The Beginning of the Church (Matthew 16:18)

I fail to follow this logic and what ever it is remains untrue. Whether Jesus was present at the beginning of the church is not relevant to whether he started it. It is in fact possible that Christ laid the foundation for the church ie, trained the disciples and gave them a mission(Matthew 28:18-20) and at the same time intended that they wait until a time later than his walk on earth for its actual Genesis.

I also have reasonable doubt that the disciples were actually given the Holy Ghost in John 20. His breathing on them could also be symbolic of His promise. Add to that if they already possessed the indwelling of the Holy Ghost then what was it that occurred at Pentecost? While that question was rhetorical in nature I believe it sheds doubt on your idea. Jesus also made it clear that it was necessary that He "go away" (KJV) in order that the comforter would come (John 16:7). Since Christ was still here at the time it puts reasonable doubt that the Holy Ghost had yet come.

 

I believe anyone who has preached for any length of time, understands what happened at Pentecost. It happened to me this Sunday.

We, at the moment of salvation, are spiritually "baptized" into the Body of Christ, and receive the Holy Spirit. The Spirit works through us, and grows us. This has been true since the first redeemed man, thousands of years ago.

At Pentecost, we see a special filling of the Holy Spirit, just as when God, through a Pastor/preacher, preaches a message to a congregation. This was not the first time it had happened: we see numerous accounts of similar things happening with the OT prophets, being filled with the Spirit.

 

Really? So you think I have never read Romans? You think Doug Moo (probably the premier living scholar on Romans) never read romans? You think John Murray never read Romans? You think Ryrie never read Romans? You think McClain never read Romans? You think Showers never read Romans? You think Walvoord never read Romans? Should I go on? Or should you retract your statement?

Clearly, people can read Romans and come to a different conclusion than you have.

Why did you start at v. 6? Go back to v. 3, where Paul defines who he is talking about: or I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Isn't it clear from vv. 3-5 that the Israel of v. 6 is Paul's kinsmen, to whom was given the covenants, the law, the temple, the promises, and from whom Christ came? That cannot be applied to the Gentiles. That is ethnic Israel

So the two bodies of v. 6 seem to be a larger group and a subset of the larger group .... Israel the nation, and those from the nation who are also elect.

Exactly. Paul's point is not that physical descendancy is not necessary. It is that physical descendancy is not enough.

Exactly. Notice that this is explicitly ruling out certain descendants of Abraham, namely those through Ishmael, and including those through Isaac, who are the twelve tribes of Israel.

I think you are not reading and thinking carefully here. Again, in the context, Paul is talking about his "kinsmen according to the flesh" which is universally agreed to be ethnic Israel. I don't know of anyone who disputes that. But Paul is saying that being a descendant of the flesh is not enough. He is not saying it is unimportant.

Now you have switched contexts. Gal 3 is about something else, though it clearly references a distinction of between Israel and the church. It however it talking about the church.

Your point is not only not crystal clear; in the context of Romans 9, you can see that it doesn't even make much sense of the text.

John Murray, who has never been confused with a dispensationalist recognizes this. And Doug Moo, the premier living scholar on the book of Romans makes this point as well. So apparently, in contrast to your opening statement, all those who have read the book of Romans do not see this as clearly as you do.

 

Really? You heard a great rushing wind and people saw little flames of fire dancing on your head, and you spoke and people from at least eleven different languages understood you?

Wow ... And I thought Rick Warren was impressive when he wanted to recreate Pentecost with 3000 baptisms on Easter weekend.

 

No. I think they proof text Romans, reading it through dispensationalist colored glasses. They read it, and force it into their theology, like a 4 year old might force a triangle peg into a square hole, in the game of "Perfection"...

That doesn't mean it belongs there.

The context, is that these "kinsmen according to the flesh", that he is referring to, are those who are part of "Israel according to the flesh", who are NOT SAVED (which is why Paul says he would have himself accursed, for their sake).

