Theology Club: Works Required for Salvation Under the Law?

[Jerry Shugart]

In the book Things that Differ we can find MAD teacher Cornelius Stam's basic teaching in regard to his ideas of how a sinner obtained salvation in other dispensations. He writes:

"We have no illusions as to man's utter inability to please God by works as such in any age. Man has always been saved essentially by the grace of God, through faith. There could be no other way to be saved " [emphasis added] (Stam, Things That Differ, [Berean Literature Foundation, Twelfth Printing, 1985], p.15).​

In other words, according to him the only thing that is "essential" in order to be saved is faith. But then he says:

"Note carefully that while God refuses works for salvation today, He required them under other dispensations" [emphasis added] (Ibid., p.21).

The word "require" means "to demand as necessary or essential" (Merriam-Webster Online).

Therefore Stam is saying that in other dispensations works were "essential" in order to be saved. That idea directly contradicts what he said earlier, that only "faith" is essential for salvation.

This confusion marked the beginning of the false teaching among those in the MAD camp that in other dispensations works were necessary for salvation.

 

[Danoh]

To be sure, Jerry, there were many Dispensational issues which Brother Stam had not yet worked out; likewise with Baker, and my personal favorite of the three; Brother O'Hair - what a heart for the truth regardless of its cost or direction...

I was on the phone yesterday with one of O'Hair's people - one of those gracious Grace Pastor's it has ever been my continued joy to fellowship with in our mutual sharing of our differences in understanding with grace towards one another.

Personally, I find that much more impressive than our respective differences in understanding of various distinctions.

Anyway, in the past, he has caught me on some off-base understandings, and visa versa.

Just today, as I was sharing with him my understanding of this believing unto eternal life issue as to Christ as Israel's Messiah, I found we differed on it.

His was the old school that Stam asserts in Things That Differ.

Mine is much like your understanding on this, Jerry.

My understanding is here - Post #1519:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4333149#post4333149

So he goes to the passages towards sharing the basis of his view, and is reading right along when, all of sudden, he pauses... and says, "you know what; you're right!"

Next thing I know; he's citing - and rejoicing in - other passages that prove he was off-base!

I had the same experience with one of the famous Grace preachers. years ago. I pointed out an error, he paused, looked at the passage, then became all excited at this that he had by-passed and began to cite passages I had not even considered; that proved he had been off.

On another occasion, another of O'Hair's people; a man up in years, showed this same willingness to be wrong that the Word be right.

Would that we could all be that gracious...

I know I love when I am proven wrong!

It's great! It means one more needed distinction!

And with it; the floodgates of understanding on all those other areas that one correction often opens the door to, when humbly accepted, if for no other reason than "man, you're right; oh praise the Lord for the insight of other brethren - of like precious faith!"

"Probably saved me a few years down the wrong path, once more!"

 

[Jerry Shugart]

To be sure, Jerry, there were many Dispensational issues which Brother Stam had not yet worked out; likewise with Baker, and my personal favorite of the three; Brother O'Hair - what a heart for the truth regardless of its cost or direction...

The two giants of Mid Acts dispensationalism are Sir Robert Anderson and J.C. O'Hair.

Unfortunately, Baker taught that the General epistles are not for the Body and Stam taught that works were required for salvation in other dispensations.

Anyway, I am thrilled to see that there is at least one MAD on this forum who knows that works were not required and that the General epistles are for those in the Body. J.C. O'Hair wrote:

"Peter and James and ten other apostles are going to sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27 and 28). But I do not agree with Christians who say that the twelve apostles were not members of the Body of Christ...I make no such foolish statement...that these Epistles of Peter and James are not for this age...I use 1 Peter 3:18 in preaching the gospel of grace as frequently as I use any other verse" [emphasis mine] (O'Hair, The Accuser of the Brethren and the Brethren Concerning Bullingerism).

What we see from the MADs on this forum more closely resembles Bullingerism than it does what was first taught by the giants of MAD.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. They are much appreciated.

