• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

If there had been debate board in the 1st Century, what would be their HOT issue?

William C

New Member
I believe the biggest debate issue throughout Christendom (at least from the western perspective since Augustine) has been the debate over Calvinism/Arminianism.

I think we could all agree that this was not the issue of debate in the 1st Century church, nor was in central in the minds of the writers of the New Testament as it is to us on this board.

Knowing the major issues on the author's minds is important to understanding the author's intent, I know we would all agree with this.

So, what do you all think was the number one main issue of contention among believers during the formation of 1st century church?

Do you think that issue affects our understanding of certain texts? If so, how?

Thanks.
 

ScottEmerson

Active Member
I would imagine it was the same thing that Paul and Peter had their little quarrel over. Whether to preach to the Gentiles or not.
 

William C

New Member
Thanks, I think you all are right on target.

The major issue was with Judiazers (Jewish believers) who didn't want to preach to the Gentiles and as a compromise some of them were willing to allow the Gentiles into the church if they first became practicing Jews by being circumcised and following the food laws.

Paul and others address this issue throughout the epistles. I think we would all argree on that as well, (Please correct me if I'm mistaken)

Now, how do you think this issue affects our understanding of the passages of scripture that we debate on this board? Does knowing this have any affect in our understanding of Eph. 1, 2 Thess. 2:13 or just about any verse that deals with God's chosen or elect people?

What do you all think?
 

tyndale1946

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think without a doubt it is the same thing it is now... The Apocalypse!... Brother Glen
 

William C

New Member
Ok, let me tell you what I think and you all let me know where you disagree or agree:

The big issue of the day had to do with the Gentiles being chosen by God to receive entrance into the covenant. Calvinist and Arminians alike agree to this, we just disagree as to who ultimately decides which individual Gentiles will be save. (Am I right so far?)

Ok, now if we look at the passages of scripture that talk about God's chosing or electing people couldn't be that many times these are references to God's choosing to allow Gentiles entrance, and not a reference to God's choosing some individuals as opposed to others?

Lets look at 2 Thess. 2:13-14 as an example:

13 But we must always thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14 He called you to this through our gospel, so that you might obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Most Calvinist see this as a strong support text for their view that God selects certain individuals while leaving others imprisoned in their disobeidence in which He bound them through the imputation of Adam's sin.

But, this verse doesn't support Calvinism at all. Let's look at the verses before verse 13:

"...with every unrighteous deception among those who are perishing. They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false, 12 so that all will be condemned--those who did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness."

"who are perishing" = those who did not accept the love of the truth (Calvinist's would say those "who are persishing" are those whom God chose not to give it too, but the text says those who chose not to accept that which God did choose to give them)

"For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false, so that all will be condemned" = Sounds like someone has been hardened. For what reason? They "DID NOT ACCEPT the love of the truth in order to be saved." AND they "did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness."

Who is verses 10-12 talking about? Israel.

Now let's look at verse 13 again:

But we must always thank God for you [Gentile] brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Israel was hardened, but the Gentiles will listen (Acts 28:28). The church in Thessolonica was primarily Gentiles.

The major objection of the day is that the Gentiles are not God's chosen people like the Israelites were. "They weren't CIRCUMSIZED how dare they enter covenant with our God!" To that claim Paul was saying, "You have been hardened, but we thank God for choosing the Gentiles before the foundation of the world to be saved through faith.

And if that's not enough to convince you look at verse 14 again:

He called you to this through our gospel, so that you might obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"He called you to this through" = Looky hear, what is the means by which God calls his people to salvation. Is it the secret effectual calling or is it the GOSPEL?

"our gospel" = the testimony of the apostles (Jews chosen to carry the message)

We must understand the major issues on the minds of the authors in order to understand their intent. Calvinists, IMO, have failed to do that in this verse and throughout the scripture.

What do you think?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
They would debate "Since the Scriptures are all written by Hebrews - Israel - do you have to become a Jew once you are saved?".

They would argue "Since you can no longer worship false gods - can you eat meat offerred to idols - or should you just be vegetarian to avoid the old ways connected to idols"?

"Can someone who eats meat offerred to idols still be a Christian"?

"If an Idol is nothing but stone - and I enjoy eating the meat that has been offerred to idols - should I stop eating meat whenever a Christian comes along that thinks no Christian should ever eat meat offerred to idols as in the Act 15 commands?"

"Once you become a Christian and start reading Scriptures ALL the way from Genesis to Malachi - do you need to keep all the annual feast days listed in the Bible"?

"There are so many prophets in the church today - and there are also some fakes mixing in - how do we know who is real and who is fake?".

These are things that 1st century Christians might have debated as "hot topics".

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
The issue of circumcision according to Eph 2 and Acts 15 was MUCH more than one ritual act - it was a way to say "you must be FULLY Jewish". It was the statement that you had to BE a Jew to be saved.