Not at all. He states explicitly that not everyone who is a part of Israel, is a part of it because they are descendant, not vice versa. Can't you read?

and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring,

This says that not everyone who is a part of Israel, is Abraham's Physical descendant, not the other way around! This is not talking about any "subset". If I have an adopted child, and I say "not all of my children are my children because they are my offspring", that means I have a child that is not physically descended from me. They are my child, but not according to my flesh.

That IS Crystal clear.

Yes, but what YOU are missing, is that he is specifically including people who are NOT descended from Abraham at all.

Not at all. The group He is EXCLUDING, is his "kinsmen according to the flesh" for which, he desires to be accursed, that they might be saved. There is "ethnic Israel", which is native born Jews, and their is "True Israel", which Includes both native born jews, washed by Christ's blood, and those who are not offspring "according to the flesh", who have been grafted in.

Not at all. He CLEARLY teaches that we who are Christs are Abraham's "sperma" (we all know what word we get from this). We are "Heirs according to the promise". What promises? The promises given to Israel.


It is strange to me, that before Christ came, a gentile could become a full fledged Israelite: yet apparently, according to dispensationalists, Christ's death actually made Gentiles second class citizens.

Exo 12:48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.

IMHO, Dispensationalism is racist theology (though I am certainly not calling anyone a racist: this is just a inevitable result of this theology).

God does not judge people according to the color of their skin.

 

If you will read through the book of Acts, you will notice that the Spirit falling on a group of new believers, actually has several different effects. One other time, a similar instance occurred as on the day of Pentecost. Other times, it say they "Preached the word of God with boldness".

"Flames of fire on their heads", could well be metaphorical, though I am not going to state it dogmatically. I simply wasn't there.

However, you are making the same mistake Pentecostals make: you are creating doctrine based upon singular occurrences in scripture, rather than the clear teachings of scripture.

 

FWIW, I believe Pastor Larry has answered the O/P question as to when the church began as well as humanly possible.

I believe the problem of the local church vs the "Universal" church is that many see the universal church as the entity called "Christendom".

I personally don't like the term "universal church" as it does not appear in the Scripture (but then again neither does the word "Trinity") and would rather talk about the Body of Christ. But if the universal church is defined as the collection of all those born again and baptised into the Body of Christ, I can go with that "universal" church definition.

The great emphasis in the NT is upon the local church.

A side note: Personally, as one who holds to a dispensational view of the Scriptures, I make a distinction between Israel and the Church.

Each of these entities had a visible and a spiritual counter part.

Not all of Israel were of Israel. Not all in each the local churches are necessarily members of the Body of Christ (that is not to say that there are no local churches where every one is saved).

But as to the Bride of Christ, the New Jerusalem, elements of the new heaven and the new earth even there both Israel and the church are seen as distinct.

Revelation 21

12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.​

Presumably this distinction will go on into eternity.​

I thought it interesting that the 12 "gates" (12 Tribes of Israel) which preceded the church in the time continuum were built upon the "foundation" blocks, the 12 Apostles of the Lamb.​

HankD​

 

I am sorry for your incorrect theology. There, in fact, was never a baptism of the Holy Ghost until Pentecost.

Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

 

I tend to think of the kingdom as here now, and so is the church. But my idea of the distinction is between the kingdom and the local church, not some nebulous "invisible" church.

I understand that there is a relationship among various New Testament Churches, but for the life of my I can't figure out what such a relationship would be with the Universal Church, if it existed. How would such a relationship take expression. I know how such relationships take expression with local churches. The other is not obvious at all.

We do have one instance, at least, in which Paul noted that Jesus died for the local church. Acts 20:28. He told the Ephesian elders to feed the church of God that Jesus had purchased with his own blood. The church of God Paul referred to was the congregation over which the Holy Spirit had made the elders overseers--the church at Ephesus. Seems to me that Paul could be referring to the same congregation in Ephesians 5:25. "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it." Let's see, Jesus purchased the church (at Ephesus) with his own blood. Christ also gave himself for the church. Hmm, purchased, gave himself. Sounds similar to me.


