User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: One on One: Hilston and Tetelestai - Questions the Mid-Acts View Cannot Answer?

  1. #1
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1685

    One on One: Hilston and Tetelestai - Questions the Mid-Acts View Cannot Answer?

    Issues that TOL MADists have been unable to answer.

    Tetelestai has challenged me to address some issues that certain Mid-Acts dispensationalists on TOL have not been able to answer.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I should state upfront that the Mid-Acts view I espouse is vastly different in significant ways from that of most TOL Mid-Acts proponents, particularly in areas concerning the exhaustive foreknowledge of God, His inexorable decrees, the non-optional necessity of the Mid-Acts view, the non-ceremonial/non-holiday nature of the Body of Christ, and the extent of the Atonement. In sum, I defend a non-optional Mid-Acts view that affirms a settled and exhaustively known future. Furthermore, I think the issues Tetelestai has raised (and will likely raise) will expose those differences, as well as the errors of other Mid-Acts views expressed on this forum. My aim is to demonstrate why the Mid-Acts Settled View is not merely as good as other theological frameworks, or even slightly better than other doctrinal views, but is indeed the only view of, and approach to Scripture that is consistent, rational and can account for any and all theological problems or difficulties proferred by opposing views.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I believe that the “end of times” for Israel happened in 70AD.
    I believe the problem with this view lies in the misinterpretation of various prophecies. For example, one that I touched on briefly in the thread from which this one was spawned, Jesus was specific and emphatic concerning the utter destruction of the entire temple compound in Mt. 24:1,2. He was not referring only to the Holy Place (the naos), but rather to the full aggregate of buildings that comprised the temple (the 'ieron): the holy place, the holy of holies, the balconies, porticoes and courts. And when He spoke of its destruction, He used a double emphatic negation, ou me, saying that absolutely not one stone, by no means, that shall be left upon another; there will abolutely not be a single stone that will not be thrown down. The very existence of undisturbed portions of the temple compound of Jesus' day, still standing with many stones upon another, proves that Jesus was referring to a time that is yet future.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    ... Therefore, all the scripture that says “forever”, “perpetual”, etc; ended in 70AD.
    The difference between the Old and New Covenants is not the content of the promises, but rather that upon which the promises depended, and to whom they were directed. In the Old Covenant, the promises depended upon man's faithful obedience to God, and they were directed to the entire nation of Israel, regardless of whether a particular Israelite was elect. Whereas in the New Covenant, the promises depend upon God's faithfulness alone, and is intended for True Israel, the elect of the Nation. Thus, the former could be broken unilaterally by sinful man, which Jeremiah described in contrast to the New Covenant in his prophecy (Jer. 31:32). It was, in a word, conditional. Whereas the New Covenant is unconditional because its promises depend on God's faithfulness alone and not that of man. All of the promises to New Covenant Israel, which includes the Land promise, the temple sacrifices, and the perfect keeping of Mosaic Law, are unconditional for New Covenant Israel, which Jeremiah also describes (Jer. 31:33). Of course, this is all reiterated by the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 8:8-12).

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Assuming Christ died in 30AD, 40 years is the amount of time from the cross till the temple was destroyed in 70AD. 40 years is also the exact amount of time that the Exodus generation had to wait to enter the Promised Land after they received the OC.

    So, I believe there was some sort of parallel with the Exodus generation and the OC, and the first century believers and the NC. I also believe there was some sort of “overlap” between the OC and the NC from 30AD to 70AD (Heb 8:13)
    I agree with you completely. But we probably disagree on exactly what the parallels are. The destruction of the temple, in my view, had (at least) a two-fold significance: Rather than being symbolic of the end of God's promises to elect Israel, the temple's demise was (1) a public indictment against the Old Covenant nation of Israel for rejecting their Messiah, and (2) physical evidence that God's dealings with mankind through the nation of Israel was in temporary abeyance, and that His dealings with mankind would henceforth be through the nation-less, non-ethnic, non-ceremonial, non-sacerdotal, and non-ritualistic Body of Christ. It marked, through poignantly visual means, the waning of Israel's program, i.e., the Mosaic, Kingdom gospel (the circumcision gospel) and the burgeoning of the Pauline, Body gospel (the uncircumcision gospel).

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    First off, the Bible is silent about what happened to the Jews that returned to Jerusalem from roughly 515BC to John the Baptist. We have other sources such as Maccabees, Josephus, etc that tell us many things, but none of these sources are the inspired word of God.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Secondly, many of the prophecies such as Ezekiel 40-48 never happened because the Jews that returned to Jerusalem didn’t keep God’s commandments.
    I believe this is an unsupported assumption, especially given the perpetual nature of God's promises to Israel (elect Israel, particularly) and that affirmation repeated throughout Scripture, Jeremiah's description of the New Covenant nation, and the Hebrews writer's reiteration of same.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Last, many of the prophecies were fulfilled spiritually.
    I agree, but many were not fulfilled in any sense, and some that were fulfilled spiritually remain to be fulfilled completely, i.e., physically.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Jew and Gentile are now one.

    I see nothing in the NT that says Jew and Gentile will one day be separate again.
    The Scriptures do not say that Jew and Gentile are one as such, but rather, that the wall of partition, the laws and ordinances that distinguished the old covenant kingdom constituents, that which separated Jew and Gentile, has been broken down, effectively removing ethnic distinction entirely. Jews and Gentiles do not remain Jews and Gentiles in one group of ethnic constituents, but rather become nation-less in the One Body, before God, thereby creating a third and altogether distinct group of God's elect (the other two being New Covenant Israelites, such as Peter and the Eleven, and New Covenant Gentiles, such as those described in Acts 15). When Paul says that Christ has slain the enmity, having abolished it in His flesh (Eph 2: 15,16), blotting out the handwriting of ordinances against us and nailing it to His execution stake (Col. 2:14), that only pertains to the Jew-less/Gentile-less Body of Christ. For New Covenant Israel and New Covenant Gentiles, the death of Christ fulfills and establishes the Mosaic and Noachian Laws, respectively. Multiple evidences of the continued observance of Mosaic and Noachian Law after the death of Christ suffice to prove this.

    In Ephesians 3, Paul describes the members of the Body of Christ as fellowheirs and partakers of the same promise, calling this a Mystery, held in absolute silence, and not made known in other ages. Paul could not be merely referring to Israelite and Gentile salvation, or co-participation in the kingdom promises, because these things had been revealed in other ages. Whatever the Mystery refers to, it could not be found anywhere prior to Paul's conversion. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." No other proposition fits than the Body of Christ and its distinctive non-ethnic, non-ceremonial, non-sacerdotal, non-ritualistic, and non-angelic character.

    The yet-unfulfilled prophecies concerning New Covenant Israel's future kingdom suffices to establish the future distinctions between elect Israel and the elect of the nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    During the Incarnation the OC was in place. The NC was not implemented until the cross.

    Hebrews was written somewhere between 30AD and 70AD. Again I refer to Heb 8:13. The writer tells us “what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear”
    Yes, and that which is obselete and outdated refers not to an outdated content of the Old Covenant, but rather to the outdated terms upon which the Old Covenant promises were based and the Old Covenant nation to whom it was directed. In other words, the writer of Hebrews was affirming exactly what Paul said in Romans 9:6, that all Israel (that is, Old Covenant Israel) is not Israel (that is, New Covenant Israel).

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    If I understand you correctly are you claiming that Matthew was referring to the same place when he used KOH and KOG, but yet you still believe that “kingdom” believers spend eternity on a new earth, while Body believers spend eternity in Heaven?
    To be completely frank, I don't know what to make of Matthew's usages of KOH and KOG. But I can say without hesitation that he could not have been referring to the Mystery or the future Body of Christ in any way whatsoever. If we believe the Scriptures are without error, then Paul's claim that the Mystery (the uncircumcision gospel, the Body of Christ and its attending laws) was held in utter silence from the foundation of the world until Paul's conversion means that Matthew could not have uttered a single syllable concerning the Body of Christ and the Mystery.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Most dispy’s claim “Kingdom of God” is Heavenly, and that the “Kingdom of Heaven” (earthly) is a “subset” of the KOG.

    Can you clarify your position?
    While I see nothing offensive or illogical about that claim in general, it cannot refer in any way to the Mystery or any details thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    And, how do you come up with this kingdom being on earth?
    Throughout the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, Israel and the elect nations are promised an everlasting kingdom on earth. Nowhere is this contradicted by Jesus or any non-Pauline writer. John affirms the earthly situation of the holy city as coming down to earth from out of heaven, where it was prepared for elect Israel (Rev. 3:12, 20:9, 21:2,10).

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Here is what Jesus said:

    (John 14:2-4)

    My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”


    In the above, Jesus tells the Disciples that He is going to a place that he calls "My Father's house".
    Jesus is not describing a heavenly abode for elect Israel. That would be entirely contrary to everything they had learned about Israel's everlasting kingdom in the Land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Rather, He is describing the holy city that would eventually descend to the earth. When disciples asked Jesus when He would restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6), note that He didn't rebuke them for not apprehending a "spiritualized" version of the kingdom. Rather, He simply said, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." He then went on to tell them what would happen next (the empowerment of the Holy Spirit at the feast of Pentecost).

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Jesus makes it clear that He will come back and take the Disciples to this place, and He tells them that He is going to prepare a place for them at this place.
    Yes, and that place will be on the earth, after it descends to earth from heaven.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    So, how do the Disciples end up back on planet earth in your "earthly" kingdom?
    The Christians never leave the earth. The place that Jesus prepares for them is heavenly in origin, but earthly in destination. That is, it comes down to earth out of heaven (see references above).

    Thank you for your questions. I look forward to further correspondence.

    Hilston
    Last edited by Hilston; February 17th, 2012 at 02:52 PM. Reason: Weird coding glitches.

  2. #2
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,926
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 383 Times in 351 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    321527
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston View Post
    In the interest of full disclosure, I should state upfront that the Mid-Acts view I espouse is vastly different in significant ways from that of most TOL Mid-Acts proponents, particularly in areas concerning the exhaustive foreknowledge of God, His inexorable decrees, the non-optional necessity of the Mid-Acts view, the non-ceremonial/non-holiday nature of the Body of Christ, and the extent of the Atonement. In sum, I defend a non-optional Mid-Acts view that affirms a settled and exhaustively known future. Furthermore, I think the issues Tetelestai has raised (and will likely raise) will expose those differences, as well as the errors of other Mid-Acts views expressed on this forum. My aim is to demonstrate why the Mid-Acts Settled View is not merely as good as other theological frameworks, or even slightly better than other doctrinal views, but is indeed the only view of, and approach to Scripture that is consistent, rational and can account for any and all theological problems or difficulties proferred by opposing views.
    Hi James:

    Thank you for starting this thread. I look forward to our discussion.

    First off, I am not an open theist, but not a Calvinist; I am a compatabilist. We would probably be in agreement with God exhaustively knowing the settled future, but in disagreement with free volition.

    Therefore, in the interest of keeping this thread focused on MAD, I have no desire in discussing predestination, election, foreknowledge, determinism, soft-determinism, exhaustive foreknowledge, partial foreknowledge, time, duration, foreordainment, fate, compatabilism, free will, volition, destiny, hindsight, continuums, Platonism, Augustinism, PBS (Pinnock, Boyd, & Sanders), or anything else that pertains to the heresy that is called “open theism”.