It was not simply a question of serving the God of the Bible - the God of Abraham and Isaac. It was to BE a Jew.

Recall - that ALL the Church leaders - church apostles were Jews.

It was a little confusing for Gentiles to figure out that the JEWS that were evangelizing them "Paul, Peter, John etc" - were not asking them to BE Jews.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Bill
"For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false, so that all will be condemned" = Sounds like someone has been hardened. For what reason? They "DID NOT ACCEPT the love of the truth in order to be saved." AND they "did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness."

Who is verses 10-12 talking about? Israel.
No 2Thess 2 has nothing to do with a Jew vs Gentile debate.

It is strictly focused on the last days - the end of the World - conditions just before the return of Christ.

In Christ,

Bob
 

William C

New Member
Bob, your first two posts were right on target and I believe help to shed light on the author's intent when speaking about God's choosing. Good posts


Now to your third post:

Originally posted by BobRyan:
No 2Thess 2 has nothing to do with a Jew vs Gentile debate.

It is strictly focused on the last days - the end of the World - conditions just before the return of Christ.
I beg to differ. Many commentators would disagree with you at this point. But even if this is a reference to end times I think it is clear that the Gentiles being chosen are in focus in verse 13, wouldn't you agree with that?

Let me post an excerpt from Adam Clarkes Commentaries to further explain:

Verse 5. I told you these things] In several parts of this description of the man of sin, the apostle alludes to a conversation which had taken place between him and the members of this Church when he was at Thessalonica; and this one circumstance will account for much of the obscurity that is in these verses. Besides, the apostle appears to speak with great caution, and does not at all wish to publish what he had communicated to them; the hints which he drops were sufficient to call the whole to their remembrance.

Verse 6. And now ye know what withholdeth] I told you this among other things; I informed you what it was that prevented this man of sin, this son of perdition, from revealing himself fully.

Verse 7. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work] There is a system of corrupt doctrine, which will lead to the general apostasy, already in existence, but it is a mystery; it is as yet hidden; it dare not show itself, because of that which hindereth or withholdeth. But when that which now restraineth shall be taken out of the way, then shall that wicked one be revealed-it will then be manifest who he is, and what he is. See the observations at the end of this chapter.

Verse 8. Whom the Lord shall consume] He shall blast him so, that he shall wither and die away; and this shall be done by the spirit of his mouth - the words of eternal life, the true doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus; this shall be the instrument used to destroy this man of sin: therefore it is evident his death will not be a sudden but a gradual one; because it is by the preaching of the truth that he is to be exposed, overthrown, and finally destroyed.

The brightness of his coming] This may refer to that full manifestation of the truth which had been obscured and kept under by the exaltation of this man of sin.

Verse 9. Whose coming is after the working of Satan] The operation of God's Spirit sends his messengers; the operation of Satan's spirit sends his emissaries. The one comes katÆ energeian tou qeou, after or according to the energy or inward powerful working of God; the other comes karÆ energeian tou satana, according to the energy or inward working of Satan.

With all power] pash dunamei? All kinds of miracles, like the Egyptian magicians; and signs and lying wonders: the word lying may be applied to the whole of these; they were lying miracles, lying signs, and lying wonders; only appearances of what was real, and done to give credit to his presumption and imposture. Whereas God sent his messengers with real miracles, real signs, and real wonders; such Satan cannot produce.

Verse 10. And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness] With every art that cunning can invent and unrighteousness suggest, in order to delude and deceive.

In them that perish] en toiv apollumenoiv? Among them that are destroyed; and they are destroyed and perish because they would not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. So they perish because they obstinately refuse to be saved, and receive a lie in preference to the truth. This has been true of all the Jews from the days of the apostle until now.

Verse 11. God shall send them strong delusion] For this very cause, that they would not receive the love of the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness, therefore God permits strong delusion to occupy their minds; so that they believe a lie rather than the truth, prefer false apostles and their erroneous doctrines to the pure truths of the Gospel, brought to them by the well-accredited messengers of God; being ever ready to receive any false Messiah, while they systematically and virulently reject the true one.

Verse 12. That they all might be damned] ÆIna kriqwsi? So that they may all be condemned who believed not the truth when it was proclaimed to them; but took pleasure in unrighteousness, preferring that to the way of holiness. Their condemnation was the effect of their refusal to believe the truth; and they refused to believe it because they loved their sins. For a farther and more pointed illustration of the preceding verses, see the conclusion of this chapter.

Verse 13. & 14. God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, &c.] In your calling, God has shown the purpose that he had formed from the beginning, to call the Gentiles to the same privileges with the Jews, not through circumcision, and the observance of the Mosaic law, but by faith in Christ Jesus; but this simple way of salvation referred to the same end - holiness, without which no man, whether Jew or Gentile, can see the Lord.