3. The church started at Pentecost. 1 Cor 12:13 clearly says that the body is formed by Spirit baptism which is still future in the gospels (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8), and occurs in Acts 2 at Pentecost. This alone should settle the matter. The appeal to the use of ekklesia in the LXX is meaningless since the word is used elsewhere as well. No one pretends that a word has one and only one usage, and that it only ever means the same thing. Almost all words have a semantic domain, a variety of usages that must be determined by context. The OT ekklesia is an assembly of God's people. But the NT clearly distinguishes the OT assembly from the NT church (cf. Gal 6:16; Rom 9-11; etc). [/QUOTE]

I Cor 12:13 is the cornerstone text for the Pentecost "forming"of the church. It might settle the issue if there was no possible way to interpret it other than that. But there is.

First problem is that the text is arbitrarily applied to the Pentecost starting of the church. Just a flat statement. Here's the verse, and this is what it means.

The next problem is the interpretation of the Greek "en," translated as "by" in the KJV. And then equating the Spirit with the Holy Spirit, when it could have been a lower-case spirit. (I believe it is the Holy Spirit, BTW). And the so-called Spirit baptism could just as easily be water baptism.

So we could see the verse as follows" Because in one Spirit (led by the Spirit), we are all (water) baptized into the body (at Corinth). Further, Paul, a few verses later (12:27) specifically says to the Corinthian church "YE are the body of Christ."

So it's not as settled as one might insist.

I'm sure you and I both desire to let Scripture drive our theology.

 

I'm sorry. Where does this say no one was baptized with the Holy Spirit until Pentecost? I see where it says the APOSTLES were not baptized with the Spirit until Pentecost...but then that makes sense, considering that one of them betrayed Jesus, the rest of them deserted Him, and at least one of them denied Him to men, which Jesus says is proof that a person is not saved(Matthew 10:33).

The Holy Spirit was abiding in Men, long before Pentecost:

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me.

1Sa 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of Jehovah came mightily upon David from that day forward.

 

So why did you say it?

Really? Aside from your crack about 4 year olds, do you really think that John Murray of Westminster Seminary reads it through dispensational glasses? Or Doug Moo of Wheaton College reads it through dispensational glasses?

And you think you don't have glasses you read it through? Of course you do.

Here are a list of commentators who agree with me that the "second use of 'Israel' is restricted to ethnic Jews who believe in Jesus as Messiah" (quote from Schreiner, p. 494; list of commentators from his footnote 9 on p. 484).

1. Sanday and Headlam
2. John Murray
3. Munch
4. Richardson
5. Cranfield
6. Beker
7. Campbell
8. Kasemann
9. Musssner
10. M. Barth
11. Hafemann
12. Hofius
13. B. Longenecker
14. Cranford
15. Fitzmyer
16. Mounce
17. Moo

Your claim means that all of these writers read through dispensationalists glasses. But most of them are not even dispensationalists. They are exegetes of the text.

The point is that we have to deal with the words of the text. You are forcing it into a system. I disagree with that method.

The reality is that my position on Romans 9 doesn't even mean that the church is not called Israel somewhere else. It simply means that Romans 9 doesn't do it. It is hard to imagine how Paul could have made it more clear.

Right, and he goes on to say that they are not saved because they are not spiritual descendants. Again, if you read the context, Paul is saying that physical is not enough. There has to be more. not less.

Exactly. It is not enough to be a descendant. You also have to believe.

Of course. Why ask such a demeaning question? You know I can read. Are you unable to make your point without such a charge?

No it doesn't. It says nothing about those who are not physical descendants of Abraham. Again, he distinguishes between Ishmael and Isaac. He does not reach outside of Abraham's descendants to make his point, though he certainly could have.

And where is that in the text? He has specifically defined them as descendants of Abraham and descendants of Isaac.

In v. 8, Paul refers to "children of the promise." What is the promise? It is found in v. 9: the promise that Sarah would have a child. That means that "true Israel" are those who are the result of the promise kept to Abraham and Sarah. You and I are not the result of that promise. The twelve tribes were.