    I understand that you will be using terms such as “Elect-Israel” or “reprobate”, which is fine; I will understand what you mean. If you feel you must discuss election, reprobates, free will, etc to make a point; please do, but at the same time can we not go down the settled view/open view road?

    First off:

    I would say the biggest problem I have with TOL MADists is their insistence that all Israelites are Jews, and their complete failure to recognize the difference between the two houses (House of Israel & House of Judah).

    The New Covenant (NC) was to be made with the House of Israel (HOI) and the House of Judah (HOJ). MADists claim that believers in the BOC are of neither house, therefore not part of the NC. Some MADists claim that BOC believers today live in the “spirit” of the NC, but not in the actual NC.

    So, could you explain your position on “all Israelites are Jews”, the NC, and the two houses?

    Thanks,
    Craig
    Last edited by tetelestai; June 29th, 2011 at 08:53 PM.

  3. #3
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1685
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    First off, I am not an open theist, but not a Calvinist; I am a compatabilist. We would probably be in agreement with God exhaustively knowing the settled future, but in disagreement with free volition.
    I understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Therefore, in the interest of keeping this thread focused on MAD, I have no desire in discussing predestination, election, foreknowledge, determinism, soft-determinism, exhaustive foreknowledge, partial foreknowledge, time, duration, foreordainment, fate, compatabilism, free will, volition, destiny, hindsight, continuums, Platonism, Augustinism, PBS (Pinnock, Boyd, & Sanders), or anything else that pertains to the heresy that is called “open theism”.
    While I believe it's difficult to discuss theological systems without touching upon these and other topics, I do agree that it's best to avoid anything that would distract from the primary focus of this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I understand that you will be using terms such as “Elect-Israel” or “reprobate”, which is fine; I will understand what you mean. If you feel you must discuss election, reprobates, free will, etc to make a point; please do, but at the same time can we not go down the settled view/open view road?
    While I have no desire to engage Unsettled Theists in this thread, the topics we do discuss may necessitate explaining why most Mid-Acts proponents on this forum have been heretofore unable to answer your challenges, which may involve touching upon these issues. Notwithstanding, I will avoid the settled-vs-open-view topic as much as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    First off:

    I would say the biggest problem I have with TOL MADists is their insistence that all Israelites are Jews, and their complete failure to recognize the difference between the two houses (House of Israel & House of Judah).
    Would you kindly explain why that distinction is important to your theology, and what bearing it should have upon the Mid-Acts framework?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The New Covenant (NC) was to be made with the House of Israel (HOI) and the House of Judah (HOJ).
    I agree, as Jesus notes in John 10:16.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    MADists claim that believers in the BOC are of neither house, therefore not part of the NC.
    That is correct, since there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the Body of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    ... Some MADists claim that BOC believers today live in the “spirit” of the NC, but not in the actual NC.
    I'd have to understand what is meant by "in the 'spirit' of the NC" before agreeing.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    So, could you explain your position on “all Israelites are Jews”, ...
    I've never said the phrase "all Israelites are Jews." I only use the terms Israelite or Jew in contrast to Gentiles and/or members of the Body of Christ (being neither Jew nor Gentile). Each household of God (i.e., dispensation) is defined by its distinctive law. There is the Law of Moses (for the houses of Israel and of Judah), there is the Law of Noah (for the houses of the Gentile nations), and there is the Law of Paul (for the Body of Christ).

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    ... the NC, ...
    I've already stated my position on the New Covenant. Feel free to ask specific questions if anything is not clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    ... and the two houses?
    My position on the two houses is that the New Covenant reunites them, which warrants the question asked of Jesus by the disciples in Acts 1:6: "... Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" As I've stated earlier, I do not believe the content of the New Covenant differs significantly from the Old Covenant. It is rather the basis of each covenant that differs, namely, that the promises of the New Covenant are not dependent upon man's obedience, as it was with the Old Covenant.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    At the crucifixion Jesus joined the stick of Joseph with the stick of Judah to form ONE stick.

    MADists will deny this because it proves their belief system wrong.
    I do not deny this. My affirmation of the New Covenant nation does not disprove the Mid-Acts system.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    A New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The stick of Judah was joined with the stick of Joseph
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Jesus had sheep from another fold besides the Jews.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    No matter how you look at it, the two houses were divided.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    House of Israel = stick of Joseph= other fold
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    House of Judah = stick of Judah = Jewish fold
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Dispy's do their best to either ignore these passages, or make up stuff like the other fold are some people that blessed Jews.
    Not only do I NOT ignore these passages, but I agree completely with each of your statements, and they fit perfectly into the Mid-Acts system. In fact, the rebirth of New Covenant Israel is exactly what Jesus refers to in John 3, when He chides Nicodemus for not getting it. When Jesus says, "Marvel not that I say unto thee (thee = Nicodemus, singular pronoun), 'Ye (Ye = the united nation, plural pronoun) must (all) be born again." This united New Covenant nation is the kosmos that John is referring to in John 3:16,17.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    (Col 2:16-17) 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

    Why would anyone observe something that was a shadow before Christ?
    The Body of Christ would not and ought not, which is precisely why Paul prohibits ceremonial and ritualistic observances in the Colossians epistle. But the New Covenant nation will indeed observe the symbolisms in the ceremonies and rituals of the Mosaic Law as both a means of worship, and as a means by which the angels minister to them and mediate for them, carrying their worship and prayers to God from the earth to heaven.

    Hilston

  4. #4
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,926
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 383 Times in 351 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    321527
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston View Post
    Would you kindly explain why that distinction is important to your theology, and what bearing it should have upon the Mid-Acts framework?
    It is important because I don’t believe that the BOC is a secret parenthetical “dispensation” that was inserted in between the history of Israel.

    IMO, by showing that the House of Israel were people that were not Jews and that they were Gentiles, it can then be shown that God is done completely with fleshly Israel. Therefore, there is no “secret rapture”, 7 year trib, or some guy called the “antichrist”.

    I'd have to understand what is meant by "in the 'spirit' of the NC" before agreeing.
    Different dispy’s have a hard time with this. Most TOL MADists claim the NC was put on “hold”, and this secret parenthetical dispensation that we live in today is not under the NC, but at the same time they claim we partake of some of the things of the NC. (aka the “spirit” of)

    A2D’s like Godrulz claim that the NC was for both Israel and the church. They will claim that the church right now is under the NC, but then in the future the church will be raptured away, and then Israel will continue under the NC.


    I've never said the phrase "all Israelites are Jews." I only use the terms Israelite or Jew in contrast to Gentiles and/or members of the Body of Christ (being neither Jew nor Gentile). Each household of God (i.e., dispensation) is defined by its distinctive law. There is the Law of Moses (for the houses of Israel and of Judah), there is the Law of Noah (for the houses of the Gentile nations), and there is the Law of Paul (for the Body of Christ).
    Since you agree that the NC was in fact implemented between the House of Israel and the House of Judah, then I have to ask you who made up the House of Israel when this covenant was implemented?

    If you believe that the NC was put on hold, then how was Paul a minister of the NC?

    I've already stated my position on the New Covenant. Feel free to ask specific questions if anything is not clear.
    Are you under the NC today?

    My position on the two houses is that the New Covenant reunites them, which warrants the question asked of Jesus by the disciples in Acts 1:6: "... Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" As I've stated earlier, I do not believe the content of the New Covenant differs significantly from the Old Covenant. It is rather the basis of each covenant that differs, namely, that the promises of the New Covenant are not dependent upon man's obedience, as it was with the Old Covenant.
    Again, who made up the House of Israel when they were reunited?



    I do not deny this. My affirmation of the New Covenant nation does not disprove the Mid-Acts system.
    What do you mean by "nation"?

    I see the New Covenant Israel as a spiritual nation, not a physical nation.

    The Body of Christ would not and ought not, which is precisely why Paul prohibits ceremonial and ritualistic observances in the Colossians epistle. But the New Covenant nation will indeed observe the symbolisms in the ceremonies and rituals of the Mosaic Law as both a means of worship, and as a means by which the angels minister to them and mediate for them, carrying their worship and prayers to God from the earth to heaven.
    We are in agreement that holidays, observances, feasts, sabbaths, etc are done with. I claim they are done with forever, but you have them coming back again.

    The only way you can support your claim is to take OT passages written by Jewish men that were in exile in Babylon. There is nothing in the NT that supports future animal sacrifices, a third temple, or anything else that has to do with the Mosaic Law.


    Thanks

    tetelestai

  5. #5
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1685
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Would you kindly explain why that distinction is important to your theology, and what bearing it should have upon the Mid-Acts framework?
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    It is important because I don’t believe that the BOC is a secret parenthetical “dispensation” that was inserted in between the history of Israel.
    If it was not a secret, then what in your view is the held-in-silence Mystery that Paul reveals and describes in his epistles?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    IMO, by showing that the House of Israel were people that were not Jews and that they were Gentiles, it can then be shown that God is done completely with fleshly Israel.
    In order to prove that God is completely done with fleshly Israel, you would have to prove that Peter et al were asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6; that the Hebrews writer was up a tree for not even hinting at the removal of, let alone denouncing the Mosaic practices of his day; that Jesus did not command His disciples to observe and teach everything whatsoever He commanded them, which included every detail of the Law of Moses, that the angels still appear and minister to believers (the NC "House of Israel" in your view) in this day and age (where are the angels?),

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    I'd have to understand what is meant by "in the 'spirit' of the NC" before agreeing.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Different dispy’s have a hard time with this. Most TOL MADists claim the NC was put on “hold”, and this secret parenthetical dispensation that we live in today is not under the NC, but at the same time they claim we partake of some of the things of the NC. (aka the “spirit” of)
    It's still not clear or precise enough. The only similarities between the Body of Christ and the New Covenant Kingdom are as follow:

    i. One's salvation and future Hope, regardless of dispensation, is secured solely by the blood of Christ.
    ii. The entire order is regenerated, whether New Covenant Israel, or the elect nations, or the Body of Christ.