 

[Tambora]

I think you may have limited Stam's use of "essentially" a bit too much.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/essentially

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I think you may have limited Stam's use of "essentially" a bit too much.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/essentially

Which one of those meanings do you think that Stam meant when he used the word "essentially"?:

"We have no illusions as to man's utter inability to please God by works as such in any age. Man has always been saved essentially by the grace of God, through faith. There could be no other way to be saved " (Stam, Things That Differ, [Berean Literature Foundation, Twelfth Printing, 1985], p.15).​

 

[Danoh]

Not sure how you arrived at your conclusion from my post, Jerry, but my understanding is that the Twelve were not in the Body.

Likwise as to the "for us" all 66 Books, "but not all to us, nor about us" Romans thru Philemon being to us and about us.

Further, I hold that Paul taught one gospel, not your two, nor the two of others on here.

I remain ever open to re-examining my views; I just have not read/heard a convincing arguement on these issues.

For example, til I read your take on salvation in Matthew thru John, I had held to the older view.

But while reading your words, I re-examined my view and realized it was off.

And yet, re-examining my view on Acts 9 and Paul's time in Arabia, I found you and I still differ on that.

So what; all each can do is share their understanding.

I am not of the persuasion others need to hold to my view in order for me to be happy. My take is always 'bring it on; lets' partake together - teach me - no problem!'

In this, even opposition ends up teaching us, unwittingly.

Just as O'Hair; given his love for an insight on truth regardless of source had been able to learn much from one of his greatest opposers; Ironside, back when O'Hair was opposing aspects of the Mystery that Ironside had held only to end up the one opposing O'Hair on them!

Worse - twisting O'Hair's words...

But as I noted; there were things O'Hair, Baker and Stam had not seen that others after have.

To paraphrase what Jordan has often noted 'we have the labors of those three, and all they found for us to be able stand on the shoulders of to be grateful for, for what we have then been able to look out that things from as our own base to move forward from!'

In that spirit, I have been trolling through old posts on here; lots of valuable insights...

Thanks for all that input, fellow Mid-Actsers!

 

[Tambora]

Which one of those meanings do you think that Stam meant when he used the word "essentially"?:

"We have no illusions as to man's utter inability to please God by works as such in any age. Man has always been saved essentially by the grace of God, through faith. There could be no other way to be saved " (Stam, Things That Differ, [Berean Literature Foundation, Twelfth Printing, 1985], p.15).​

Let me put it this way ....

One can get all tripped up if they limit the use of a word too much.

For example:
Was it essential that the Son of God died on the cross, or was it essential that the Son of Man died on the cross?

 

[Danoh]

Let me put it this way ....

One can get all tripped up if they limit the use of a word too much.

For example:
Was it essential that the Son of God died on the cross, or was it essential that the Son of Man died on the cross?

It was essential that both die on that Cross

 

[Tambora]

I'll go ahead and give my perspective of the matter and see if I essentially agree or disagree with other MADers.


The law was all about what Christ would do, not so much about what man would do.

In the law, many people (and animals) were involved. All doing something different than the others.

One would offer a spotless animal.
Christ was the offerer (offered himself).

The spotless animal gave his life.
Christ gave His own life.

Only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies with the blood.
Christ was the high priest.


In other words, every person (and even the animal) that was involved with the law of the sacrifice was essentially Christ.
So, while the law required many to perform the necessary deeds, it would essentially be Christ that performed it all.

If you look closely at the law, it shows that one does not die because of their sin ---- a spotless one dies because of their sin.
In other words, it was not because they stopped sinning. It was because of a spotless one that never sinned.

 

[Tambora]

It was essential that both die on that Cross

Sure thing.

But doesn't the word "both" essentially mean more than one?

See what I'm getting at?
It is because of a strict definition of the word that some do not believe that Christ was God, and some do not believe that Christ was separate from the Father.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Not sure how you arrived at your conclusion from my post, Jerry, but my understanding is that the Twelve were not in the Body.