No, actually the promise of Christ (cf. v. 13). The promises given to Israel were more than that, and there were not made void by their disobedience (v. 16).

Really? What dispensationalist teaches that?

That's a bad opinion with no basis in fact.

Yes, you actually are. It's kind of hard to avoid in this case.

No it's not. That's just silly. Racism is a serious issue that has spanned all across the theological spectrum. It should not be brought up in this conversation. It has nothing to do with. It is a very thinly veiled personal attack that has no basis in the discussion of the text itself.

You are at least correct on that.

 

If you have some passage in mind, put them forth.

Is this an admission that what you experienced last Sunday may not have been Pentecost? I am confused as to why you would say you experienced it, and then say you are not even sure what it means.

How so?

 

I think the relationship is in Christ. It doesn't take expression here, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I don't think.

Isn't this a case where he takes a universal principle and applies it to a particular instance?

Isn't there a fairly clear allusion to Jesus words in Matt 3:11, etc?

Several problems, not the least of which is that it means one is not a part of the church until water baptism. Yet if the church is made up of all those who are in Christ, it cannot include water baptism. (Yet another argument for an invisible church).

But Paul says "we all" and Paul wasn't baptized at Corinth. So how does Paul include himself in a local church water baptism of which he was not a part?

I am confident that is true with all of us here.

 

Showing favoritism, based on ones race, is the very definition of the word "Racism".

If God has two men standing before Him, both saved, one is a black African Tribesman, and one is a Jew, and God says "I am going to treat the Jew different, because He is Jewish, and the other man is not" that is racism.

I don't see how you can even argue the point.

Now don't get me wrong: If God wants to be racist, that is His right: He is, after all, God. However, I don't believe He is, or ever has been.

In the Old Testament, How did a Jew become a full fledged member of Israel?
He was circumcised.

In the Old Testament, How did a Gentile become a full fledged member of Israel?
He was circumcised.

God's "preferential treatment" was always for those who obeyed His command, whom He calls Israel, both Old Testament and New. Gentiles who became circumcised, became "Natives of the Land" (Israelites).

So too is it now. God does not discriminate on race. All are treated the same, with "No Distinction". That word means they are not even DISTINGUISHED from each other, much less rewarded differently.

 

These verses do not indicate the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in men only that the Holy Ghost worked through men. Scripture does indicate that the indwelling was a future promise:

John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

In I Sam 16:13 the word "upon" is the Hebrew word "elel" which means to be "with", "near', or "among". It does not indicate to be "in" as in an indwelling.

It is clear from scripture that God dwelt in the tabernacle( Exodus 25:8) and in the Temple ( I Kings 8:11).

Since the Spirit could not come until Christ had been glorified this points to a future event from the OT.

 

So when God chose Abraham and established a nation that was given favoritism as opposed to Philistines, Hittites, etc. God was racist? Is that really where you want to go?

Who says God would treat them differently?

There was actually more to it than this.

That is true "now." No one disputes that. But it is indisputable that in the past God treated Jews differently than others (cf. Rom 3 for example). And while you say God can be racist if he wants to, it sounds like you are saying racism is not really sin anyway. And if God does it, is it wrong for us to do it?

I think you are using "racism" in too broad a way here without thinking critically about the issues involved.

With respect to "racism," all dispensationalism does it maintain that what God did in the past (that we all agree about) is what he will do in the future (which we disagree about).

 

No. God did not establish a race. God established a nation. Anyone, who desired, could be a part of that nation.

Let me use an illustration I used this Sunday. Suppose an African man comes over here to study, at a college. He gets all the necessary paper work. He is then a "sojourner in the land".

But if he applies for citizenship,and gets it, he is no longer a sojourner, but an American.

