberty is compatible with our being depraved, the servants of sin, able to do nothing but sin.In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 2, Paragraph 8 & 9) Emphasis added



Just because you don't believe everything calvinism teaches doesn't mean that I don't understand Calvinism, or that what I'm telling you Calvinism teaches isn't actually Calvinism. I understand it quite well. You don't, or at the very least, you don't hold to everything Calvin teaches.



Not according to Calvinism.

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8) Emphasis added

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)



Calvinism teaches that God commands, decrees, not permits.



This is called a Tu Quoque fallacy.

It's also false.



This isn't the same problem the Calvinists have.

It's a similar problem, but the difference is that God is not inherently unjust for decreeing the murder of millions.



Not stopping the Holocaust is not the same as decreeing the Holocaust.

If you would like to start a new thread on "Why did God not stop the Holocaust if He did not decree it to happen?" then you need to start a new thread, and I will be more than happy to address it there.



Yes, that is one effect of Calvinism. There are countless Christians in prison who wonder why things happen to them, and it's because they were taught that God has a specific plan for their lives, and so they commit crimes, and then wonder why they're in prison, not realizing that the reason they're in prison is because they were not doing God's will but their own (which is what Open Theism teaches, by the way, not Calvinism). But according to Calvinism, they're in there because God commanded that they do the things they did, and that the police officers would arrests them, and that they would be assigned to that specific cell, and that they would be forced to live there for however long.



I think the quotes I provided above directly from Calvin himself are enough to show that this is exactly what he taught.



But that's not Calvinism, as per above.



In other words, it's trying to say that A = !A. It's literally trying to get you to believe that two things that are contradictory are both true in the same way and at the same time, which means that the movie is wrong.



If it's a contradiction, then it cannot be true.

A = A is true. (Law of Identity)
A = !A is false. (Law of Non-Contradiction)
A OR !A (Law of Excluded Middle)

It (the movie) violates the very laws of logic it's trying to use.

Your beliefs are irrational, trying to say that which is contradictory is true.



What you describe is not what Calvinism teaches.

P.S. By the way, Thank you @Clete for your posts which contain the above quotes from Calvin's Institutes!

John Calvin isn't canonical Calvinism though.

Supra.

These people ...

Westminster Assembly - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... created three works ...

Westminster Confession of Faith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Westminster Shorter Catechism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Westminster Larger Catechism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... which are canonical Calvinism.

Again, if nothing they wrote contradict Calvin, then you have no leg to stand on.

These are my sources for what constitutes Calvinism, and even if John Calvin himself contradicts any their contents ... Calvin is wrong.

Then show us where Calvin contradicts your source. That's what Clete is asking for.

iow the Westminster standards are the steel man (opp. of straw man) Calvinism, so if you're going to attack Calvinism use the Westminster standards, and not John Calvin himself.

Supra.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

I told you to watch the movie, you just scoffed and dismissed it. It's a fictional story

Which means it's fictional. Fiction. Not representative of reality.

but it's not illogical,

It contradicts the laws of logic. That, by definition, makes it illogical.

It may follow it's own rules of logic, but those rules do not comport with reality. That's why it's FICTION.

and it's not contrary, let alone contradictory, to genuine free will.

Wrong. If the future is utterly predetermined, then people have no free will (which is a redundant term: if it's not a will, it's not free, by definition).

Theological fatalism is what Calvinism teaches.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am.

• Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism.
• (1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
• (2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
• (3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
• (4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
• (5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
• (6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
• (7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
• (8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
• (9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
• (10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

But never unjustly

It is inherently unjust, because just as He saves some, He condemns the rest, for no other reason than for His good pleasure. (vomit) That's not just. It's arbitrary. It's unjust.

and never to our detriment and never against our free will.

Stolen concept fallacy.

His intervention is borderline miraculous, so the accurate word here is that His intervention is providential.

Providence only applies if men are free.

Otherwise, it becomes a case of the fireman starting the fire that He saves the people in the building from.

If He doesn't intervene nobody will be saved.

Duh. Supra.

It's not false.

Yes, it is.

Open theism addresses the problem just fine.

The only school of theology, which adequately addresses theodicy, is Catholicism.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And even there, it's extremely vague and expansive.

It's vague because it has to be to cover up the contradictions. I have no idea what you mean by "expansive" here.

It's hard to believe, unless and until you believe in Catholicism.

Have you ever considered that it's hard to believe because it's irrational?

It doesn't matter,

Saying it doesn't matter.

On the contrary, it matters quite a lot!

One makes God out to be evil, the other shows that He is just.

@Dominic Enyart addressed this in a recent episode on the Dominic Enyart Show.

