ECT Neither option in Eph 3:5 is D'ist

[Danoh]

Nonsense. Peter was not being corrected. He was being informed of a change in God's view of the Gentiles.

This had confused Peter because Israel was to have been redeemed first, Isaiah 2, Acts 3 and Acts 13.

Isaiah 2 is WHY they were REMINDED in Luke 24 as to their "beginning at Jerusalem."

 

[way 2 go]

But you're missing the obvious: Peter had to be corrected from that because it was already known (except his mistake) to be true! You have really missed it!

You are putting too much weight on 'not sent to the gentile dogs' when the point of that conversation anyway was that the non-Jewish woman had more faith! Missing the obvious again.

He did not move on to the gentiles without total contact with Jews and he used a core group. There were at least 221 Jewish missionaries by the time he left before Pentecost. (70 + 70 x 2 + 11 apostles). Look who's letters are the core material of the NT.

God is no longer A-B-A-B (or at least it appeared he was that way in the old covenant, didn't it). Rom 11:30 says everything happens in relation to Christ. All are bound in sin outside him. Any who believe are justified in him. That's the Israel that is saved.

so that is a no to this.

can you show peter declaring gentiles
no longer enemies or clean
before this
Act 10:15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.

 

[Danoh]

so that is a no to this.

can you show peter declaring gentiles
no longer enemies or clean
before this
Act 10:15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.

Yep - there was a transition going on midway thru or...Mid-Acts...

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: ) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: ) 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Out the window went their Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20; Acts 1; Acts 3 commission to Israel FIRST.

Acts 13 in light of Acts 9 as to what became of Acts 3.

Acts 3:24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.

Not an afterthought, but a planned change.

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh dreamed:
Not an afterthought, but a planned change.

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.


It already was planned. That is why 2P2P is mistaken. And going to the nations did not stop going to Jews, so there is nothing out the window about it.

If the POV is the privileged status of Israel then, yes, things are plan B, afterthought, changed. But if it never was changed to begin with, if Israel was never a privileged ethne to begin with, then they are feeling outside--of imagined privilege.

What you MAD guys are writing about is the time-lapse taken to understand that. Human perhaps, but not real theology. The misunderstanding started way back, whenever Paul is referring to in Gal 3:17. When was the Promise voided and switched? That's the biggest clue to who did it.

The "change" of dispensation in the Gospel is therefore simply the unmaking of the confusion that Judaism heaped upon what was there. The veil.

 

[way 2 go]

It already was planned. That is why 2P2P is mistaken. And going to the nations did not stop going to Jews, so there is nothing out the window about it.

If the POV is the privileged status of Israel then, yes, things are plan B, afterthought, changed. But if it never was changed to begin with, if Israel was never a privileged ethne to begin with, then they are feeling outside--of imagined privilege.

can you show peter declaring gentiles
no longer enemies or clean
before this
Act 10:15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.

 

[Interplanner]

can you show peter declaring gentiles
no longer enemies or clean
before this
Act 10:15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.

'What God has made clean' would have been true by implication since Christ came. Except that sometimes people have to be walked slowly through it. Mt 15:1-20 (the exact words)

 

[andyc]

:chuckle:
:nono:

You can laugh and shake your head as much as you like, but he's right, and it's been taught for the last 2000 years.

 

[steko]

What do you think dispensationalism says the mystery is?

That the church would happen! The church is an after-thought, a plan B, an interjection no one knew was coming.

It is such bad thinking, it is surreal.

:chuckle:
:nono:

:chuckle:
:nono:

You can laugh and shake your head as much as you like, but he's right, and it's been taught for the last 2000 years.

Well, I had to look through 4 pages twice to figure out how this is all linked, simply because InterP either doesn't know how or refuses to use the quote function.

Kmoney asked, "What do you think dispensationalism says the mystery is?

InterP replies with, "That the church would happen! The church is an after-thought, a plan B, an interjection no one knew was coming."

"It is such bad thinking, it is surreal."

STP laughed and said no.
I laughed with him and said no.

Why do you think we laughed and said no?

Because InterP thinks he knows what dispensationalism is and that he is a guide to the blind.

There is no Dispensationalism of any variety, that I know of, that teaches that the Church, the BOC, was an afterthought.

According to Paul, the BOC was a mystery hid.....not an afterthought.

So what are you saying has been taught for the last two thousand years?

I don't understand what you are saying?

 

[way 2 go]

'What God has made clean' would have been true by implication since Christ came. Except that sometimes people have to be walked slowly through it. Mt 15:1-20 (the exact words)

so that's a no again

I kept reading

Mat 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Mat 15:25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me."
Mat 15:26 And he answered, "It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

Jesus did not declare gentiles clean he declared the opposite

 

[DAN P]

I was wrong. There are two options for the attention of the 'mystery' in Eph 3:5. Grammatically, the weight falls on the prepostional phrase 'in the Gospel' (as opposed to in the Law). That is to say, it was not realized until the preaching of the apostles that the co-inheritance and membership with Israel would be through the Gospel.

But the other emphasis is no better for D'ism. That mystery would be that the co-inheriting and membership would ITSELF be the mystery, because such co-inheriting and unity would erase the future things D'ism thinks needs to happen.

After all the passage, no matter what, is saying all these things are with 'Israel.' It is not one pitted against the other, taking turns, because there has been a mystery interjection! Both are now joined. And it is the realization that the ages were waiting for.

There is nothing left for D'ism to get excited about.

