Thursday, October 4, 2018

A Refutation of “The Unity of the Spirit – 2 Evangels?” Part Four

TOGETHER-BOND OF PEACE

Going back to Ephesians 4, we are entreated to be endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit with the tie or literally together-bond of peace. What else could this together-bond be besides just not arguing or separating? Well, Paul tells us already in Ephesians 2 what that together-bond is:

“For He is our Peace, Who makes both one...that He should be creating the two in Himself, into one new humanity, making peace...And coming He brings the evangel of peace to you, those afar, and peace to those near, for through Him we both have had the access, in one spirit, to the Father.”

There is a lot of peace and oneness now, because of Christ Jesus, Who is our peace. And notice the evangel of peace that He brings to both Jew and Gentile.

Since the time that the evangel of the Uncircumcision first began to be believed by people from among the nations, the body of Christ has included both Jews and Gentiles. And the peace and oneness of which Paul wrote in the above passage from Ephesians 4 is clearly a reference to the oneness of those in the body of Christ. However, this passage in no way supports the idea that every believer in Paul’s day was a member of the body of Christ, or disproves the position that most believing Jews in Paul’s day weren’t in the body of Christ.

ALL ONE BODY

Those who teach two evangels do claim to believe what Paul wrote in Ephesians about the one body but still teach that the apostles, Peter, James and John, are not part of this together-bond body of Christ. On what authority can that be stated? Where is that written? Do the apostles not have the holy spirit, the same spirit the Gentiles receive upon believing on the Lord Jesus Christ?

“For in one spirit also we all are baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and all are made to imbibe one spirit.”1 Cor.12:13

To echo Anonymous’ questions above, I ask in turn: On what authority can it be stated that the calling and expectation of Peter, James and John – which was in accord with Israel’s covenant-based promises - ever changed? Where is it written that they became members of that company of saints that began to be formed after Paul was entrusted with an evangel that Peter did not herald (and which essentially involves the truth that Christ died for our sins)? It is not enough to say that Peter, James and John all had the holy spirit, for this fact alone doesn’t make one a member of the body of Christ. The real question is, “Were Peter, James and John spiritually baptized into the same body as Paul and those to whom he wrote?” And in response to this question, I can find no affirmative answer in scripture.

Anonymous then asks, ”How is it that the apostles are not part of this body?” Because Peter, James and John belonged to the believing remnant among God’s covenant people, Israel, and – insofar as this is the case - have a different calling and expectation than the saints in the body of Christ (Paul included). Their status as believing members of God’s covenant people, Israel, means that they are not part of that company of saints which is (and always has been) distinct from God’s covenant people, and which has a calling and expectation that is distinct from Israel’s covenant-based promises.

Ironically, in forcing Peter, James and John into the body of Christ, it is actually the author of the article I’m refuting who ends up creating a divide between members of the body. According to the logical implication of Anonymous’ position, some members of the body of Christ will be enjoying their eonian life in the kingdom of God on the earth (e.g., Peter, James and John), while others will be enjoying their eonian life in “in the heavens” and “among the celestials” (e.g., Paul and the saints to whom he wrote). 

What does Paul go on to say in v.27-28? “Now you are the body of Christ, and members of a part, whom also God, indeed, placed in the ecclesia, first, apostles, second, prophets, third teachers...”

Why would the twelve, especially, Peter, James and John be outside of this body, when God placed in the ecclesia, first, apostles but then leave out the earliest apostles? Wouldn't it be stated somewhere clearly? It is confusing and contradictory to teach that.

Anonymous seems to be implying that, without a verse in scripture that “clearly” and explicitly denies that the twelve apostles are in the body of Christ, it’s unreasonable for anyone to believe that they aren’t. But that itself is an entirely unreasonable position to take. Just because something’s not clearly and explicitly denied to be true in scripture doesn’t mean we ought to therefore affirm it. For example, nowhere in scripture is there a verse or passage that clearly and explicitly denies that God is a “triune being,” but that doesn’t mean God is a triune being. In the same way, there’s no good reason to expect any inspired author to have “stated somewhere clearly” that Peter, James and John weren’t in the body of Christ. However, this doesn’t mean that anyone today is justified in believing that they were in the body of Christ, especially when we know (for example) that the twelve apostles belonged to a company of believers that existed before the body of Christ came into existence, and which had (and has) a calling and expectation that is completely distinct from that which belongs to those in the body of Christ.

Moreover (and as noted earlier), Paul’s words in Eph. 4:7-14 indicate that the apostles which Paul had in view as being members of “the ecclesia which is Christ’s body” were given by Christ after he had already ascended to heaven (and would include men such as Paul himself, Barnabas, Apollos, Silas, Timothy, etc.). It was those who were given by the ascended Christ who were given “for the up-building of the body of Christ.” This would necessarily exclude the twelve apostles from being the apostles that God “placed in the ecclesia, first.” For again, the twelve were made apostles before Christ’s ascension into heaven (see Matt. 10:1-5; Mark 3:14; 6:7, 30; cf. Matt. 28:16-20; Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:1-5). Insofar as this is the case, the twelve apostles cannot be among the apostles referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:27-28.