Because of your high praise of O'Hair I just assumed that you shared his view here:

"Peter and James and ten other apostles are going to sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27 and 28). But I do not agree with Christians who say that the twelve apostles were not members of the Body of Christ...I make no such foolish statement...that these Epistles of Peter and James are not for this age...I use 1 Peter 3:18 in preaching the gospel of grace as frequently as I use any other verse" [emphasis mine] (O'Hair, The Accuser of the Brethren and the Brethren Concerning Bullingerism).​

I apologize for mis-representing your view based on my assumption.

Let us look at the evidence that demonstrates that all believers were baptized into the Body of Christ. Here we can see that both Jews and Gentiles are baptized into the Body of Christ:

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).​

In this passage Paul uses the pronoun "we" twice and from his introduction in that same epistle we can know that that pronoun is not only referring to those in the church at Corinth but also "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord":

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's" (1 Cor.1:2).​

All of the Jewish believers living in the first century did indeed call on the name of Jesus Christ so therefore all of them belonged to the Body of Christ. Therefore, the words at 1 Corinthians 12:13 were addressed to them.

Further, I hold that Paul taught one gospel, not your two, nor the two of others on here.

I remain ever open to re-examining my views; I just have not read/heard a convincing arguement on these issues.

For example, til I read your take on salvation in Matthew thru John, I had held to the older view.

We can go to the next book of the Bible to see what message was being preached to the Jews and we can also see that belief in that message brought salvation. On the day of Pentecost Peter used facts of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus to prove the deity of Jesus and the fact that he is the promised Messiah. Peter ended his sermon with the following words:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).​

Dr. Stanley D. Toussaint, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary (Acts 2), writes the following commentary on Acts 2:36:

"Here is the conclusion to Peter's sermon. The noun 'Lord', referring to 'Christ', probably is a reference to Yahweh. The same word 'kyrios' is used of 'God' in verses 21, 34, and 39 (cf. Phil. 2:9). This is a strong affirmation of Christ's deity" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck, [ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983], 359).​

The Jews who believed that Jesus is Christ, God come in the flesh, were "born of God". Dr. Zane Hodges, past Chairman of of the New Testament Department at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes the following in regard to Peter's words:

"Peter concludes his address with the assertion that 'God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ' (2:36). His hearers then reply, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' (2:37). But such a reaction presumes their acceptance of Peter's claim that they have crucified the one who is Lord and Christ. If this is what they now believe, then they were already regenerated on Johannine terms, since John wrote: 'Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1; cf. John 20:31) " [emphasis added] (Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 101).

Here are the verses to which Hodges makes reference:"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1,5).

On the day of Pentecost those who believed the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were "born of God" and saved. Even today those who believe that truth receive "life" through His name:

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).​

That was the same message which Paul preached to the Jews:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).​

That was the same gospel which Paul continued to preach to the Jews:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ" (Acts17:2,30).​

That is the same message that Apollos preached to the Jews:

"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus is Christ" (Acts18:28).​

That was also what the Ethiopian treasurer believed: "And Philip said, If thou believeth with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37).

Hope this helps.

 

[Danoh]

Sure thing.

But doesn't the word "both" essentially mean more than one?

See what I'm getting at?
It is because of a strict definition of the word that some do not believe that Christ was God, and some do not believe that Christ was separate from the Father.

I knew that going in. Just as I knew you'd catch it - we're Mid-Actsers, after all - our minds set to noting obvious distinctions

 

[Danoh]

Because of your high praise of O'Hair I just assumed that you shared his view here:

"Peter and James and ten other apostles are going to sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27 and 28). But I do not agree with Christians who say that the twelve apostles were not members of the Body of Christ...I make no such foolish statement...that these Epistles of Peter and James are not for this age...I use 1 Peter 3:18 in preaching the gospel of grace as frequently as I use any other verse" [emphasis mine] (O'Hair, The Accuser of the Brethren and the Brethren Concerning Bullingerism).​

I apologize for mis-representing your view based on my assumption.