Let us observe the order of Divine grace in this business: 1. They were to hear the truth - the doctrines of the Gospel. 2. They were to believe this truth when they heard it preached. 3. They were to receive the Spirit of God in believing the truth. 4. That Spirit was to sanctify their souls-produce an inward holiness, which was to lead to all outward conformity to God. 5. All this constituted their salvation - their being fitted for the inheritance among the saints in light. 6. They were to obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ- that state of felicity for which they were fitted, by being saved here from their sins, and by being sanctified by the Spirit of God.

Verse 14.

Verse 15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast] Their obtaining eternal glory depended on their faithfulness to the grace of God; for this calling did not necessarily and irresistibly lead to faith; nor their faith to the sanctification of the spirit; nor their sanctification of the spirit to the glory of our Lord Jesus. Had they not attended to the calling, they could not have believed; had they not believed, they could not have been sanctified; had they not been sanctified they could not have been glorified. All these things depended on each other; they were stages of the great journey; and at any of these stages they might have halted, and never finished their Christian race.
I hope this clarifies my position.
wave.gif
 

Bible-belted

New Member
You just love to do this don't you Bill? Take an a prori stance and then force all scriptures to fit it I mean.

The relationship of jews and gentioles was without a doubt a major issue inthe first century, but it was far from the only one.

The letters are occassional, and to find out what the occasion is you have to let the letters speak for themselves. Do that and yor little paradigm falls apart.

For example, James makes NO mention of the circumcision debate. Philemon can't fit the mold either.

Specifically thinking of 2nd Thess. here is what the notes of the NIV Stiudy Bible say under "Purpose":

"Inasmuch as the situation in the Thessalonian church has not changed substantially, Paul's purpose in writing is very much the same as in his first letter to them. He writes (1) to encourage persecuted believers (1:4-10), (2) to exhort the Thessalonians to be steadfast and to work for a living (2:13-3:5) and (3) to correct a misunderstanding concerning the Lord's return. "

So just like your little ploy about the apostles you are simply attempting to foist a dubious assumption on the text.

So yes your position is clear, as in clearly wrong.
 

William C

New Member
Originally posted by Bible-belted:
You just love to do this don't you Bill? Take an a prori stance and then force all scriptures to fit it I mean.
Oh, you mean like Calvinists have been doing for generations? :D

The relationship of jews and gentioles was without a doubt a major issue inthe first century, but it was far from the only one.
Never said it was the only one. I said it was the biggest issue. It was the mystery that was being revealed. It was the reason for the Jersulam Council. It was the reason for the disagreement between Paul and Peter. It was the reason for many conflicts with the Judizers, which were believing Jews, and even Jews who were not believers. And, no doubt it was the reason for many of Paul's comments concerning the Gentiles place as a chosen people of God.

The letters are occassional, and to find out what the occasion is you have to let the letters speak for themselves. Do that and yor little paradigm falls apart.
What paradigm would that be? The one in which I said this issue was on the minds of the authors, or the straw man that you created when you implied that I believed this was the only issue they ever dealt with.

For example, James makes NO mention of the circumcision debate. Philemon can't fit the mold either.
This would be a pretty good argument if you were debating that straw man you created earlier :D

(only could find two small books? Hmmm
)

Specifically thinking of 2nd Thess. here is what the notes of the NIV Stiudy Bible say under "Purpose":

"Inasmuch as the situation in the Thessalonian church has not changed substantially, Paul's purpose in writing is very much the same as in his first letter to them. He writes (1) to encourage persecuted believers (1:4-10), (2) to exhort the Thessalonians to be steadfast and to work for a living (2:13-3:5) and (3) to correct a misunderstanding concerning the Lord's return. "
Oh, well then if the NIV study bible says these purposes were the extent of the author's intent then by all means we don't need to go any further.

Let's look at these general outline purposes for a brief second: To encourage persecuted believers, to exhort the Thessalonians to be steadfast; and to correct a misunderstanding concerning the Lord's return.

Nope, none of those talk about God's electing certain individuals to be saved while passing over others, I guess you can't apply your interpretation of 2 Thess. 2:14 to this book either because that obviously wasn't the purpose.

PLEASE! This passage is used all the time to support Calvinism, who bring their "prori stance" to the text and make it fit. I'm showing that the "prori stance" of the author was not Calvinism it was anti-Judiazers. You never dealt with this argument and you never dealt with the text. You can do better than that Bible-belted.

So just like your little ploy about the apostles you are simply attempting to foist a dubious assumption on the text.
Which ploy are you refering to? The one where I point out that the Apostles are chosen out from all the other disciples to carry out a special task. Or the straw man that you all have created that says I believe the Apostles are saved differently than the rest of the Saints. I believe the apostles are saved by grace provided by the atoning work of Christ on the cross, just like you and me. I just believe that God chose them from admist a harden nation to accomplish a specific and unique task. And I believe that some Calvinist overstep the bounds of the text by appling passages that have to do with their unique calling unto apostleship to the soteriology of all mankind.