    And those similarities do not warrant the application of the term "new covenant" to the Body of Christ, in any way, shape, manner or form.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    A2D’s like Godrulz claim that the NC was for both Israel and the church. They will claim that the church right now is under the NC, but then in the future the church will be raptured away, and then Israel will continue under the NC.
    I disagree with all of that, even the use of the term "church" to distinguish the Body of Christ from Israel. N.B.: Israel in the wilderness was called a church as well (Acts 7:38). There is nothing sacred or biblically distinctive about the term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    I've never said the phrase "all Israelites are Jews." I only use the terms Israelite or Jew in contrast to Gentiles and/or members of the Body of Christ (being neither Jew nor Gentile). Each household of God (i.e., dispensation) is defined by its distinctive law. There is the Law of Moses (for the houses of Israel and of Judah), there is the Law of Noah (for the houses of the Gentile nations), and there is the Law of Paul (for the Body of Christ).
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Since you agree that the NC was in fact implemented between the House of Israel and the House of Judah, then I have to ask you who made up the House of Israel when this covenant was implemented?
    The New Covenant House of Israel comprised elect Israelites, Jews and Proselytes of righteousness. The New Covenant believers of the nations comprised elect Gentiles and Proselytes of the Gate. The Body of Christ, the nation-less among the nations, have no part in the New Covenant.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    If you believe that the NC was put on hold, then how was Paul a minister of the NC?
    Paul had a dual ministry, one to the elect of the Kingdom (Israelites and Gentiles), and one to the Body of Christ. Context clearly delineates which ministry is active in every case. Throughout Acts we see Paul ministering to the elect of Israel and the Gentile proselytes. Throughout Paul's epistles we see his ministry directly to the Body, and indirectly to believing Israelites and proselytes amid Body assemblies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    I've already stated my position on the New Covenant. Feel free to ask specific questions if anything is not clear.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Are you under the NC today?
    No, not in any sense whatsoever. For the Body of Christ, there was no "old covenant," so even the term itself is non sequitur where the Body of Christ is concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    My position on the two houses is that the New Covenant reunites them, which warrants the question asked of Jesus by the disciples in Acts 1:6: "... Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" As I've stated earlier, I do not believe the content of the New Covenant differs significantly from the Old Covenant. It is rather the basis of each covenant that differs, namely, that the promises of the New Covenant are not dependent upon man's obedience, as it was with the Old Covenant.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Again, who made up the House of Israel when they were reunited?
    The post-cross, New Covenant House of Israel was made up of only elect Israelites, elect Jews, and elect Gentile proselytes of righteousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    I do not deny this. My affirmation of the New Covenant nation does not disprove the Mid-Acts system.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    What do you mean by "nation"?
    In this case, I refer to the descendants of Abraham's bloodline for whom Christ died, plus any proselytes of righteousness for whom Christ died. As with many biblical words and ideas, the scope of the term varies, depending on context.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I see the New Covenant Israel as a spiritual nation, not a physical nation.
    I realize that; I used to have the same view. But this notion contradicts the perpetual ordinances and promises that were presented via the Old Covenant and secured for the elect via the New.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    The Body of Christ would not and ought not, which is precisely why Paul prohibits ceremonial and ritualistic observances in the Colossians epistle. But the New Covenant nation will indeed observe the symbolisms in the ceremonies and rituals of the Mosaic Law as both a means of worship, and as a means by which the angels minister to them and mediate for them, carrying their worship and prayers to God from the earth to heaven.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    We are in agreement that holidays, observances, feasts, sabbaths, etc are done with. I claim they are done with forever, but you have them coming back again.
    Correct. The Mosaic observances come back when God restores again the Kingdom to Israel, described in detail in the latter chapters of Ezekiel, affirmed as being in practice, post-cross, in Acts and in the Hebrews epistle.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The only way you can support your claim is to take OT passages written by Jewish men that were in exile in Babylon.
    On the contrary, my view is supported by the entirety of the Hebrew canon (with its promises of perpetual ordinances and land borders) and the affirmations and teachings of Jesus and others in the Greek canon (with its continued observance of the aforementioned ordinances and sought-after land borders).

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    There is nothing in the NT that supports future animal sacrifices, a third temple, or anything else that has to do with the Mosaic Law.
    This is, at best, an argument from silence. If it is understood that the Greek Scriptures are a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures, a more relevant observation is that nowhere in Scriptures anywhere is the command to abrogate the blood offerings of Mosaic Law. Moreover, we see the lawful and proper continuation of sacrifices after the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah. In Acts 3:1, Peter and John go to the temple at the ninth hour, which is the hour of the daily sacrifice. In Acts 21:6, Paul lawfully and properly attended the ritual cleansing of some men, purifying himself in the process. Blood sacrifices were part of this process. Acts 24:18 recounts this episode as well. Ezekiel's prophecy underscores the future millennial kingdom and the blood sacrifices that will be offered therein. It is most noteworthy that Keil and Delitzsch's commentary on Ezekiel, an undoubtedly anti-dispensational work, begrudgingly affirms the literal language and context of Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the blood sacrifices.

    The claim that the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 never happened as a result of the disobedience of Jews that returned to Jerusalem is an untenable assumption, nowhere found in Scripture. If there were any merit to this claim, certainly Keil and Delitzsch would have seized upon it. However, to their credit, they flatly admitted that
    "... we cannot find any conclusive argument against the literal and in favor of the figurative interpretation of the vision in question [in Ezekiel xl-xlviii]" (Keil and Delitzsch, Vol. IX, p.388 {emphases added})"

    Also, the claim that the prophecies were fulfilled spiritually does not abrogate their physical fulfillment. One glaring example (in addition to many others) is the fact that the prophecy of Jesus' resurrection was "spiritually" fulfilled in the individual regenerations of the many elect who preceded the incarnation, and these spiritual fulfillments in no way supplanted the physical fulfillment that would come in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    You are correct, but fail to see what happened.

    God said He would make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. This was said about 600 years before Christ was born.

    In hindsight, this promise of a New Covenant was not just to the people of Israel as the Old Covenant was, but was in fact to the whole world.
    I disagree on two points: First, the New Covenant was promised to the elect of the whole world, minus the elect of the Body of Christ. Second, it is not something understood in hindsight only. It was clear from Genesis forward that the promises included others besides the people of Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Because the 10 tribes were divorced from God, they were scattered throughout the world, and became Gentiles from every nation.

    Therefore the New Covenant between the two houses does in fact go to every nation and race of people because the Israelites from the 10 tribes became every nation and race of people.

    Joseph wore a coat of MANY colors. Joseph is synonymous to the House of Israel.
    The above does not negate or contradict the Mid-Acts view. The New Covenant going to every nation and race of people cannot apply to the nation-less, race-less Body of Christ in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The Jews that were scattered kept the Mosaic Law, they kept their identity, they were a people, and God had mercy on them.

    In sharp contrast the Israelites from the 10 tribes did not keep the Mosaic Law, lost their identity, were told they were not a people, and God said He would not have mercy on them.

    Remember, most of the 10 tribes had turned to idolatry, and were not keeping the Mosaic Law before the Assyrians even showed up. IOW, they were acting just like pagan Gentiles while they were still in their Northern nation.

    Most Jews that were scattered would journey to Jerusalem to keep the fests that required them to be at the temple in Jerusalem. (Probably why God picked the Day of Pentecost to send the Holy Spirit)
    Of course. All of the above aligns perfectly with the Mid-Acts view, and in no way negates or contradicts it. Tet, I'm interested in points that you claim are unanswerable by most TOL Mid-Acts proponents. So far, you haven't presented anything as insurmountable as you seemed to intimate earlier.

    Hilston

  6. #6
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,926
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 383 Times in 351 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    321527
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston View Post
    If it was not a secret, then what in your view is the held-in-silence Mystery that Paul reveals and describes in his epistles?
    That the Gentiles are now part of one Body with the Israelites and heirs to the promises.

    In order to prove that God is completely done with fleshly Israel, you would have to prove that Peter et al were asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6; that the Hebrews writer was up a tree for not even hinting at the removal of, let alone denouncing the Mosaic practices of his day; that Jesus did not command His disciples to observe and teach everything whatsoever He commanded them, which included every detail of the Law of Moses, that the angels still appear and minister to believers (the NC "House of Israel" in your view) in this day and age (where are the angels?),
    Jesus did not uphold the Sabbath command

    In Matthew 12 Jesus clearly breaks the commandment to remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy. He even gives an example of when David broke the Sabbath command.

    Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath. The Lord of the Sabbath can't be under a law to keep the Sabbath Day Holy.

    where are the angels?
    They are out there:

    (Heb 13:2) Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

    It's still not clear or precise enough. The only similarities between the Body of Christ and the New Covenant Kingdom are as follow:

    i. One's salvation and future Hope, regardless of dispensation, is secured solely by the blood of Christ.
    ii. The entire order is regenerated, whether New Covenant Israel, or the elect nations, or the Body of Christ.

    And those similarities do not warrant the application of the term "new covenant" to the Body of Christ, in any way, shape, manner or form.
    I don't know what you mean by "New Covenant Kingdom", this phrase isn't in the Bible.

    There is only one kingdom of God.

    Christ implemented the New Covenant at the cross. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it was put on hold, or that a secret parenthetical dispensation was inserted until the NC is reinstated.

    This belief is the teachings of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson, Stam, and other men.

    None of the early church fathers taught this theory, its only about 150 years old.

    Israel in the wilderness was called a church as well (Acts 7:38). There is nothing sacred or biblically distinctive about the term.
    Which proves there is one Body

    The New Covenant House of Israel comprised elect Israelites, Jews and Proselytes of righteousness. The New Covenant believers of the nations comprised elect Gentiles and Proselytes of the Gate. The Body of Christ, the nation-less among the nations, have no part in the New Covenant.
    In Christ there is no difference between Jew or Gentile, but is also says there is no difference between male or female.

    The key word is "in". Before a believer is "in" Christ there is definitely a difference between male and female. Heck, even after being "in" Christ the difference can be distinguished between male and female.

    The reason Paul says this is because when we are "in" Christ, it is spiritual. Spiritually speaking there is no difference between Jew and Gentile or male and female. However, physically speaking there is a big difference between male and female, and in the first century there was a big difference between Jew and Gentile (there still is but its not as evident)

    This is why there are no marriages in Heaven, in Heaven spiritually speaking, there is no difference between male and female. Nowhere in the Bible will you find an angel with a female name, they all have male names.

    The Body of Christ is spiritual, therefore there is no distinctions amongst believers period.

    Because there is only one Body of believers, Paul made it clear that there were many "in" Christ before he was despite most MADists claiming that Paul was "Body believer" #1

    (Rom 16:7) Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

    It's the same reason why Jesus asked Saul of Tarsus why Saul was persecuting "ME". The MADists will claim that Stephen was a "kingdom" believer and not in the BOC even though Jesus referred to Stephen and the other early Christians that Saul of Tarsus was persecuting as "ME"

    Paul had a dual ministry, one to the elect of the Kingdom (Israelites and Gentiles), and one to the Body of Christ. Context clearly delineates which ministry is active in every case. Throughout Acts we see Paul ministering to the elect of Israel and the Gentile proselytes. Throughout Paul's epistles we see his ministry directly to the Body, and indirectly to believing Israelites and proselytes amid Body assemblies.
    I don't believe any of this.

    To whom does the "context clearly delineate" Paul speaking to when Paul said the following:

    (Eph 3:6) This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.


    No, not in any sense whatsoever. For the Body of Christ, there was no "old covenant," so even the term itself is non sequitur where the Body of Christ is concerned.
    Do you mean "new covenant" here?

    If not, I'm not sure what the OC has to do with whether or not the BOC is under the NC?



    The post-cross, New Covenant House of Israel was made up of only elect Israelites, elect Jews, and elect Gentile proselytes of righteousness.
    You keep using the term "elect Israelites". The new covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

    You are making no distinction between the two houses. You are assuming that the "elect" from each house make up what you call "elect Israelites"

    Most of the OT makes a distinction between the two houses. Don't you think there is a reason for the distinction?

    Originally posted by tetelestai previously:
    What do you mean by "nation"?
    In this case, I refer to the descendants of Abraham's bloodline for whom Christ died, plus any proselytes of righteousness for whom Christ died. As with many biblical words and ideas, the scope of the term varies, depending on context.
    (Gen 48:19) But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He too will become a people, and he too will become great. Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his descendants will become a group of nations

    Can you tell us what nations the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh became?

    Remember, these people would be descendants of Jacob, therefore they were Israelites. Can you tell us what great nations of Israelites have existed in history to date?

    Correct. The Mosaic observances come back when God restores again the Kingdom to Israel, described in detail in the latter chapters of Ezekiel, affirmed as being in practice, post-cross, in Acts and in the Hebrews epistle.
    You do understand that under Mosaic Law the High Priest has to come from the tribe of Levi, from the family of Aaron?