Let us look at the evidence that demonstrates that all believers were baptized into the Body of Christ. Here we can see that both Jews and Gentiles are baptized into the Body of Christ:

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).​

In this passage Paul uses the pronoun "we" twice and from his introduction in that same epistle we can know that that pronoun is not only referring to those in the church at Corinth but also "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord":

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's" (1 Cor.1:2).​

All of the Jewish believers living in the first century did indeed call on the name of Jesus Christ so therefore all of them belonged to the Body of Christ. Therefore, the words at 1 Corinthians 12:13 were addressed to them.



We can go to the next book of the Bible to see what message was being preached to the Jews and we can also see that belief in that message brought salvation. On the day of Pentecost Peter used facts of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus to prove the deity of Jesus and the fact that he is the promised Messiah. Peter ended his sermon with the following words:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).​

Dr. Stanley D. Toussaint, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary (Acts 2), writes the following commentary on Acts 2:36:

"Here is the conclusion to Peter's sermon. The noun 'Lord', referring to 'Christ', probably is a reference to Yahweh. The same word 'kyrios' is used of 'God' in verses 21, 34, and 39 (cf. Phil. 2:9). This is a strong affirmation of Christ's deity" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck, [ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983], 359).​

The Jews who believed that Jesus is Christ, God come in the flesh, were "born of God". Dr. Zane Hodges, past Chairman of of the New Testament Department at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes the following in regard to Peter's words:

"Peter concludes his address with the assertion that 'God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ' (2:36). His hearers then reply, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' (2:37). But such a reaction presumes their acceptance of Peter's claim that they have crucified the one who is Lord and Christ. If this is what they now believe, then they were already regenerated on Johannine terms, since John wrote: 'Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1; cf. John 20:31) " [emphasis added] (Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 101).

Here are the verses to which Hodges makes reference:"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1,5).

On the day of Pentecost those who believed the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were "born of God" and saved. Even today those who believe that truth receive "life" through His name:

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).​

That was the same message which Paul preached to the Jews:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).​

That was the same gospel which Paul continued to preach to the Jews:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ" (Acts17:2,30).​

That is the same message that Apollos preached to the Jews:

"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus is Christ" (Acts18:28).​

That was also what the Ethiopian treasurer believed: "And Philip said, If thou believeth with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37).

Hope this helps.

Shared the gospel of our salvation with a Jew the other day.

First issue - "proving that Jesus was the Christ...Moses in the Law, and the Prophets, did say should come."

Second issue - that He rose from the dead - this too, "according to their Scriptures."

Third issue - why He appears to have failed to "restore again the kingdom to Israel."

Fourth issue - the gospel of our salvation this side of all that.

You were right when you reminded me that Paul had received some aspect of Mystery truth on the road to Damascus - where he was saved.

Reviewing it there, in Acts 26, it was basic "But Now" information much how we now, from its basic frame of reference right off know - when we consistently follow it, that is - what is/is not for us.

Acts 26:

15. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17. Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18. To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

That right there is the basic issue in our Mystery Dispensation - Israel concluded blind in part with the Gentiles God had long ago concluded likewise of, after which He called Abram.

As Paul relates in Acts 17:

30. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31. Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath
raised him from the dead.

The very chapter in which he had earlier alleged to Jews that Jesus was very Christ - the issue is the same but is one some miss:

Acts 26 here, in light of what Paul himself later relates in this same chapter what he'd meant by the following:

6. And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers:
7. Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

What is the hope of their promise?

The same as ours:

8. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?
9. I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

The issue for Paul is always the same one - 2 Timothy 2's:

8. Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
9. Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
10. Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

How are both hopes in Him - by His resurrection form the dead!

Thus, why Paul could say to Timothy - in 2 Timothy 2:1. Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

The power of the Cross that both Peter and Paul preached - how that it was not possible that death should hold Him - thus our great hymn - "Power IN the Blood!"

You know, brother, our differences in understanding aside; its great to be a Mid-Acts Believer with each and every one of you on here - with every one of you!

Look at all we get to see!

Ours is but to get out of its ways for that the reality of the following be ours also - 2 Corinthians 3's:

18. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the LORD.