This was the same concept God used in the Old Testament. God established a nation through Jacob, named "Israel". This Israel was then open, to any who desired to bow their knee to God. Any Jew, or Gentile, who refused to be circumcised, was excluded from this "Nation". Any Jew, or Gentile, who chose to be circumcised, was included. This inclusion applies to all God's promises, not just certain ones.

Uh, Traditional dispensationalism (As opposed to Progressive dispensationalism) says EXACTLY that. There are even some who say the Gospels, Revelation, and several of the NT Epistles, do not even apply to us, even going so far as to preach a "Two Gospel" heresy...

http://www.lesfeldick.org

Could you please show me where this is? I know the Scribes and Pharisees perverted this, maintaining a distinction where God placed none, but it's not in the Bible..

Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to Jehovah, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

If a person was circumcised (In faith, of course) they became a Native of Israel: ie an Israelite.

Actually they do. Classical Dispensationalism teaches that Jews and Gentiles will be separated, even into Eternity. Many even teach that the Jews will "rule" over the non-Jews. That is a HUGE distinction.

And even progressive dispensationalists, teach that either the Millennial reign is just for the Jews (even though the Bible seems to teach those who don't participate in it will experience the "second death"), or that the Jews will be in a place of Prominence, over the Non-Jews.

Not at all. It is VERY disputable. God showed favoritism to His NATION, not His "Race". Yet this Nation was open to all who would come to Him in Faith. Ruth, for example, a non Jew, is even in the line of Jesus.

I have actually thought about it extensively. I think people need to reevaluate their theology, in light of God's character.

I do not agree, nor do most Covenant theologians I know agree, with what you have stated. God never showed favoritism according to race: rather He showed favoritism to a Nation, whose citizenship was open to anyone that would come in faith.

 

So by this, your charge of “racism” against dispensationalists is false anyway because we talk about Israel as a nation. This distinction just doesn't stand up. I don't know of any dispensationalists who denies the presence of proselytes in the Israelite community. I don't think this distinction is regularly made by people who know what they are talking about. I haven't seen it.

Can you actually cite someone?

There are dispensationalists who believe this, but this is not dispensationalism. I am a traditional dispensationalists who rejects all of these things.

Yes, you had to agree to live under the Law. It wasn’t just a physical act. It was a commitment to be a part of the nation and live under the nation. Included in that was the verse you cite (Exod 12:48) which certainly includes more than simple circumcision.

Actually they don’t. No one disputes that “now” God does not make a distinction. Gal is clear about this, as is Ephesians that there is no more Jew or Gentile in the church. We are all one.

But that’s not “now,” which is what the discussion was about. And not all classical or traditional dispensationalists hold that.

Yes, and with good reason. This is exactly what the OT prophets teach.

Read Rom 3. God gave the Jews revelation that he did not give others. That is “favoritism.” So yes, it is indisputable that God treated Jews differently.

That’s really a distintion without a difference.

On this I completely agree. And for me, this thread brings it out even more.

I wouldn’t argue with this. But it is undeniable that God gave the Jews as a nation a particular place of favoritism among the nations. Deut 7:7-8 among other places make this clear. I don’t know of any covenantalist who disagrees with that. Our contention is that what he did in the past is what he has promised to do again and he will do it.

 

YOU are making distinctions according to race. Your basically saying either:

#1 Hebrews are the only ones considered a part of True Israel.

or

#2 We would have been better off before Christ came, because, according to you, we no longer become a part of Israel (Like we would have been in the Old Testament), so therefore, we have now lost the place of prominence that we could have had.

I'm saying that we are a part of Israel, just as we would have been before Christ. So all the promises given to Israel, are given to us, as well.

Dispensationalism says otherwise, and thus is "racist" in that it makes a distinction according to ones "race".

Yeah, you. Below this you clearly state that God is going to exalt the Ethnic Jews over the others.

Also, I gave you a link.

But you are being inconsistent. A large portion of the New Testament is written to "Israel", to the "Twelve Tribes in the dispersion", etc. If there not to us, why read them?

Again, can you demonstrate, FROM SCRIPTURE, other requirements besides the verse I stated, for a Gentile to BECOME an Israelite?