(full video)

it's an existential problem for both you and for Calvinists,

It's two different problems.

One says God actively caused wrongdoing.
One says God allows wrongdoing.

The two are mutually exclusive.

canonical or otherwise. And I mean, both your schools of thought threaten the existence of the concept of deity which you both say you believe in.

I'm not sure what you mean.

For Catholics, everything is leading to the engulfing of the whole Earth by Catholicism, which will be the culmination of our prayer petition, "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." Everything that happens is ultimately leading to that end. Neither Dispies

This has nothing to do with dispensationalism, except that dispensationalists are more typically open theists, while non-dispensationalists are more typically those who believe similarly to fatalism.

nor Clavinists have as satisfying a solution.

Yes, Open theism does, in fact, have as satisfying a solution.

Why does a good and loving God allow bad things to happen?
Calvinism: God commanded them to happen.
Open Theism: Short answer is that if man does not have the ability to hate, then he is incapable of love. By removing his freedom, he is not free, by definition. Long answer is:

(link to specific part of video)

imo, of course.

No one cares.

Both Muslims and Calvinists can fall into the pit of what is basically fatalism; agreed.

Open theism is the opposite of that. Fatalism is what I have been arguing against.

I hopped into that pit once myself. That's why I freely chose to become Catholic. Fatalism is a dead end, you realize, by God's grace. Then you embrace your freedom of choice, and make one, rather than just go with the flow.

Fatalism and open theism are mutually exclusive concepts.

No: I know you're not going to watch the movie, so all I can say is No; your characterization of the plot is incorrect.

Supra.

I'm not doing that.

You're either lying, or your ignorant. Either way, you are, in fact, trying to say that what is contradictory is not.

You have to go by the Westminster standards linked above.

Supra.

I read that book, it was not a fun read, and I realized that it was actually quite a bit less cogent than Calvinist thinkers who lived centuries after Calvin did. It was part my own uncovering that John Calvin was merely a Jed Clampett theologian. The Westminster standards are more like the BP's, the Exxon-Mobil, the Shell's of bubblin crude, Texas Tea. Calvin was just out shootin for some food.

I can't find the video at the moment, but Dr. Leighton Flowers from Soteriology101 has discussed the cycle of calvinism that you describe here. I recommend going through his videos if you have the time.

 

[Hoping]

Quote me. Then we can know what you're talking about.

Are there Jews in the body of Christ?

Many prophecies related to the nation of Israel.

OK. ?

Yes, they were all Jews and proselytes. Not a gentile to be found then and there.
Acts 2:5-13 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:5) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (2:6) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. (2:7) And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? (2:8) And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? (2:9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, (2:10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, (2:11) Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (2:12) And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? (2:13) Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Where do proselytes come from?
The Gentiles.

 

[Right Divider]

Are there Jews in the body of Christ?

Again, read the scripture:

Gal 3:28 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Col 3:11 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:11) Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.

OK. ?

If you're not familiar with these numerous prophecies, you should try some study about them.

Peter quotes Joel in Acts 2, perhaps you could start there.

Acts 2:16-21 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:16) But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; (2:17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (2:18) And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: (2:19) And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: (2:20) The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: (2:21) And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Here is a helpful article about Acts 2: https://graceambassadors.com/salvation/acts-238-is-not-the-preaching-of-the-cross

Where do proselytes come from?
The Gentiles.

Yes, they are converted to Judaism. That makes them Jews.

 

[Hoping]

Again, read the scripture:

Gal 3:28 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I love this verse, because of the one that follows it..."
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29)
Are not the Israelites the seed of Abraham?

Col 3:11 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:11) Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.

You should stick to the context of the scripture you quote.
After the Col 3:11 remark Paul goes on the delineate the duties of men and women and children and masters and slaves.
Just because we are all one in Christ, without respect of persons, doesn't mean we are no longer men or women, free or servant, Gentile or Jew.

If you're not familiar with these numerous prophecies, you should try some study about them.
Peter quotes Joel in Acts 2, perhaps you could start there.
Acts 2:16-21 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:16) But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; (2:17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (2:18) And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: (2:19) And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: (2:20) The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: (2:21) And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Perfect example, thank you.
I am sure glad God made it possible for us Gentiles to take part in that "all flesh" prophesy.

Here is a helpful article about Acts 2: https://graceambassadors.com/salvation/acts-238-is-not-the-preaching-of-the-cross

That article is too short sighted, or myopic, (?) and can't seem to connect Jesus' death on the cross with our own immersion into the death on the cross with Christ.
And then says it doesn't preach the cross???