Philippians 1:

9. And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;
10. That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ.
11. Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.

This was what "our pattern" had desired of Mid-Acts Believers - that our love toward one another might abound yet more and more in all knowledge and judgment. That that might be what we might seek to approve as the greater value. That by that, we share and our explore our differences in understanding from this heart attitude towards one another; that by that we might ever strive to be found in Him - sincere and without offence as He has enabled us to be in Him til that day, til His day. That by that, we might be filled with the fruits of righteousness towards one another - fruits which are by Him - which He enabled by His death, burial and resurrection, the forgiveness of our sins, and His coming to dwell in us unto the glory of the praise of God.

Man, o man, that is what is ours! NOW!

If we'll but put aside our need to be right; that He alone be right!

This is what I have loved about O'Hair - not whether he was right or not about the Twelve or what have you - his heart for this truth here!

And this, even though he and Stam ended up a bit off as to the sense of Philippians 1:10 "things that are excellent."

Though, given their great battles with the same fools who are the very enemies of Mid-Acts today, the result of such intensity on the rendering of a passage at times, I can't say I blame them much for having ended up rendering the passage "things that differ" as Paul is talking about that; just not about Israel and the Body distinctions they ended up asserting from that passage - again; given the heat of their very necessary battles against what O'Hair had referred to as "the Accuser of the Brethren."

As usual, context is everything and theirs had been the context of - just when one battle was mounting, another came at them from another so called Father of Fundamentalism.

As one famous Grace Preacher has noted "We owe those three men and theirs, a debt of gratitude we can never repay. Ours is the privilege of moving on to the higher ground their great - oh so extremely rare - labors, have enabled us to begin our own from."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Shared the gospel of our salvation with a Jew the other day.

First issue - "proving that Jesus was the Christ...Moses in the Law, and the Prophets, did say should come."

Will you at least admit that the Jews who believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were born of God and received life when they believed that truth?

If your answer is yes, then will you admit that those words are the heart and soul of a gospel, the gospel of circumcision?

Or are you willing to argue that even though believing those things can bring salvation but at the same time that isn't a gospel?

I was disappointed that you had no response to what is said at 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 12:13.

 

[Danoh]

Will you at least admit that the Jews who believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were born of God and received life when they believed that truth?

If your answer is yes, then will you admit that those words are the heart and soul of a gospel, the gospel of circumcision?

Or are you willing to argue that even though believing those things can bring salvation but at the same time that isn't a gospel?

I was disappointed that you had no response to what is said at 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 12:13.

Lol, Jerry, Jerry Jerry - I am with you on this issue that the Jews who believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were born of God and received life when they believed that truth."

As for the other; it slipped my mind.

1 Corinthians 1:

1. Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both
their's and our's:
3. Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

As you know, the Apostle Paul goes in quite a bit into their divisions. At one point he writes the following in this same Epistle, in chapter 4:

14. I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
15. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
16. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
17. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every
where in every church.

In chapter 7 he adds:

17. But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

1 Corinthians 16:
15. I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

19. The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Should I go on?


In this, the issue of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the same basic issue - division between Body members within those churches that Paul had established out of both Jews and Gentiles.

This is the same issue in Romans 12 and Ephesians 4 – that these saints in those churches Paul had established were all members of the same Body.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Lol, Jerry, Jerry Jerry - I am with you on this issue that the Jews who believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were born of God and received life when they believed that truth."

So do you admit that that truth is a gospel?

And do you not see that Paul preached that same gospel throughout his ministry to the Jews?

In this, the issue of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the same basic issue - division between Body members within those churches that Paul had established out of both Jews and Gentiles.

This is the same issue in Romans 12 and Ephesians 4 – that these saints in those churches Paul had established were all members of the same Body.

Could you please be more specific about what you are saying here. This certainly does not address the fact the Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians is addressed to all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus and therefore all believers everywhere have been baptized into the Body of Christ.

That means that ALL believers throughtout the world in the first century were members of the Body of Christ, including the Twelve Apostles.