As far as what Anonymous considers “confusing and contradictory,” there’s nothing confusing or contradictory about believing that the body of Christ has had apostles as members since it first came into existence, while also denying that these apostles included the twelve apostles.

And is there an ecclesia that is separate from the body? That teaching has to be read into the scriptures to support it.

There absolutely is “an ecclesia that is separate from” what Paul referred to as “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body.“ For example, we read of the “ecclesia in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38), which was “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2). And we also read of the ecclesia that Christ referred to in Matthew 16:18, which was being built on the foundational truth that Jesus “is the Christ, the Son of the living God” (v. 16). As I’ve argued, this is the truth which constitutes the evangel of the Circumcision. The calling and expectation of this ecclesia (to which Peter and the rest of the twelve apostles belonged) is in accord with Israel’s covenant-based promises, and those constituting this ecclesia will be enjoying their allotment in the kingdom of God on the earth (i.e., the kingdom that is going to be restored to Israel, in accord with the expectation of the apostles in Acts 1:6; cf. Acts 1:2-3). It was to Peter – who was entrusted with the evangel of the Circumcision - that Christ gave the “keys” of this kingdom.

God's family is being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cap corner stone, in Whom the entire building, being connected together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord. The only people excluded from this building, ecclesia or body, are those who rejected Christ and unbelievers.

Paul did not write that the “family” of God was “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body.”

Anonymous: In fact, Paul wrote earlier in 1Cor.10:1-4: “For I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, that our fathers all were under  the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the spiritual Rock which followed. Now the Rock was Christ.”

How much more can we now say, all are now partaking of the same spiritual food and drink, which is the spiritual body and blood of Christ? All means all, not some, and not just those who followed Paul, or as is taught, those who chose to follow his evangel of grace as opposed to those who chose to stay in the Circumcision evangel entrusted to Peter. That can nowhere be found. Further more, it is God, Who is choosing, and placing every member in the body of Christ, is it not?

Yes, it is God who is choosing and placing people in the body of Christ. But Anonymous is simply begging the question if he or she thinks that this fact proves that every believer in Paul’s day had been chosen by God to be in the body of Christ.

PAUL ONLY?

Concerning Paul versus Peter lets go to 1Cor.1:10-13:

“Now I am entreating you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all may be saying the same thing, and there may be no schisms among you, but you may be attuned to the same mind and to the same opinion. For ...there are strifes among you. Now I am saying this, that each of you is saying, 'I, indeed, am of Paul,' yet 'I of Apollos,' yet 'I of Cephas,' yet 'I of Christ.' Christ is parted! (Christ is divided!) Not Paul was crucified for your sakes! Or into the name of Paul are you baptized?”

How can we say that we are of Paul and not of Peter when Paul tells us not to say that? How can we say we are following Paul and then turn around and contradict the very words he spoke? If we are just of Paul then we are saying that Christ can be divided.

What, exactly, does Anonymous think would make believers today guilty of that of which some of the saints in Corinth were guilty in Paul’s day? Would one be guilty of “dividing” Christ by claiming that Christ – and not Paul, Apollos or Peter – was crucified for our sakes? Of course not. Affirming a doctrinal truth about Christ that does not apply to Paul, Apollos or Peter (or any other man) does not make one guilty of the divisive, schism-creating attitude that was being manifested by those who were saying they were “of” this or that person. Rather, to affirm that something is true of Christ that isn’t true of Paul, Apollos or Peter is simply to affirm the truth.

Now, let’s apply this same principle to the apostle Paul. Is one necessarily guilty of the same divisive, faction-creating attitude and actions that some of the saints in Corinth were guilty of by affirming that Paul – and not Peter  – was “the apostle of the nations” (and thus the apostle commissioned by Christ to bring the evangel entrusted to him to pagan, idol-worshipping Gentiles)? No. Paul himself declared that he was the apostle of the nations (Rom. 11:13), and that he - and not Peter - had been entrusted with “the evangel of the Uncircumcision” (Gal. 2:7). So it’s simply not the case that Christ is being “divided” by those who affirm this truth.

In the same way, Christ is not being “divided” by those who read and study Paul’s thirteen letters as letters which, in contrast with the letters of Peter and James (for example), were written to and for believers who are “of the nations.” If this is what Anonymous thinks some of the saints in Corinth were guilty of (and for which Paul had to rebuke them), then Anonymous is simply mistaken. One is not guilty of “dividing Christ” by affirming that Paul made known certain truths in his letters to the saints in the body of Christ that weren’t made known in the letters of Peter, James or John (including the truth that there even is a company of saints called “the body of Christ”). Nor is one guilty of “dividing Christ” by believing that Paul was given an administration that was not given to Peter, James or John. Nor is one guilty of “dividing Christ” by believing that Paul – but not Peter, James or John – revealed truths that pertain to those in the body of Christ, but not to those who belong to the “all Israel” which will be saved when Christ returns to the earth.