Hi and here is where your BUBBLE breaks in Eph 3:5 because this MYstery was made Made KNOWN only to Paul because the verb "MADE KNOWN and the the verb REVEled are in the AORIST and Passive Voice and in the Indicative Mood of a FACT >

These verb point to Paul and to noboby else , and this is why PENTCOSTALS have much UNBLIEF !and why THEY WILL never believe Paul !!

dan p

 

[andyc]

Well, I had to look through 4 pages twice to figure out how this is all linked, simply because InterP either doesn't know how or refuses to use the quote function.

Kmoney asked, "What do you think dispensationalism says the mystery is?

InterP replies with, "That the church would happen! The church is an after-thought, a plan B, an interjection no one knew was coming."

"It is such bad thinking, it is surreal."

STP laughed and said no.
I laughed with him and said no.

Why do you think we laughed and said no?

Because InterP thinks he knows what dispensationalism is and that he is a guide to the blind.

There is no Dispensationalism of any variety, that I know of, that teaches that the Church, the BOC, was an afterthought.

According to Paul, the BOC was a mystery hid.....not an afterthought.

So what are you saying has been taught for the last two thousand years?

I don't understand what you are saying?

His view (the mad view) is that the church (what they interpret as the BOC) is a diversion due to the unfaithfulness of Israel. However, the church is the ultimate creation foreordained from the foundation of the world. The spiritual children of Israel who are children of faith.

 

[DAN P]

His view (the mad view) is that the church (what they interpret as the BOC) is a diversion due to the unfaithfulness of Israel. However, the church is the ultimate creation foreordained from the foundation of the world. The spiritual children of Israel who are children of faith.

Hi and it is only Paul and the Holy Spirit that says the Body of Christ is mentioned in Eph 1:4 and in 2 Tim 1:9 and never mentioned by the 12 apostles or Jesus !!

Dan p

dan p

 

[way 2 go]

His view (the mad view) is that the church (what they interpret as the BOC) is a diversion due to the unfaithfulness of Israel. However, the church is the ultimate creation foreordained from the foundation of the world. The spiritual children of Israel who are children of faith.

can you show Jesus or Peter declaring gentiles
no longer enemies or clean
before this
Act 10:15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.

 

[Danoh]

His view (the mad view) is that the church (what they interpret as the BOC) is a diversion due to the unfaithfulness of Israel...

Actually, that is YOUR view of what we MADs supposedly assert.

The BOC is NEITHER a diversion FROM, NOR a response TO Israel's unbelief.

Your kind of so called laborer sure produce a consistently shoddy result in the understanding of another's view.

 

[Interplanner]

Actually, that is YOUR view of what we MADs supposedly assert.

The BOC is NEITHER a diversion FROM, NOR a response TO Israel's unbelief.

Your kind of so called laborer sure produce a consistently shoddy result in the understanding of another's view.

Maybe its not, Danoh, but once again, you are nothing but frustrating by not saying WHAT IT IS. Are we supposed to read your frickin' mind???

There are MANY, MANY D'ist teachers that have said it is an after thought, an interposition, and I don't know where you are different. I'm glad to hear you are leaving that kind of thinking or want to.

ONe of these theories said that Jews in the tribulation were going to have to do sacrifices all over again, because 'in their history, the Gospel never happened, so they have to express faith the way Moses taught.' If you can't just laugh at 2P2P when you hear that kind of thing, I hope you can at least see that it is 2P2P! It might as well be 2H too!

 

[Interplanner]

Going back to the top of this page, Danoh wrote:
Nonsense. Peter was not being corrected. He was being informed of a change in God's view of the Gentiles.

If I haven't said already, this is ridiculous. It is not what Gal 2 says. and there was no change in God's view of Gentiles! There was simply Judaism to shed. So again Gal 3:17 is the 'problem' in MAD. They are actually in Judaism's position.

 

[way 2 go]

Going back to the top of this page, Danoh wrote:
Nonsense. Peter was not being corrected. He was being informed of a change in God's view of the Gentiles.

If I haven't said already, this is ridiculous. It is not what Gal 2 says. and there was no change in God's view of Gentiles! There was simply Judaism to shed. So again Gal 3:17 is the 'problem' in MAD. They are actually in Judaism's position.

Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Act 11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying,
...
Act 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."



can you show Jesus or Peter declaring gentiles
no longer enemies or clean
before this
Act 10:15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.

 

[Interplanner]

Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Act 11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying,
...
Act 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."



can you show Jesus or Peter declaring gentiles
no longer enemies or clean
before this
Act 10:15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.

Showing a change in the thinking of former members of Judaism is not the same as 'showing a change in God's plan.' They were having to correct themselves to God's plan, but it had not changed.

 

[andyc]

Maybe its not, Danoh, but once again, you are nothing but frustrating by not saying WHAT IT IS. Are we supposed to read your frickin' mind???

There are MANY, MANY D'ist teachers that have said it is an after thought, an interposition, and I don't know where you are different. I'm glad to hear you are leaving that kind of thinking or want to.

ONe of these theories said that Jews in the tribulation were going to have to do sacrifices all over again, because 'in their history, the Gospel never happened, so they have to express faith the way Moses taught.' If you can't just laugh at 2P2P when you hear that kind of thing, I hope you can at least see that it is 2P2P! It might as well be 2H too!

It is what they believe, they just want it worded in a more eloquent manner, so it looks a little more respectable.
Supposedly the plan for Israel was put on hold, because the nation rejected the messiah. It's all rhubarb, because the messiah's rejection was prophesied hundreds of years before.
The ultimate plan of God was to create for himself a people who would be conformed to the image of his Son. Heavenly people.

 

[Danoh]

Showing a change in the thinking of former members of Judaism is not the same as 'showing a change in God's plan.' They were having to correct themselves to God's plan, but it had not changed.

What are you basing your assertion on?

Where in Scripture prior to Acts 10?