Please deal with my arguments and not the straw men.
Thanks.

So yes your position is clear, as in clearly wrong.
Not so clear since you have yet to deal with my position. Hey, but thanks for trying.
wave.gif
 

Bible-belted

New Member
Never said it was the only one. I said it was the biggest issue. It was the mystery that was being revealed. It was the reason for the Jersulam Council. It was the reason for the disagreement between Paul and Peter. It was the reason for many conflicts with the Judizers, which were believing Jews, and even Jews who were not believers. And, no doubt it was the reason for many of Paul's comments concerning the Gentiles place as a chosen people of God.
No you did not say it was the only one. You just went on to act as though all you had to do was asssume that issue was the background against which the epistles should be read and presto, a correct interpretation. That is the position I argued successfully against. The "straw man" is the one you created of my response.

This would be a pretty good argument if you were debating that straw man you created earlier
It is a good argument anyway. It shows that you can't just appraoch a given epiostle and assume that the relationship of Jew and Gentile is the interpretive key to the passage. It proves that you have to actually prove that the issue irs relevant to the passage by appealing to the passage's context.

Nope, none of those talk about God's electing certain individuals to be saved while passing over others, I guess you can't apply your interpretation of 2 Thess. 2:14 to this book either because that obviously wasn't the purpose.
You don't know what my interpretation is. Besides, oh person seeking to change the topic, the point is you can't fit YOUR intrerpretation in because your interpretive grid doesn't apply.

Oh, and by all means be dismissive the scholarship of Leon Morris whose commetns I quoted. It merely serves to show how baseless your argument is.

Please deal with my arguments and not the straw men.
Already done, your failure to grasp it notwithstanding.
 

William C

New Member
BB, still having trouble dealing with the text?

You've attacked my arguments by saying my premise doesn't apply, yet you have yet to provide your premise.

If Paul wasn't talking about his thankfulness that the Gentiles were chosen, then the correct way to debate the text is to present your reasons why that is not true and present your views and reasons that your views are true.

Instead, all you have done is virtually said, "Your wrong so na na boo boo." I could get more substance from debating 10 year olds. ;)
 

tyndale1946

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Okay we will have none of that... Moderator... Moderator... He's picking on ME!... Na na boo boo?... Youbrethrenarecrackingmeup
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
... Brother Glen :D & Sister Charlotte
saint.gif
 

William C

New Member
Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I could get more substance from debating 10 year olds.
I know you are, but what am I?
</font>[/QUOTE]I'm rubber and your glue, it bounces off of me and sticks to you!
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
That's just like irresistable Grace :D

Just had to throw that in there; I have heard of people fearing they would become their fathers in later life, but I never imagined I had to worry about becoming my children. This is sometimes how I feel on here though, I am just thankful God is long-suffering and mercyful, if these eternal questions were left up to our merits or even that of others we each would have cast ourselves into the pit right along with our opponents long ago.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
beg to differ. Many commentators would disagree with you at this point.
2Thess 2:1 sets the context as the coming of Christ and declares in vs 2 the context is explicit "the Day of the Lord" and it is future "IT will COME after the falling away" that Paul has previously predicted.

Clearly it is a discussion of events future to Paul's day, dealing with the rapture of the church "our gathering together to him" at the "Day of the Lord".

The Lord slays the man of sin at His appearance (Vs 8)

Bill
But even if this is a reference to end times I think it is clear that the Gentiles being chosen are in focus in verse 13, wouldn't you agree with that?
2Thess 2:13 does not specifically isolate the Gentile believers from the Hebrew believers.

"God has chosen you from the beginning bretheren" can certainly be understood to include all believers - gentile believers etc but it does not detract from the day that "will come" in the future at the "appearing" of Christ at His coming which is the explicit context of 2Thess 2:1-12.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Clarkes Commentaries
Verse 8. Whom the Lord shall consume] He shall blast him so, that he shall wither and die away; and this shall be done by the spirit of his mouth - the words of eternal life, the true doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus; this shall be the instrument used to destroy this man of sin: therefore it is evident his death will not be a sudden but a gradual one; because it is by the preaching of the truth that he is to be exposed, overthrown, and finally destroyed.

The brightness of his coming] This may refer to that full manifestation of the truth which had been obscured and kept under by the exaltation of this man of sin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am more inclined to accept that "His coming" means His real "coming". His "appearing" means His real appearing. And the future day spoken of - as a real day future to the day of Paul.

Satan as really being Satan.

Destruction as being literal destruction of the wicked.

In Christ,

Bob
 
Top