Actually it is referring to "No Distinction" in regard to salvation AND future Reward...

Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."


It doesn't say "But one day, there will be a distinction again..."

Will the work of Christ be undone?

The Eternal Separation of Person and Purpose for "Israel" and the "Church" is one of the defining Characteristics of Classical Dispensationalism. This is not a distinction of a "Nation", but a distinction of "Ethnicity". This is the DEFINITION of Classical dispensationalism (Wayne Grudem: Systematic theology Pg. 859-860: Lewis Schaffer: Systematic Theology4:45-53)

No, it is not.

Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all.

As far as the earlier verses...this is like saying "Is there advantage in growing up in a Christian household? Yes. For to us was given the Bible, and the ordinances" There is advantage in it, but it in no way grants you a superior status, as Paul goes on to state in verse 9.

No, theres a huge difference. Ruth was shown JUST as much favor, as the Jews, in the Nation of Israel.

As a Christian, I AM an Israelite: I am NOT a Hebrew (Ethnic Jew). Big Distinction.

God gave Israel, a nation consisting of Hebrews, and non Hebrews, a place of distinction. He did not give the Hebrew race a place of distinction. Both groups had to do the IDENTICAL thing, to be a part of Israel.

If an African wanted to be a part of Israel, they were circumcised.
If a Hebrew wanted to be a part of Israel, they were circumcised.

No distinction then, no distinction now, no distinction to come.

 

I am making them according to the nation that was made up of a particular race predominantly. That's why your distinction doesn't make a lot of sense.

Predominantly, yes. That is the testimony of the Scripture. But not solely. I think what you are missing is that life in Israel was a particular way of life, living in relationship to God through the Mosaic covenant, and all that it entailed. I obviously can't get into a long discussion of that here, but I think your understanding of what it means to be an Israelite is deficient and leads you to make claims like "I am an Israelite."

I understand that's what you are saying. I think you are wrong. Think of it this way. In the church, something was new. The "middle wall of partition" was broken down. That is a change. That's my point. It was a new thing, not a continuation of the old thing.

I am not making a distinction between a race and a nation. You are trying to make that distinction. And God is the one who said he would once again exalt Jews over other nations. I didn't make that up.

How about someone credible. I realize you can post a link to just about anything. But is there a published source that I can read where this distinction is argued for so I can see what they are saying?

I don't know that a "large portion" was written to "Israel." Furthermore, by the time of the NT writings, the "twelve tribes" were a part of the church. So I am being consistent, not inconsistent.

Read the Law and see how many laws apply to foreigners. None other than O. Palmer Robertson says, "From the opposite perspective, the Abrahamic covenant makes it quite plain from the beginning that any non-Shemite could become a full-fledged Israelite by affirming the faith of Abraham and submitting to the rite of circumcision" (JETS, 41:183). Exod 12:49, the very next verse, say that the Law applies to both foreigner and native. So clearly affirming Abraham's faith and living by the covenant of hte community were requirements. It wasn't circumcision alone.

Yes, the riches of salvation. That does not, in context, have to do with the millennial kingdom.

Of course not.

But there are differences among people in the way it is fleshed out.

You make me laugh. Seriously. You really believe that God did not show favoritism to OT Israel? The point of rom 3, in part, is that the stakes were higher because of their status with God. Deut 7 is explicit that God showed favoritism to Israel by choosing them above all other nations. Other OT passages make the same point.

If you are right, there is not distinction. But I don't think there is any biblical evidence that you are an Israelite.

Again, you are leaning on a distinction I don't buy.

I don't think I will continue much here. As with previous conversations on this topic, we are too far apart on how Scripture is to be handled to come to any place of resolution.

My view of Scripture is that all of it means something, and we can't just conform parts of it to fit a theology that we happen to hold. I think Scripture should shape our theology, rather than the other way around. I realize you would agree with the sentiment, but we differ greatly in application of it. I think there are way too many obstacles in Scripture for you to overcome to make your point stand.