We could further add that Christ is not being “divided” by those who believe that Paul – but not Peter, James and John – revealed the truth that our justification is “through the faith of Christ,” that those in the body of Christ are going to be snatched away to meet the Lord in the air before the indignation of God begins coming upon the earth, and that our eonian life is going to be enjoyed “in the heavens” and “among the celestials.” If those who agree with everything stated above are guilty of “dividing Christ,” then Paul himself was guilty of “dividing Christ!” But that, of course, is absurd. The fact is that believing in “administrational” (or “dispensational”) differences between Paul and the twelve apostles (or between Paul and James) has nothing at all to do with what Paul was rebuking the saints in Corinth for doing.

In the Corinthian ecclesia there were four different groups each saying we are “of” someone, excluding the others. It's even wrong to say that we are of Christ because that attitude divides. In fact, if we are attuned to the same mind and opinion, the mind of Christ, then we will all be saying the same thing and there will be no schisms in our midst. This is exactly what Paul has said!

Based on what is said above, it would seem that Anonymous and I are in agreement that the problem to which Paul was responding was a divisive attitude among the saints in Corinth. What some of the saints in Corinth were guilty of doing was claiming allegiance to a certain individual as their leader, and forming rival cliques/factions around this leader. The key to understanding the problem to which Paul was responding is, I believe, found in the words, “I am of Christ.” How could it be wrong to affirm that one is “of Christ” unless, in doing so, one was attempting to distance oneself from other members of the same ecclesia, and create separations between those in the body of Christ? Thus, we can conclude that the problem involved a divisive attitude among the saints, and not simply differences concerning doctrine (including the doctrinal question of whether the apostle Peter shared in the calling and expectation of the body of Christ or that of Israel).

THE SPIRIT TEACHES

“So that, let no one be boasting in men,  for all is yours , whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or the present, or that which is  impending---all is yours, yet you are Christ's, yet Christ is God's” (1Cor.3:21-23).

What? All is for us? All things belong to us? Whether Paul or Cephas or...? Have we not heard it taught that we must be careful to not take what doesn't belong to us, what was given to Israel by God in covenant? So why is Paul saying it all belongs to us? Well the scriptures tell us why and the topic of Israel and covenant can be examined later. This whole topic has many aspects to it and it is difficult to isolate each one from the other because they all connect in spiritual understanding.

Everything Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 3:21-23 is perfectly consistent with the view that the apostle Peter belonged to a company of believers distinct from the body of Christ (i.e., the chosen remnant within Israel). We can learn and benefit from what Peter wrote in his two letters just as we can learn and benefit from what John wrote in Revelation, or from what Moses wrote in the Pentateuch, or from what the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel wrote in their respective works. But that doesn’t mean that what Peter wrote (or any other inspired author) is just as relevant and applicable to the saints in the body of Christ as what Paul wrote in his thirteen letters. 

And lest Anonymous object that Paul specified Peter (Cephas) as being “ours” right after referring to himself and Apollos, Paul went on to include “the world,” “life,” “death,” “the present,” and “that which is impending” as part of the same “all” that is ours! Clearly, it wasn’t Paul’s intent to convey the idea that each of the people or things that are said to be “ours” in 1 Cor. 3:23 benefit us in the same way and in the exact sense (or does Anonymous believe that we benefit from “life” in the same sense that we benefit from “death,” the “last enemy”?). And given that this is obviously the case, this passage is completely useless as a “proof-text” for Anonymous’ position that Peter is an apostle in the body of Christ, or that his letters are just as equally to and for those in the body of Christ as are Paul’s thirteen letters.

ALL SCRIPTURE

If we think that the gospels and the so-called circumcision epistles are not written to us and that we should avoid them lest we begin mixing what belongs in another administration for another people we will suffer loss in our spiritual service and maturity. Paul tells us:

“....  the sacred scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All the scriptures testify of Christ.

“All scripture is inspired by God, and is beneficial for teaching, for exposure, for correction, for discipline in righteousness, that the man of God may be equipped, fitted out for every good act.” 2Tim.3:15-17

Anonymous is attacking a straw-man here. Anyone who believes that we should “avoid” all scripture outside of Paul’s letters (and I’m not aware of anyone who does believe this) is clearly mistaken on this point, irrespective of whatever else they may or may not believe. But let’s consider just how consistent Anonymous’ argument is. Anonymous is appealing to Paul’s words that “all scripture” is beneficial to teachers in the body of Christ in order to support the position that “the so-called circumcision epistles” (i.e., Hebrews through Revelation) are just as applicable and relevant to the saints in the body of Christ as Paul’s thirteen epistles (and, by implication, that the original recipients of the “circumcision epistles” were members of the body of Christ). But would Anonymous say the same thing about everything written in the Scriptures? Is everything that we read in Genesis through Malachi (for example) just as relevant and applicable to those in the body of Christ as Paul’s thirteen letters? Obviously not. And given that this is the case, Anonymous can’t appeal to Paul’s words in the verses quoted above as evidence that the “circumcision epistles” must also be considered just as relevant and applicable to those in the body of Christ as Paul’s thirteen letters. It simply doesn’t follow.

Thus, Anonymous’ “all scripture” argument fails.



No comments:

Post a Comment