    How is Christ Jesus going to be the High Priest in your future temple during these animal sacrifices if He comes from the tribe of Judah, which has nothing to do with the family of Aaron or the tribe of Levi?

    For Christ to be a High Priest, there is no way the Mosaic Law can be in place; because having a High Priest from the tribe of Judah is a violation of the Mosaic Law.

    You MADists have a problem with Christ as a High Priest in your future earthly kingdom.

    The writer of Hebrews tells us that when the priesthood changes, the law has to change

    (Heb 7:12) For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.



    On the contrary, my view is supported by the entirety of the Hebrew canon (with its promises of perpetual ordinances and land borders) and the affirmations and teachings of Jesus and others in the Greek canon (with its continued observance of the aforementioned ordinances and sought-after land borders).
    Can you show us just one passage from the NT that speaks of a future earthly kingdom?



    This is, at best, an argument from silence. If it is understood that the Greek Scriptures are a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures, a more relevant observation is that nowhere in Scriptures anywhere is the command to abrogate the blood offerings of Mosaic Law. Moreover, we see the lawful and proper continuation of sacrifices after the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah. In Acts 3:1, Peter and John go to the temple at the ninth hour, which is the hour of the daily sacrifice. In Acts 21:6, Paul lawfully and properly attended the ritual cleansing of some men, purifying himself in the process. Blood sacrifices were part of this process. Acts 24:18 recounts this episode as well. Ezekiel's prophecy underscores the future millennial kingdom and the blood sacrifices that will be offered therein. It is most noteworthy that Keil and Delitzsch's commentary on Ezekiel, an undoubtedly anti-dispensational work, begrudgingly affirms the literal language and context of Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the blood sacrifices.
    There was an overlap of the covenants.

    (Heb 8:13) By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

    Just like the Exodus generation didn't enter the promised land until 40 years after Moses was given the OC, one generation of Jews were given 40 years before the OC was fully done away with. The final moment being was the destruction of the temple 40 years after the implementation of the NC.

    The claim that the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 never happened as a result of the disobedience of Jews that returned to Jerusalem is an untenable assumption, nowhere found in Scripture. If there were any merit to this claim, certainly Keil and Delitzsch would have seized upon it. However, to their credit, they flatly admitted that
    "... we cannot find any conclusive argument against the literal and in favor of the figurative interpretation of the vision in question [in Ezekiel xl-xlviii]" (Keil and Delitzsch, Vol. IX, p.388 {emphases added})"
    Ezekiel saw a bronze man measuring a temple in a vision.

    Zechariah saw a flying scroll that was 20 X 10 cubits. (Zech 5:2)

    Why do you guys think that the temple that Ezekiel saw in a vision has to physically exist at some point in time.

    The flying scroll is said to have entered into the home of a thief. How could a flying scroll that large fit through the front door?

    God told Ezekiel to tell all the Jews about what he saw. When Ezra started to build the second temple, he told the Jews to do as God had commanded them.

    Can you show us in the Bible where God gives commands, visions, dimensions, etc for the Jews to build the second temple when they returned from Babylon to Jerusalem?

    Somehow you MADists want to believe that God gave Ezekiel dimensions for a temple while they were captive in Babylon, but that these dimensions were for a temple some 2,500+ years and counting future third temple, and that God didn't give the Jews in Babylon any information at all about rebuilding the second temple for when they returned from Babylon.


    Also, the claim that the prophecies were fulfilled spiritually does not abrogate their physical fulfillment. One glaring example (in addition to many others) is the fact that the prophecy of Jesus' resurrection was "spiritually" fulfilled in the individual regenerations of the many elect who preceded the incarnation, and these spiritual fulfillments in no way supplanted the physical fulfillment that would come in the future.
    Agree

    I disagree on two points: First, the New Covenant was promised to the elect of the whole world, minus the elect of the Body of Christ. Second, it is not something understood in hindsight only. It was clear from Genesis forward that the promises included others besides the people of Israel.
    I don't agree that the BOC started at Paul's conversion

    I will give you what I consider the "Deathblow" to MAD's theory that the BOC was a mystery only revealed to Paul, and didn't begin until Paul

    (John 2:19-21) Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

    20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.


    Here is the first time we see the BOC mentioned in the New Testament. This saying by Jesus is easily tied into many of Paul's teachings:

    (1 Cor 3:16) Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

    (2 Cor 6:16) And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God;

    (Eph 2:21-22) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

    (1 Cor 6:19) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
    Not to mention Peter:

    (1 Peter 2:5) you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

    Finally:

    (Acts 17:24) “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.

    A future temple built of physical stones for God to dwell in would be a slap in the face to the risen Body of Christ.

    Thanks,
    tetelestai

  7. #7
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1685
    Quick question of clarification:

    Tetelestai, in another thread, someone stated that your "doctrine states" that "the Messiah is ruling from [the Dome of the Rock], right now." I'm guessing that is an inaccurate, if not a flat-out libelous mischaracterization of your view.

    Is that your view?

    Hilston

  8. #8
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,926
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 383 Times in 351 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    321527
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston View Post
    Quick question of clarification:

    Tetelestai, in another thread, someone stated that your "doctrine states" that "the Messiah is ruling from [the Dome of the Rock], right now." I'm guessing that is an inaccurate, if not a flat-out libelous mischaracterization of your view.

    Is that your view?

    Hilston
    It is not my view.

    I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is ruling His kingdom right now from Heaven at the right side of God the Father.

  9. #9
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1685
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    If it was not a secret, then what in your view is the held-in-silence Mystery that Paul reveals and describes in his epistles?
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    That the Gentiles are now part of one Body with the Israelites and heirs to the promises.
    When do you believe this held-in-silence Mystery was first revealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    In order to prove that God is completely done with fleshly Israel, you would have to prove that Peter et al were asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6; that the Hebrews writer was up a tree for not even hinting at the removal of, let alone denouncing the Mosaic practices of his day; that Jesus did not command His disciples to observe and teach everything whatsoever He commanded them, which included every detail of the Law of Moses, that the angels still appear and minister to believers (the NC "House of Israel" in your view) in this day and age (where are the angels?),
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Jesus did not uphold the Sabbath command

    In Matthew 12 Jesus clearly breaks the commandment to remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy. He even gives an example of when David broke the Sabbath command.

    Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath. The Lord of the Sabbath can't be under a law to keep the Sabbath Day Holy.
    Several questions on this point: How then was David, who was under the law, able to break the Sabbath? Was David's breaking of the Sabbath indicating that God was completely done with fleshly Israel? Do you believe Peter was asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6? What do you make of Jesus commanding His disciples to observe and teach everything in the Mosaic Law (Matthew 28:19,20)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    where are the angels?
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    They are out there:

    (Heb 13:2) Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.
    The Hebrew epistle was written to Hebrews, who were under the angelic ministry. Upon the conversion of Saul of Tarsus and the establishment of the Body of Christ, the angelic ministry to elect Israel began to wane and eventually disappeared entirely. The biblical evidence for this is found throughout Paul's epistles, in which he describes the Body of Christ as being seated with Christ, above the angelic realm, an unprecedented proposition (Eph 1:20, 2:6).

    Heretofore (until the Mystery was revealed to Paul), men understood that heaven was the abode of God and the elect angels. They never surmised that men would ever occupy heaven, let alone have authority over and judge angels (1Co 6:1-3). Search and see. Nowhere in the Hebrew canon, or anywhere in Scripture outside of Paul's epistles, is the notion that the elect of God would live in heaven. The ancient and perpetual promise to the non-Body elect was also to dwell in their respective lands forever.

    The administrative position of the elect of the Body of Christ over the angels was entirely new with the revelation of the Mystery to Paul. The presence of the Body of Christ in the world since that time, and the abeyance of the Kingdom program, all but removes the angelic realm from the equation. It should be of little wonder that there is no obvious angelic intervention or activity in the world today, as they have no role in the ministry or worship of the elect today. Not only that, but we no longer see disease and calamity as a result of demonic activity, as it is described throughout the non-Pauline canon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    It's still not clear or precise enough. The only similarities between the Body of Christ and the New Covenant Kingdom are as follow:

    i. One's salvation and future Hope, regardless of dispensation, is secured solely by the blood of Christ.
    ii. The entire order is regenerated, whether New Covenant Israel, or the elect nations, or the Body of Christ.

    And those similarities do not warrant the application of the term "new covenant" to the Body of Christ, in any way, shape, manner or form.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I don't know what you mean by "New Covenant Kingdom", this phrase isn't in the Bible.
    Neither is the term, Trinity, but we infer its verity from the Scripture. The New Covenant Kingdom is the Israel that Jeremiah and the Hebrews writer describe, and would include the elect Gentile nations under the blessing and governance of elect Israel.

    As an aside, may I ask, do you have an aversion to terms not found in the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    There is only one kingdom of God.
    There was an Old Covenant Kingdom, which was conditional, the terms of which depended on Israel's obedience. There will yet be a New Covenant Kingdom that will be peopled by the elect only, which depends solely and unilaterally on the faithfulness of their Messiah.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Christ implemented the New Covenant at the cross. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it was put on hold, or that a secret parenthetical dispensation was inserted until the NC is reinstated.
    The Pauline scriptures provide ample evidence that the New Covenant Kingdom was put on hold. The revelation of the Mystery to Paul, and salvation apart from the theretofore necessary ceremonial observances, suffices to demonstrate this. Prior to the revelation of the Mystery, obedience to Moses, submission to and the ministry of angels in the rituals and feasts, requisite ceremonial observances, designated ritual spaces, implements and clothing, etc., were all required practice. One who refused or disrespected these were to be cut off from one's people. In the Mystery, we have the shunning of all of these practices, having been nailed to Christ's execution stake (Col. 2:14).

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    This belief is the teachings of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson, Stam, and other men.
    How is this relevant to what the Scriptures teach.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    None of the early church fathers taught this theory, its only about 150 years old.
    All of the so-called "early church fathers" taught things contrary to Scripture. Their antiquity is irrelevant to what the Scriptures teach. To measure the verity of one's doctrine according to the teachings of fallible men, whoever they may be, and however long ago they lived, is folly, according to the Scriptures. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Israel in the wilderness was called a church as well (Acts 7:38). There is nothing sacred or biblically distinctive about the term.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Which proves there is one Body.
    Not at all. The same term used for "church" (ekklesia) was also used of a mob in Acts 19:32. If anything, this proves that you cannot assume one monolithic body of elect based its usage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    The New Covenant House of Israel comprised elect Israelites, Jews and Proselytes of righteousness. The New Covenant believers of the nations comprised elect Gentiles and Proselytes of the Gate. The Body of Christ, the nation-less among the nations, have no part in the New Covenant.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    In Christ there is no difference between Jew or Gentile, but is also says there is no difference between male or female.
    Right. This is only true for the Body of Christ, not for the elect of Israel and of the nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The key word is "in". Before a believer is "in" Christ there is definitely a difference between male and female. Heck, even after being "in" Christ the difference can be distinguished between male and female.