Yes, they are converted to Judaism. That makes them Jews.

OK.
A presage of the rebirth of all men now water baptized into Christ !
It sure brings Eph 2:16-20 home.
It is written..."And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are not the Israelites the seed of Abraham?

No. Israel (Jacob) was the GRANDSON of Abraham, not his son. ABRAHAM is the father of MANY nations.

 

[Right Divider]

I love this verse, because of the one that follows it..."
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29)
Are not the Israelites the seed of Abraham?

Only some. Jacob (Israel) was Abraham's grandson.
Paul is talking about a spiritual seed by faith based on promises and not covenants.

You should stick to the context of the scripture you quote.

Hilarious. I'm one of the very few here that actually do that.

After the Col 3:11 remark Paul goes on the delineate the duties of men and women and children and masters and slaves.
Just because we are all one in Christ, without respect of persons, doesn't mean we are no longer men or women, free or servant, Gentile or Jew.

But there is NO distinction of those things in the body of Christ.
There most certainly was a distinction when God separated Israel from the rest of the world. Lev 20:24

That article is too short sighted, or myopic, (?) and can't seem to connect Jesus' death on the cross with our own immersion into the death on the cross with Christ.
And then says it doesn't preach the cross???

Peter did NOT "preach the cross" in Acts. To "preach the cross" is to declare GOOD NEWS, but Peter is declaring it as BAD NEWS (as a murder weapon).

OK.
A presage of the rebirth of all men now water baptized into Christ !

You live in fantasy land.

It sure brings Eph 2:16-20 home.
It is written..."And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

This refers to the body of Christ. Not what happened BEFORE that or what WILL happen in the future when God restores believing Israel to their place as His chosen people.

 

[Hoping]

Only some. Jacob (Israel) was Abraham's grandson.
Paul is talking about a spiritual seed by faith based on promises and not covenants.

Seed, nonetheless.

Hilarious. I'm one of the very few here that actually do that.

Self diagnosis can be tricky.

But there is NO distinction of those things in the body of Christ.

That is correct.
For both Gentile and Jew.

There most certainly was a distinction when God separated Israel from the rest of the world. Lev 20:24

OT's old news.
In fact, one of the OT's presages fulfilled by the NT's separation from sin.

Peter did NOT "preach the cross" in Acts. To "preach the cross" is to declare GOOD NEWS, but Peter is declaring it as BAD NEWS (as a murder weapon).

I am stunned that you think that.
Peter "preached the cross" to Cornelius in Acts 10:39-43.
Every mention of the good news of Jesus dying for our sins is a preaching of the cross.
You seem intent on turning the church into two churches.

This refers to the body of Christ. Not what happened BEFORE that or what WILL happen in the future when God restores believing Israel to their place as His chosen people.

The body of Christ is the church; both Jew and Gentile, as all are one in Christ.
It is written..."That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" (Eph 3:6)

 

[Right Divider]

Seed, nonetheless.

You're so lame.

Self diagnosis can be tricky.

Trying to be cute? You've failed.

That is correct.
For both Gentile and Jew.

Paul says neither. I'll go with Paul.

OT's old news.
In fact, one of the OT's presages fulfilled by the NT's separation from sin.

Confusion reigns with you.

I am stunned that you think that.

I am stunned that you are so clueless. It's a shame.

Peter "preached the cross" to Cornelius in Acts 10:39-43.

This claim is often made WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Acts 10:39-43 (AKJV/PCE)
(10:39) And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: (10:40) Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; (10:41) Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, [even] to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. (10:42) And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead. (10:43) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

"Slew and hanged on a tree" is NOT the "preaching of the cross". The "preaching of the cross" is as GOOD NEWS and NOT as a murder weapon.

Don't you even notice what's completely missing from that passage. NOWHERE does Peter said that Christ DIED FOR Cornelius' SINS.

Every mention of the good news of Jesus dying for our sins is a preaching of the cross.

And that GOOD NEWS of Jesus dying for sins is COMPLETELY MISSING from Acts 10:39-43

You seem intent on turning the church into two churches.

I simply believe the Bible.

The body of Christ is the church; both Jew and Gentile, as all are one in Christ.

Again, Paul says NEITHER... I'll go with Paul.

It is written..."That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" (Eph 3:6)

IN THE BODY OF CHRIST, which did NOT exist until Paul.

 

[marke]

It's telling that you ignored everything below the first line in my post.
What does this have to do with the above? The person speaking in this chapter is David, not God...

God does not rebuke David for saying he hates those that hate God. God also hates those who hate God.

Psalm 5:5
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalm 10:3
For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth.

Leviticus 20:23
And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.