    The reason Paul says this is because when we are "in" Christ, it is spiritual.
    Agreed, and this is true only for the members of the Body of Christ; not so for NC Israel and the elect nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Spiritually speaking there is no difference between Jew and Gentile or male and female.
    In the New Covenant, there is indeed a spiritual, even essential, difference between Jew and Gentile. The roles of Israel and of the nations are spiritually and essentially distinct in the New Covenant Kingdom.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    However, physically speaking there is a big difference between male and female, and in the first century there was a big difference between Jew and Gentile ...
    Indeed, spiritually speaking as well. Ethnicity was (and will again be) an essential component in the salvation and service of the elect in the New Covenant Kingdom before God. Whereas, for the Body of Christ, ethnicity is neither essential nor even recognized in the salvation and service of its members before God. For elect of the New Covenant Kingdom, their land borders are included in their Hope, and for Israel that means sitting on the Son's throne upon the earth. For the Body of Christ, our Hope is above the earth, above all principalities and powers (i.e., the angelic realm), to be seated with Christ on the Father's throne.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    This is why there are no marriages in Heaven, in Heaven spiritually speaking, there is no difference between male and female. ...
    To be clear, Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 are not speaking of heaven; the idea of being in heaven would have been absolutely incongruous to people of that time. Jesus is speaking of the resurrection into the earthly kingdom.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The Body of Christ is spiritual, therefore there is no distinctions amongst believers period.

    Because there is only one Body of believers, Paul made it clear that there were many "in" Christ before he was despite most MADists claiming that Paul was "Body believer" #1

    (Rom 16:7) Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
    I do not claim that "in Christ" is synonymous to being a member of the Body of Christ, no more than is "being saved," "being redeemed," etc. There is no rebuttal against the Mid-Acts view on this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    It's the same reason why Jesus asked Saul of Tarsus why Saul was persecuting "ME". The MADists will claim that Stephen was a "kingdom" believer and not in the BOC even though Jesus referred to Stephen and the other early Christians that Saul of Tarsus was persecuting as "ME"
    Again, I do not claim that the members of the Body of Christ own exclusive rights to the identity of Jesus, who Himself said that whatsoever the Gentile nations had done unto the least of His brethren they had done unto Him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Paul had a dual ministry, one to the elect of the Kingdom (Israelites and Gentiles), and one to the Body of Christ. Context clearly delineates which ministry is active in every case. Throughout Acts we see Paul ministering to the elect of Israel and the Gentile proselytes. Throughout Paul's epistles we see his ministry directly to the Body, and indirectly to believing Israelites and proselytes amid Body assemblies.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I don't believe any of this.

    To whom does the "context clearly delineate" Paul speaking to when Paul said the following:

    (Eph 3:6) This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
    That's not what the verse says. The NIV plays fast and loose with the Greek text. One does not need to be a linguist to translate this verse for themselves. In the Greek, the verse says:
    Einai ta ethnE sunklEronoma kai sunsOma kai sunmetocha tEs epaggelias en ChristO Iesou dia tou euaggeliou
    Translating word-for-word, using a Greek grammar and an interlinear, the verse actually says:
    to-be the-ones [of the] nations, joint-heirs and jointly-bodied and joint-participants of-the promise, in the-anointed-One Jesus, through the good-message.
    The subject of "Israel" is nowhere in the verse, or the immediate context. Paul is addressing believers who are not of the line of Jacob.

    The context is as follows: Paul refers to the Mystery that was revealed to him (Eph 3:2,3), unprecedented in that it was not revealed to men in other ages (which would have been by the mediation of angels (Acts 7:53, Gal 3:19, Heb 2:2), but by the Holy Spirit directly to the prophetic sent-ones of the Body of Christ (Eph 3:5, 2Cor 12:2, Gal 2:15-18). Specifically, that the Gentiles would be joint-heirs and jointly-bodied and joint-participants of the Mystery promise in Christ by the Uncircumcision Gospel (Eph 3:6, Gal 2:7). He declares his intention to make all manner of men to see the dispensation of the Mystery, which had been held-in-silence and hidden in God from the beginning of the kosmos (Eph 3:9, Rom 16:25, 1Cor 2:7, Col 1:26,27), to the intent that, now (never before, unprecedented) the angels (principalities and powers) might know the manifold wisdom of God via the Body of Christ (Eph 3:10)

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    The post-cross, New Covenant House of Israel was made up of only elect Israelites, elect Jews, and elect Gentile proselytes of righteousness.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    You keep using the term "elect Israelites". The new covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

    You are making no distinction between the two houses. You are assuming that the "elect" from each house make up what you call "elect Israelites"
    What term would you prefer that I use in reference to the elect progeny of Jacob?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Most of the OT makes a distinction between the two houses. Don't you think there is a reason for the distinction?
    Of course. Yes, I do believe there are important reasons for the distinction, and the distinctions need to be noted whenever discussing the significance of the existence of the two houses. But the point being made in a discussion about the distinctions between dispensations does not require that I delineate between the Houses of Israel and of Judah. What matters in this discussion is that they were descendents of Jacob. If you wish to argue the relevance of the two houses to this discussion, I am happy to consider it.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai previously
    What do you mean by "nation"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    In this case, I refer to the descendants of Abraham's bloodline for whom Christ died, plus any proselytes of righteousness for whom Christ died. As with many biblical words and ideas, the scope of the term varies, depending on context.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    (Gen 48:19) But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He too will become a people, and he too will become great. Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his descendants will become a group of nations

    Can you tell us what nations the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh became?

    Remember, these people would be descendants of Jacob, therefore they were Israelites. Can you tell us what great nations of Israelites have existed in history to date?
    Before I spend time answering these questions, may I ask what is the relevance of your questions concerning the Mid-Acts view?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    The Mosaic observances come back when God restores again the Kingdom to Israel, described in detail in the latter chapters of Ezekiel, affirmed as being in practice, post-cross, in Acts and in the Hebrews epistle.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    You do understand that under Mosaic Law the High Priest has to come from the tribe of Levi, from the family of Aaron?

    How is Christ Jesus going to be the High Priest in your future temple during these animal sacrifices if He comes from the tribe of Judah, which has nothing to do with the family of Aaron or the tribe of Levi?
    I never claimed that Christ was going to be the High Priest in the future temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    For Christ to be a High Priest, there is no way the Mosaic Law can be in place; because having a High Priest from the tribe of Judah is a violation of the Mosaic Law.

    You MADists have a problem with Christ as a High Priest in your future earthly kingdom.
    Be careful not to lump me in with the rest of the "MADists." That's the point of this thread, namely, answering the questions that the rest of the "MADists" have not been able to answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The writer of Hebrews tells us that when the priesthood changes, the law has to change
    Sure, but this is a reference to a change in the Law, not a negation of it. A change doesn't abrogate the Law nor negate the perpetuity of Kingdom ordinances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    On the contrary, my view is supported by the entirety of the Hebrew canon (with its promises of perpetual ordinances and land borders) and the affirmations and teachings of Jesus and others in the Greek canon (with its continued observance of the aforementioned ordinances and sought-after land borders).
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Can you show us just one passage from the NT that speaks of a future earthly kingdom?
    Why do you re-ask this question, when I've already answered it (re-referenced immediately below).

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    This is, at best, an argument from silence. If it is understood that the Greek Scriptures are a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures, a more relevant observation is that nowhere in Scriptures anywhere is the command to abrogate the blood offerings of Mosaic Law. Moreover, we see the lawful and proper continuation of sacrifices after the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah. In Acts 3:1, Peter and John go to the temple at the ninth hour, which is the hour of the daily sacrifice. In Acts 21:6, Paul lawfully and properly attended the ritual cleansing of some men, purifying himself in the process. Blood sacrifices were part of this process. Acts 24:18 recounts this episode as well. Ezekiel's prophecy underscores the future millennial kingdom and the blood sacrifices that will be offered therein. It is most noteworthy that Keil and Delitzsch's commentary on Ezekiel, an undoubtedly anti-dispensational work, begrudgingly affirms the literal language and context of Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the blood sacrifices.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    There was an overlap of the covenants.

    (Heb 8:13) By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

    Just like the Exodus generation didn't enter the promised land until 40 years after Moses was given the OC, one generation of Jews were given 40 years before the OC was fully done away with. The final moment being was the destruction of the temple 40 years after the implementation of the NC.
    For the sake of our discussion, you have to understand that, in my view, the doing away with the Old Covenant is not an abrogation of the Mosaic Law. The New Covenant has the same content as the Old Covenant, the only difference lies is the terms of its satisfaction, namely, that it was fulfilled by Christ and was henceforth no longer dependent on man, but on the faithfulness of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    The claim that the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 never happened as a result of the disobedience of Jews that returned to Jerusalem is an untenable assumption, nowhere found in Scripture. If there were any merit to this claim, certainly Keil and Delitzsch would have seized upon it. However, to their credit, they flatly admitted that
    "... we cannot find any conclusive argument against the literal and in favor of the figurative interpretation of the vision in question [in Ezekiel xl-xlviii]" (Keil and Delitzsch, Vol. IX, p.388 {emphases added})"
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Ezekiel saw a bronze man measuring a temple in a vision.

    Zechariah saw a flying scroll that was 20 X 10 cubits. (Zech 5:2)

    Why do you guys think that the temple that Ezekiel saw in a vision has to physically exist at some point in time.

    The flying scroll is said to have entered into the home of a thief. How could a flying scroll that large fit through the front door?
    Why do you guys think that the temple that Ezekiel saw must be symbolic? As K&D admit, there is no conclusive argument against the literal view. There is no conclusive argument in favor of your view.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    God told Ezekiel to tell all the Jews about what he saw. When Ezra started to build the second temple, he told the Jews to do as God had commanded them.

    Can you show us in the Bible where God gives commands, visions, dimensions, etc for the Jews to build the second temple when they returned from Babylon to Jerusalem?

    Somehow you MADists want to believe that God gave Ezekiel dimensions for a temple while they were captive in Babylon, but that these dimensions were for a temple some 2,500+ years and counting future third temple, and that God didn't give the Jews in Babylon any information at all about rebuilding the second temple for when they returned from Babylon.
    What is your point here? Are you suggesting that the notion of some missing temple plans disproves the Mid-Acts view? How so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    I disagree on two points: First, the New Covenant was promised to the elect of the whole world, minus the elect of the Body of Christ. Second, it is not something understood in hindsight only. It was clear from Genesis forward that the promises included others besides the people of Israel.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I don't agree that the BOC started at Paul's conversion

    I will give you what I consider the "Deathblow" to MAD's theory that the BOC was a mystery only revealed to Paul, and didn't begin until Paul

    (John 2:19-21) Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

    20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.


    Here is the first time we see the BOC mentioned in the New Testament.
    Speaking of the literal Body of Christ, yes. But this is not the Mystery, nor does it have anything to do with the content of the Mystery revealed to Paul. For one thing, though Jesus' body was indeed the temple, in every sense, figuratively and literally, and in an unprecedented way, this was not hidden, as the Mystery was. Nothing about Jesus was hidden or, as Paul says, "kept secret since the world began" (Rom 16:25), "hid in God" (Eph. 3:9), "hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Col 1:26). In fact, the opposite is true. The death of Messiah and His resurrection was well known to student of Scripture of Jesus' day.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    This saying by Jesus is easily tied into many of Paul's teachings:
    All without warrant. To wit:

    (1 Cor 3:16) Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

    (2 Cor 6:16) And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God;

    This is true of the members of the Body of Christ, but not of Kingdom saints. The indwelling of God's Spirit is unprecedented, and exclusive to the members of the Body of Christ.

    (Eph 2:21-22) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

    (1 Cor 6:19) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
    Again, these cannot apply to the Kingdom elect. This only applies to the members of the Body of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Not to mention Peter:

    (1 Peter 2:5) you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
    Note the fact that Peter's audience, the Kingdom elect of the diaspora, are collectively described as comprising a spiritual house. Whereas for the Body of Christ, each member is himself indwelt by the Holy Spirit, each is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and each can thereby communicate with God, without ritual, without angelic mediation. This cannot be said of the Kingdom saint.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Finally:

    (Acts 17:24) “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.
    This verse does not serve your argument at all, since Paul was speaking to pagans mired in idolatry. Paul was contrasting the finite gods with the Infinite God.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    A future temple built of physical stones for God to dwell in would be a slap in the face to the risen Body of Christ.
    You seem to misunderstand the premise of the temple/tabernacle. The thoughtful Israelite understood that God was not contained in temples built with hands. At the dedication of King Solomon's temple, he said, "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?" (1 Kings 8:27). It was not a slap in God's face back then, and it certainly isn't a slap in God's face now in discussing the literal reality of Ezekiel's future temple.

    Thank you for this dialogue. I look forward to your reply.

    Hilston

  10. #10
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,926
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 383 Times in 351 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    321527
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston View Post
    When do you believe this held-in-silence Mystery was first revealed?
    First I want to add, that I also believe that the "mystery" reveals that the kingdom is not a physical kingdom, but a spiritual kingdom.

    I would also add that part of the "mystery" is that believers in the spiritual kingdom are filled with the Holy Spirit, "in Christ, are made alive in Christ, etc.

    Most dispies believe that there were two mysteries; one hidden in the scriptures, and the other hidden outside of scriptures. The dispies believe that the second mystery (hidden outside of scripture) is the one that was revealed to Paul. Moreover, the dispies believe that the mystery is the secret parenthetical dispensation made up of church age believers that are separate from Israel.

    There is no doubt that most of the spiritual aspects of the kingdom where revealed to the Apostle Paul.

    However, since the "mystery" IMO cannot be defined with one definition, I don't believe that Paul was the only one that it was revealed to.


    Several questions on this point: How then was David, who was under the law, able to break the Sabbath? Was David's breaking of the Sabbath indicating that God was completely done with fleshly Israel? Do you believe Peter was asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6? What do you make of Jesus commanding His disciples to observe and teach everything in the Mosaic Law (Matthew 28:19,20)?
    I believe David was some sort of typology of Christ.

    Since Christ was the Lord of the Sabbath, in some way David must have been Lord of the Sabbath. Therefore, David also could not break the Sabbath.

    What does "Keep the Sabbath Holy" even mean?

    IMO, this command was included in the 10 commandments because it is the only one that is impossible to not break.

    By the time the first century came along, the Pharisees had added so many inclusions to the Sabbath command, that it was almost impossible to keep them.

    I have no idea how a human being is supposed to keep a day Holy for 24 hours.


    The Hebrew epistle was written to Hebrews, who were under the angelic ministry.
    Was Abraham's brother Haran a Hebrew?

    Was Abraham's nephew Lot, the son of Haran a Hebrew?

    Were Lot's sons Moab and Ben-Ammi Hebrews?

    Or should I assume that you believe Hebrews = Israelites and/or Jews?


    Upon the conversion of Saul of Tarsus and the establishment of the Body of Christ, the angelic ministry to elect Israel began to wane and eventually disappeared entirely. The biblical evidence for this is found throughout Paul's epistles, in which he describes the Body of Christ as being seated with Christ, above the angelic realm, an unprecedented proposition (Eph 1:20, 2:6).
    First off, I believe the angelic ministry to physical Israel ceased at the cross. Can you show where the angelic ministry continued after the cross?

    I'm not sure the angelic ministry can be seen anywhere after the birth of Christ.

    So, I agree that the angelic ministry ceased. However, God the Father has ceased giving people visions (i.e. Peter's sheet vision), taking people to Paradise (Paul), and having Jesus appear in some capacity to people (Paul & John)

    IMO, this is because the law and the prophets has been fulfilled in Christ, and because we have the completed canon of scripture.

    Heretofore (until the Mystery was revealed to Paul), men understood that heaven was the abode of God and the elect angels. They never surmised that men would ever occupy heaven, let alone have authority over and judge angels (1Co 6:1-3). Search and see. Nowhere in the Hebrew canon, or anywhere in Scripture outside of Paul's epistles, is the notion that the elect of God would live in heaven. The ancient and perpetual promise to the non-Body elect was also to dwell in their respective lands forever.
    That's because they, like you, think the kingdom is an earthly kingdom.

    Again, that's part of the mystery. The kingdom is not an earthly kingdom, it is a spiritual kingdom.

    Jesus touched on it when the Pharisees thought they could trap him with the "seven brothers" question in Luke 20:

    (Luke 20:35-36) But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

    Notice Jesus says "the age to come". He then goes on to say that those who are resurrected will be like the angels, meaning they won't marry and that they will not die.

    Dispies have people being born in their future 1,000 year kingdom on planet earth. If so, then they would all be bastard children if marriage will not exist.

    "The age to come" that Jesus spoke of was not a future kingdom on planet earth. It's easy to see that now, but unfortunately dispies still don't see it.


    The administrative position of the elect of the Body of Christ over the angels was entirely new with the revelation of the Mystery to Paul. The presence of the Body of Christ in the world since that time, and the abeyance of the Kingdom program, all but removes the angelic realm from the equation. It should be of little wonder that there is no obvious angelic intervention or activity in the world today, as they have no role in the ministry or worship of the elect today. Not only that, but we no longer see disease and calamity as a result of demonic activity, as it is described throughout the non-Pauline canon.
    Depends what "mystery" you are talking about

    We find the following in Psalm 8:5:

    (Psalm 8:5) You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.

    Now we see the following in Hebrews:

    (Heb 2:9) But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

    This couldn't be the secret mystery hidden from scriptures and only revealed to Paul since it is found in scriptures and was revealed by the writer of Hebrews.

    Again, I agree that the ministry of angels is over, but so is the visions, and revelations of Jesus.

    This doesn't mean that angels are not watching over us, or protecting us, or ministering to us in a different way. The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that if you are nice to a fellow human being, you may have been nice to an angel.

    Neither is the term, Trinity, but we infer its verity from the Scripture. The New Covenant Kingdom is the Israel that Jeremiah and the Hebrews writer describe, and would include the elect Gentile nations under the blessing and governance of elect Israel.
    What I meant was I don't agree with your definition of "New Covenant Kingdom". If we both use the term "New Covenant Kingdom" and have different definitions for it, then we will have to clarify our definitions each time.

    "New Covenant Kingdom" to me means the "spiritual kingdom", the "Israel of God", the "Body of Christ", etc. You see it as an earthly future kingdom consisting of a certain group of believers under Mosaic Law.

    As an aside, may I ask, do you have an aversion to terms not found in the Bible?
    No, not at all.

    There was an Old Covenant Kingdom, which was conditional, the terms of which depended on Israel's obedience. There will yet be a New Covenant Kingdom that will be peopled by the elect only, which depends solely and unilaterally on the faithfulness of their Messiah.
    Again, I see the OC kingdom as a fleshly shadow of the spiritual NC kingdom that we now live in.

    T
    he Pauline scriptures provide ample evidence that the New Covenant Kingdom was put on hold. The revelation of the Mystery to Paul, and salvation apart from the theretofore necessary ceremonial observances, suffices to demonstrate this. Prior to the revelation of the Mystery, obedience to Moses, submission to and the ministry of angels in the rituals and feasts, requisite ceremonial observances, designated ritual spaces, implements and clothing, etc., were all required practice. One who refused or disrespected these were to be cut off from one's people. In the Mystery, we have the shunning of all of these practices, having been nailed to Christ's execution stake (Col. 2:14).
    The Pauline epistles were written between the 30AD - 70AD time period. During this period the OC was "waxing" and soon to be obsolete. Paul was mostly giving us direction for how to live after 70AD in the NC spiritual kingdom, which would be "the Israel of God".

    Most of what Peter and the 12 preached were for those who lived in the 30AD - 70AD time period. The teachings are warnings, and tell about enduring till the end (70AD), these people most likely lived near or around Jerusalem. Most of Paul's audience didn't have to worry about the Romans coming because they were far away in other countries.

    Jesus also warns the people about what was going to happen to Jerusalem. He tells them to run to the hills so they can escape what was going to come.

    This doesn't mean there were two gospels.

    Paul was preaching the gospel far away from Jerusalem. There was no need to warn his audience about the tribulation that was soon to come to Jerusalem.

    Peter and the 12 needed to warn those in and near Jerusalem.

    How is this relevant to what the Scriptures teach.
    Chilaism has been around since the first century. It is the belief that there will be a future 1,000 year kingdom on planet earth with Christ as King.

    The belief that Paul preached a different gospel has also been around since the first century.

    What wasn't taught for 1,800 years was a secret rapture and 7 year tribulation with an antichrist, followed by Christ coming for the third time.

    Darby took chilaism, added Margaret McDonalds vision to it, told Sir Robert Anderson about it, Anderson came up with the 7 year trib by applying Daniel chp 9 to Darby's theory. Scofield brought it to the USA, Chafer founded a seminary, and the rest is history.

    None of these teachings were ever taught before Darby.

    Nowhere in the Bible does God tell Paul that He is going to keep all the really important stuff hidden for 1,800 years.

    You will claim that I am basing my argument on silence. However, you are making your argument on speculation.

    I can prove I read a book, but I can't prove I didn't read a book. You want me to prove that these teachings didn't exist. No one can prove a negative.

    All of the so-called "early church fathers" taught things contrary to Scripture. Their antiquity is irrelevant to what the Scriptures teach. To measure the verity of one's doctrine according to the teachings of fallible men, whoever they may be, and however long ago they lived, is folly, according to the Scriptures. Let God be true, and every man a liar.
    You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    God tells us that pastor teachers will be gifted with the Holy Spirit to teach. That means that even though many false teachers have come and gone throughout history, the truth has been passed down by some pastor - teachers.

    Which means that some of the men had to teach the truth, which means that an absence of the truth for 1,800 years cannot have happened.


    I will reply to the rest of your post as soon as I can.

    Thanks
    Last edited by tetelestai; July 15th, 2011 at 06:49 PM.

  11. #11
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1685
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    When do you believe this held-in-silence Mystery was first revealed?
    It's curious that you did not answer this question.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    First I want to add, that I also believe that the "mystery" reveals that the kingdom is not a physical kingdom, but a spiritual kingdom.
    I understand your position; I used to hold that view myself. But the Biblical text does not support this conjecture, not when it's taken as a whole, and the germane portions understood historically and grammatically. Sure, individual passages can be used to support the notion, but not without contradicting other passages and ultimately rendering the Scriptures unintelligible.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I would also add that part of the "mystery" is that believers in the spiritual kingdom are filled with the Holy Spirit, "in Christ, are made alive in Christ, etc.
    The "filling of the (Person of the) Holy Spirit" does not apply to Kingdom believers and is nowhere to be found outside of Paul's epistles. And for good reason: the Kingdom believers were under the angelic ministry. Kingdom believers were under the "gods many" and "lords many" (1Cor 8:5), to wit, many mediators. For the Body of Christ, there is One Mediator and One Spirit.

    Consider the oft invoked text of Acts 2 concerning the "filling of the Holy Spirit." Many misunderstand Pentecost to mark a great "filling of the Holy Spirit" in the early church. Examination of the grammar, however -- in particular, the absence of the definite article in reference to "spirit" -- indicates not that the Person of the Holy Spirit indwelled the believers there, but rather the empowerment of God's Spirit, via the agency of angels, as is always the case with Kingdom believers. The appearance of fire upon the believers were angelic manifestations, indicative of the angelic presence and indwelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    There is no doubt that most of the spiritual aspects of the kingdom where revealed to the Apostle Paul.
    Really? Is the administrative authority of the Body of Christ over the angels a "spiritual aspect" of the kingdom, which was administratively inferior to the angels? Is the single baptism (Eph 4:5) of the Body of Christ by the One Spirit a "spiritual aspects" of the kingdom, which had many baptisms (Heb 6:2) and many spirits? These are contradictory aspects of two entirely different gospels, not "spiritual aspects" revealed of the same gospel.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    However, since the "mystery" IMO cannot be defined with one definition, I don't believe that Paul was the only one that it was revealed to.
    How does that follow? Multiple definitions requires more than one recipient? It's not even logical. Where are you getting this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Several questions on this point: How then was David, who was under the law, able to break the Sabbath? Was David's breaking of the Sabbath indicating that God was completely done with fleshly Israel? Do you believe Peter was asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6? What do you make of Jesus commanding His disciples to observe and teach everything in the Mosaic Law (Matthew 28:19,20)?
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I believe David was some sort of typology of Christ.

    Since Christ was the Lord of the Sabbath, in some way David must have been Lord of the Sabbath. Therefore, David also could not break the Sabbath.
    I'm confused. First, you point to Jesus breaking the Sabbath. Next, you say that David was the antetype of Christ. Then, you say that David also could not break the Sabbath. But, Jesus did break the Sabbath, so how is it that David "also" could not break the Sabbath? Please explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    What does "Keep the Sabbath Holy" even mean?
    Is that a rhetorical question? A Socratic irony? Holiness is defined as setting apart. To "keep holy" is to set apart for special use or purpose. The word "Sabbath" comes from "shabat," which means to "stop doing," to cease from previous activity. Many mistakenly think that God actually "rested" after six days of creation, as if He were tired or need to recuperate. It actually means that He ceased from His previous activity, namely, from creating the universe. So literally, the phrase "keep the Sabbath holy" means "to set apart the 'stop-doing' for its special purpose."

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    IMO, this command was included in the 10 commandments because it is the only one that is impossible to not break.
    Where did you get this notion? Do you believe keeping the Sabbath is more difficult to obey than to abstain from coveting? Paul didn't think so. In fact, Paul claims to have kept the law blamelessly ...
    Philippians 3:4 "If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: ..." Php 3:6 "Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless."
    Except for that commandment not to covet:
    Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment (not to covet), deceived me, and by it slew me.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    By the time the first century came along, the Pharisees had added so many inclusions to the Sabbath command, that it was almost impossible to keep them.
    How is that relevant? Regardless of what was added later, your claim is that it was included in the decalogue because it was "the only one that is impossible to not break."

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I have no idea how a human being is supposed to keep a day Holy for 24 hours.
    In light of even a cursory study of the word meanings, context and usage, it isn't difficult to understand the intent of the commandment: Just don't work. Cease from the activities of the rest of the week.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    The Hebrew epistle was written to Hebrews, who were under the angelic ministry.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Was Abraham's brother Haran a Hebrew? ... Was Abraham's nephew Lot, the son of Haran a Hebrew? ... Were Lot's sons Moab and Ben-Ammi Hebrews? ... Or should I assume that you believe Hebrews = Israelites and/or Jews?
    My claim is that the Hebrews epistle was written to people under the angelic ministry, not that the Hebrews were the only people under the angelic ministry. So how are your questions germane to the topic of this discussion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Upon the conversion of Saul of Tarsus and the establishment of the Body of Christ, the angelic ministry to elect Israel began to wane and eventually disappeared entirely. The biblical evidence for this is found throughout Paul's epistles, in which he describes the Body of Christ as being seated with Christ, above the angelic realm, an unprecedented proposition (Eph 1:20, 2:6).
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    First off, I believe the angelic ministry to physical Israel ceased at the cross. Can you show where the angelic ministry continued after the cross?
    In Acts 5:19, an angel releases apostles from prison. In Acts 8:26, an angel gives directions to Philip. In Acts 10, an angel comes to Cornelius. There are many more examples. Surely, you're aware of these?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I'm not sure the angelic ministry can be seen anywhere after the birth of Christ.
    Perhaps you have a strange definition of "angelic ministry." I mean, don't you remember all the angelic activity throughout Acts?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    ... However, God the Father has ceased giving people visions (i.e. Peter's sheet vision), taking people to Paradise (Paul), and having Jesus appear in some capacity to people (Paul & John)

    IMO, this is because the law and the prophets has been fulfilled in Christ, and because we have the completed canon of scripture.
    Do you believe the angels were active between the fulfillment of the law and the completed canon of scripture?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Heretofore (until the Mystery was revealed to Paul), men understood that heaven was the abode of God and the elect angels. They never surmised that men would ever occupy heaven, let alone have authority over and judge angels (1Co 6:1-3). Search and see. Nowhere in the Hebrew canon, or anywhere in Scripture outside of Paul's epistles, is the notion that the elect of God would live in heaven. The ancient and perpetual promise to the non-Body elect was also to dwell in their respective lands forever.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    That's because they, like you, think the kingdom is an earthly kingdom.
    The Scriptures unequivocally state that the Kingdom is to be in the Land, upon the earth. The dismissal of scores of verses as misunderstood "spiritual aspects" is not only unwarranted and not supported by the grammar and context of the passages, but it is illogical and undermines the perspicuity of God's Word.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Again, that's part of the mystery. The kingdom is not an earthly kingdom, it is a spiritual kingdom.
    This is a false dichotomy, as if it must be one or the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Jesus touched on it when the Pharisees thought they could trap him with the "seven brothers" question in Luke 20:

    (Luke 20:35-36) But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

    Notice Jesus says "the age to come". He then goes on to say that those who are resurrected will be like the angels, meaning they won't marry and that they will not die.

    Dispies have people being born in their future 1,000 year kingdom on planet earth. If so, then they would all be bastard children if marriage will not exist.
    If this objection could be answered logically, would you then consider a literal interpretation? Or will you search for other reasons to dismiss a literal earthly millennial Kingdom?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    "The age to come" that Jesus spoke of was not a future kingdom on planet earth. It's easy to see that now, but unfortunately dispies still don't see it.
    Do you believe Peter was asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    The administrative position of the elect of the Body of Christ over the angels was entirely new with the revelation of the Mystery to Paul. The presence of the Body of Christ in the world since that time, and the abeyance of the Kingdom program, all but removes the angelic realm from the equation. It should be of little wonder that there is no obvious angelic intervention or activity in the world today, as they have no role in the ministry or worship of the elect today. Not only that, but we no longer see disease and calamity as a result of demonic activity, as it is described throughout the non-Pauline canon.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Depends what "mystery" you are talking about

    We find the following in Psalm 8:5:

    (Psalm 8:5) You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.

    Now we see the following in Hebrews:

    (Heb 2:9) But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

    This couldn't be the secret mystery hidden from scriptures and only revealed to Paul since it is found in scriptures and was revealed by the writer of Hebrews.
    I agree. The raising of Messiah above the angels, as well as Messiah's abode in the heavens, were not the Mystery. It is the raising of elect human beings above the angels and their abode in heaven that were unprecedented, never before revealed to man. Search and see. Nowhere outside of Paul's epistles do we see a reference to people living in heaven with God.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Again, I agree that the ministry of angels is over, but so is the visions, and revelations of Jesus.

    This doesn't mean that angels are not watching over us, or protecting us, or ministering to us in a different way.
    Yes, it does. To say the ministry of angels is over, and then to describe them as ministering to us, is a contradiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that if you are nice to a fellow human being, you may have been nice to an angel.
    That's only true of Kingdom believers at the time of the writing of Hebrews. There is no angelic activity today, in this present dispensation.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    ... I don't agree with your definition of "New Covenant Kingdom". If we both use the term "New Covenant Kingdom" and have different definitions for it, then we will have to clarify our definitions each time.
    There's no need for you to clarify. I know what you mean by it. And you know what I mean by it. There is no impediment to our communication as long as we both understand that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    There was an Old Covenant Kingdom, which was conditional, the terms of which depended on Israel's obedience. There will yet be a New Covenant Kingdom that will be peopled by the elect only, which depends solely and unilaterally on the faithfulness of their Messiah.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Again, I see the OC kingdom as a fleshly shadow of the spiritual NC kingdom that we now live in.
    I realize that. I used to hold that view myself. Your view doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of Scripture, which is why I abandoned it. Read Jeremiah 31:31ff again. The description of the New Covenant in contrast to the Old Covenant has nothing to do with its content, application or practice. Rather, it has everything to do with the terms and ramifications of it. The New Covenant is not about the cessation of ritual sacrifice, but rather about the fact that New Covenant believers are secured in their regeneration and salvation, not by their faithful observance of the Mosaic Law, but by the finished work of Messiah in their behalf. Their continued observance of the Mosaic Law is then seen, not as meeting requirements that uphold their side of a bilateral covenant, but rather as worshipful expression of their commitment and devotion to the God who, through His Servant, unilaterally fulfilled the terms of the covenant. Your view undermines the perpetual promises of God to the nation of Israel, and imposes false premises upon the nature and practice of the New Covenant Mosaic Law.

    This thread is about the questions you claimed were insurmountable by the Mid-Acts view. I appreciate your telling me how you see the OC kingdom, etc., but for every point you've raised thus far, the Mid-Acts view is shown to be more Biblically and logically consistent than your own. Your inability to deal with and process the terms of the decalogue is but one example. Your neologism of multiple definitions requiring more than one recipient is another. And your conception of the angelic ministry is yet another. Can you answer whether Peter was asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    The Pauline scriptures provide ample evidence that the New Covenant Kingdom was put on hold. The revelation of the Mystery to Paul, and salvation apart from the theretofore necessary ceremonial observances, suffices to demonstrate this. Prior to the revelation of the Mystery, obedience to Moses, submission to and the ministry of angels in the rituals and feasts, requisite ceremonial observances, designated ritual spaces, implements and clothing, etc., were all required practice. One who refused or disrespected these were to be cut off from one's people. In the Mystery, we have the shunning of all of these practices, having been nailed to Christ's execution stake (Col. 2:14).
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The Pauline epistles were written between the 30AD - 70AD time period. During this period the OC was "waxing" and soon to be obsolete. Paul was mostly giving us direction for how to live after 70AD in the NC spiritual kingdom, which would be "the Israel of God".
    Not true. Search and see. Paul does not give any instruction whatsoever pertaining to the New Covenant, and for good reason: it has no application to the Body of Christ. Paul's only mention of it is found in his description (not prescription) of the Last Passover in the Corinthian epistle, and he is in no way telling the Corinthian saints to begin observing Passover, let alone the New Covenant.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Most of what Peter and the 12 preached were for those who lived in the 30AD - 70AD time period. The teachings are warnings, and tell about enduring till the end (70AD), these people most likely lived near or around Jerusalem. Most of Paul's audience didn't have to worry about the Romans coming because they were far away in other countries.
    This doesn't even come close to explaining the differences between the circumcision gospel Peter preached and the uncircumcision gospel preached by Paul. The differences between Peter's warnings and Paul's teachings go beyond the circumstances of their writing; it involves the very content of their faith and practice. Consider the following differences:

    One Body. For the Body of Christ, there is but one Body of believers, who stand before God apart from their ethnic identities (Gal 3:28 6:15 Eph 2:16 3:6). Whereas for Kingdom, there were many bodies of believers, who stand before God according to their ethnic identities (Israel: Is 2:1-3 14:1-4 60:1-16 Joel 3:1 Amos 9:9-12 Zech 8:3,13,22,23 14:16-19 Ro 11:24-26; Gentile nations: Amos 9:12 Zech 8:22,23 Mt. 25:32-34).

    One Spirit. For the Body of Christ, there is but One Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead. Whereas for the Kingdom, there were "gods many" and "lords many," the angels who ministered to them and were the conduit of communication from God (Ex 3:2 Ac 7:53 Ga 3:19 Ez 2:2 He 2:2 cf. 1Jn 4:1-3). There is no angelic ministry to the Body of Christ because of their superior position, seated in the third heaven with Christ, above all principalities and powers.

    One Hope. The Body of Christ has one and only one Hope, which is to be co-seated with Christ on the Father’s throne, righteously governing and blessing the angelic host. Israel’s kingdom was (and will again be) characterized by many distinct ethnic hopes, each elect nation looking forward to and longing for the fulfillment of their distinctive Hope. For elect Israel, their Hope is to dwell in the Land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, righteously governing and blessing the elect gentile nations. For the elect nations in Israel’s kingdom, their hope is to dwell in their respective lands, and to serve Israel, and thereby to worship the Lord via the mediatory function of the priestly nation (i.e., Israel).

    One Lord. As mentioned above, for Kingdom believers there were "lords many. For Israel’s kingdom there were (will again be) many lords administrating over Israel and the nations, namely, the angelic host. For the Body of Christ, there is but One Lord, Jesus Christ who is exalted as Head of the Body.

    One Faith. For the Body of Christ, there is one and only One faith (= body of doctrine), namely, that content of belief which is expressed according to the uncircumcision gospel. In Israel’s kingdom, there are many faiths (= bodies of doctrine), i.e., doctrines distinctive in content and application for each elect nation, according to their respective belief systems, and all by God’s decree. The distinct ethnic Hopes, mentioned above, are inextricably interwoven with these distinct ethnic faiths. The elect of the Nation of Israel expressed their faith through the Mosaic rituals and ceremonies and by blessing the Gentile nations. The elect Gentile Nations expressed their respective faiths by serving Israel and coming to the Feast of Tabernacles annually. The Body of Christ is entirely non-ethnic and nonceremonial by nature and practice (more on this below).

    One Baptism (i.e., the shunning of religious rituals and ceremonies) For the Body of Christ, there is one and only one baptism, namely, that of the Spirit without water. For Kingdom believers, there were many baptisms, i.e., ceremonial washings. The significance of baptism may be described as an event intended to experientially identify two things in some respect or that which ceremonially celebrates that identification, namely the water rite. For the Body of Christ, it represents the avoidance of all religiously ceremonial observances for the Body of Christ (e.g. there is one circumcision, that of the heart).

    One God and Father of All (literally, one truly-Fatherly God of all). For the Body of Christ, there is but One God, whereas for Kingdom believers, there were the "gods many," already mentioned above. Furthermore, the Body of Christ has a uniquely direct relationship with the One truly-Fatherly God. While Israel viewed the Father in a distinctive sense, and no less significantly, as their “Father which is in heaven”, and had a mediated relationship with Him via the agency of the many gods, i.e., angels. They also practiced and observed a patriarchal hierarchy and succession throughout their belief system, in which fathers presided as priests over their families, and passed their authority on to male successors. For the Body of Christ, there is no such hierarchy or patriarchal system.

    By the way, I have copious references to support each of these points. After the first couple, I got lazy. I can add the verses if you wish to see them.

    Tetelestai, your view either ignores these glaring distinctions, or it works very hard at coming up with fanciful conjectures in the attempt to explain them away. That's what I see whenever you type "IMO" or something similar, viz., mere confabulations and ad hoc theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Jesus also warns the people about what was going to happen to Jerusalem. He tells them to run to the hills so they can escape what was going to come.

    This doesn't mean there were two gospels.
    See above. See the otherwise irreconcilable differences in their content. In Peter's gospel, keeping the Law of Moses was never questioned, rather, it was re-inforced. Christ fulfilled the ordinances that were for the Kingdom believers and gave deeper and richer meaning to their continued practice of the Mosaic Law. In Paul's gospel, those ordinances were against us (not for us), and they were nailed to the cross. Therefore, we do not practice the Law of Moses. In Peter's gospel, angels must be acknowledged and not disrespected. In Paul's gospel, the Body of Christ is seated above them, will judge them. Paul goes as far as pronouncing a curse upon any angel that imposes Peter's gospel on Body believers, in direct opposition to Peter's warnings not to do so (2Peter 2:10)

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Paul was preaching the gospel far away from Jerusalem. There was no need to warn his audience about the tribulation that was soon to come to Jerusalem. ...Peter and the 12 needed to warn those in and near Jerusalem.
    Again, this explanation does not even come close to addressing even the small sample of glaring contrasts I outlined above.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai, previously
    This belief is the teachings of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson, Stam, and other men.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    How is this relevant to what the Scriptures teach.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    None of these teachings were ever taught before Darby.
    Regardless of what we're talking about -- whether it's a future tribulation or Calvinism -- it doesn't matter who taught what and when, as long as it is taught in Scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Nowhere in the Bible does God tell Paul that He is going to keep all the really important stuff hidden for 1,800 years.
    It is your assumption that it has been hidden. I don't believe it has, but it's irrelevant. If the Scriptures teach it, that suffices.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    You will claim that I am basing my argument on silence. However, you are making your argument on speculation.
    The difference is, it's not my argument. I'm merely showing how absurd your argument is. If the Bible teaches it, that is sufficient, regardless of whether you can find some flawed, fallible, partisan human being to corroborate it or not. You are a respecter of men and of flawed human consensus, as is evidenced by your desire to defer to some extra-biblical authority to tell you what to believe. It isn't rationally sound, it underestimates human fallibility, and commits a logical fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I can prove I read a book, but I can't prove I didn't read a book. You want me to prove that these teachings didn't exist. No one can prove a negative.
    On the contrary, I want you to see the absurdity of your argument. I want you to see and acknowledge that Calvin faced the same charges that you are launching at me. They were not relevant then, and they're not relevant now. Anyone who embraces Calvin's anti-papist teachings on the basis of consensus is dishonoring the very spirit of Calvin's opposition to the papists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    All of the so-called "early church fathers" taught things contrary to Scripture. Their antiquity is irrelevant to what the Scriptures teach. To measure the verity of one's doctrine according to the teachings of fallible men, whoever they may be, and however long ago they lived, is folly, according to the Scriptures. Let God be true, and every man a liar.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    And you can't love and cuddle the bathwater with the baby, which is what you're doing by granting so much authority to your so-called "fathers."

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    God tells us that pastor teachers will be gifted with the Holy Spirit to teach. That means that even though many false teachers have come and gone throughout history, the truth has been passed down by some pastor - teachers.
    What you've basically said here is that the Scriptures are insufficient in and of themselves. When Paul describes the giving of gifted men to the church, he is not saying that we should blindly follow them or defer to their consensus opinion. He is merely describing the way the Body of Christ operates, in contrast to the patriarchal and sacerdotal hierarchy taught in the circumcision gospel. The final arbiter of whom should be considered a pastor-teacher, evangelist, etc. is the Word of God, not the consensus of men.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Which means that some of the men had to teach the truth, which means that an absence of the truth for 1,800 years cannot have happened.
    That's what the papists said to Calvin. Here is what Calvin wrote in the introduction to The Institutes:
    Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracle it has been confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent of so many holy Fathers and the most ancient custom; they urge us to confess either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the Church, or that the Church must have been without life during the many centuries in which nothing of the kind was heard. ... in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 8).

    Don't you see? You're making the same argument that was laid against Calvin, 475 years after Calvin originally first penned it. At the time, Calvin was up against 1,500 years of church history. Why was it not okay for the papists to challenge Calvin with 1,500 years of church history, yet it's okay for you to challenge me with 1,800 years of church history?

    Hilston

  12. #12
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1685

  13. #13
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,926
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 383 Times in 351 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    321527
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston View Post
    In Peter's gospel, keeping the Law of Moses was never questioned, rather, it was re-inforced.
    (Acts 15:16) The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

    16 “‘After this I will return
    and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
    Its ruins I will rebuild,
    and I will restore it,


    When James spoke about David's tent he was referring to the time period of the church from 30AD to 70AD

    David's tent stood at the same time that Moses' tabernacle stood. Yet, the Ark of the Covenant was in David's tent, not Moses' tabernacle.

    At the same time that the Ark was in David's tent, the animal sacrifices, burnt offerings and other requirements adhered to by the High Priest took place at Moses' tabernacle.

    Therefore, I will show that the David's tent spoken of by Amos and James was what you call the "kingdom church" of the first century.

  14. #14
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1685
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    In Peter's gospel, keeping the Law of Moses was never questioned, rather, it was reinforced.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetelestai
    (Acts 15:16) The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

    16 “‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent.Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, ..."

    When James spoke about David's tent he was referring to the time period of the church from 30AD to 70AD.

    David's tent stood at the same time that Moses' tabernacle stood. Yet, the Ark of the Covenant was in David's tent, not Moses' tabernacle.

    At the same time that the Ark was in David's tent, the animal sacrifices, burnt offerings and other requirements adhered to by the High Priest took place at Moses' tabernacle.

    Therefore, I will show that the David's tent spoken of by Amos and James was what you call the "kingdom church" of the first century.
    Please explain how that is relevant to whether or not the Mid-Acts view is correct?

    Hilston

  15. #15
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,926
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 383 Times in 351 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    321527
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston View Post
    Please explain how that is relevant to whether or not the Mid-Acts view is correct?

    Hilston
    MAD claims that there were two gospels between 30AD and 70AD. MAD claims that after the cross Peter and the 12 preached a "kingdom" gospel before a secret gospel was given to Paul years later.

    One of MAD's so called "proofs" of this is the claim by MADists that the kingdom believers adhered to the Mosaic Law after the cross. Acts 3:1, along with Paul's vow are considered proof texts by MADists that these kingdom believers kept the law despite the belief by most of Christendom that Christ fulfilled the law on the cross, and that the church started on Pentecost with the giving of the Holy Spirit.

    My point about David's tent was to show that there was only one time in all of the history of the OC where God dwelt in one place (David's tent), while the High Priest carried out all the requirements of the Mosaic Law at another place (Moses' Tabernacle)

    This unusual event occurred for only 44 years. James quoted Joel's prophecy about rebuilding David's tent in Acts 15:16. James quoted Joel to show that Joel's prophecy was being fulfilled right there and then.

    We know there wasn't a literal tent during these 40 years. So, the question becomes: Where or what was David's tent in the first century?

    I assume you will disagree with this because MADists believe that the restoring of David's tent is a future event.

    However, a further study into what occurred in David's tent during the reign of King David shows that Joel's prophecy of the rebuilt tent of David did in fact take place from 30AD to 70AD.

    This explains why Peter and John went to the temple in Acts 3:1, but at the same time shows that Peter and John were saved believers in the BOC just like Paul was.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us