The Rebuttal (12 in or out)
For many years brethren that rightly divide the word of truth have had
a division problem over whether the twelve apostles were in or out of
the one new man, which many people refer to as the body of Christ.
After I released the article, Name Tags: An Experimental Study, I was
visiting a Christian forum that I attend on a regular basis that I teach
and fellowship at. Someone gave me an article by Cornelius Stam and
asked me to comment on it. The article is titled:
DID THE TWELVE APOSTLES BECOME MEMBERS OF THE BODY OF CHRIST?
I am not real familiar with brother Stam’s work, but I do remember
reading his book, THINGS THAT DIFFER, right after I trusted Jesus Christ
as my Saviour. I really don’t remember much from that book, nor
do I fully know what brother Stam’s stand is on many issues.
I am not a follower of men, for that causes division. Whenever I get
a chance to read I try to stick with the scriptures, but if someone
asks me to read something I usually do so. I do not go out looking for
books to see what men have to say about the scriptures when I have the
scriptures in my hand and I already believe they mean what they say.
Nevertheless, I am always open to what other preachers have to say about
the scriptures. I decided to write an article on this issue about the
twelve being in or out of the one new man and I will be using brother
Stam’s article to show a difference in beliefs.
Brother Stam believes the 12 apostles were in the one new man and I
believe they were out. So what I will attempt to do is show both views
and why we believe differently.
Please don’t feel that I am trying to compare myself with others
for this is not the case. Paul said in 2nd Corinthians 10,
“12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare
ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves
by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.”
So it would be rather foolish for me to compare myself with my brethren
so that is surely not my intentions. But Paul also said in 1st Corinthians
2,
“13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing
spiritual things with spiritual.”
In order for the Holy Ghost to teach us, we have to compare spiritual
things with spiritual. Brother Stam uses scripture to back up his belief
and I also use scripture to back up my belief, so we are going to compare
scripture with one another. Paul said in 1st Corinthians 14,
“12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual
gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.”
So the goal of this article is not for me to compare myself with another
brother but yet seeking to excel to the edifying of the church. Edifying
the church is the main goal here, nothing else.
After reading the article there was something that really caught my
eye: brother Stam’s spirit. He said in his article:
“For more than twenty years the writer has
refrained from making an issue of the subject, feeling that it is always
easy to cause division over matters which neither affect our basic doctrines
nor our practices, but it is not so easy to restore unity once it has
been broken.
Therefore, we trust that this treatise will be accepted in the spirit
of Christian
love in which it is written.”
Brother Stam was highly concerned about division in the body of Christ
and did not want to cause any division problems with this teaching.
He knew that unity was a high priority, he knew that love and charity
were of utmost importance. In Colossians 3 Paul said,
“12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved,
bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have
a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.
14 And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.”
Brother Stam knew that above all things we are to put on charity. Brother
Stam’s heart was definitely in the right place.
In closing his article brother Stam writes:
“With this we must close, though there is
much more to say. We rejoice that in the "Grace Movement"
we may freely discuss these matters, and we ask only that the above
arguments be considered prayerfully in the light of the Word, for any
one truth misunderstood can affect our understanding of other truths
and bring us into confusion in our study and proclamation of the Word.
Together; thank God, we stand for the distinctive character of the revelation
committed to Paul. The question is simply whether or not the Judean
"kingdom" believers living after the raising up of Paul became
members of the one Body with which his message was concerned. Therefore
let us not make this issue a larger one than it is, lest we cause division
among those who, above all people, should be united in making known
the riches of God's grace.”
Once again, brother Stam was very concerned about division in the body
of Christ and did not want his teaching to hinder the message of grace.
My hat goes off to brother Stam. As one brother once told me, “My
heart beats with yours,” this is how I feel about this situation.
Regardless of what happened 2000 years ago whether the twelve were in
or out of the one new man, our fellowship and unity in grace should
not be divided over this issue.
I wish brother Stam was alive today. I would love to talk to him in
person. I guess I will just have to wait to meet him when the Lord comes
to take us home at the adoption.
So as I share my views on this particular subject, please do not feel
that I have anything against brother Stam, for that is not the case.
We just differ on this issue and several others, but we both agree that
these things should NOT divide us as brethren.
Would I have brother Stam come teach at my church or at a bible conference
I was hosting? Sure! In a heartbeat! I do not let these minor differences
keep me from having fellowship with my brethren.
The people I teach are well grounded in the word of God and they WILL
search the scriptures to see what they are being taught is true or not.
It is not a fear of mine to have the members of my assembly hear something
I disagree with. They are true Bereans and can search the scriptures
all by themselves. If they disagree with something that is taught, they
will let the preacher know.
Now if you would like to see his article on this matter, it is the appendix
of his commentary on the book of Galatians. You can find it here:
http://www.dovhost.com/grace-books/StamI01.pdf
Just scroll down to the bottom and you will find it.
A Quick Summary
As I read through brother Stam’s article I highlighted the things
we disagree on. Not only did I want to see the things we disagree on
but I wanted to see brother Stam’s way of thinking and what causes
him to believe that the twelve were eventually put into the one new
man, which brother Stam refers to as the body of Christ.
After reading it I said to myself, “If I go into detail, my rebuttal
is going to be a very long document.” So I decided to put a quick
summary at the beginning of this document for those that do not wish
to read the whole thing.
So what it boils down to is this: if Peter and Paul were both in the
one new man then this causes major confusion in the body of Christ.
Peter and Paul, even though their doctrines had similarities, their
doctrines also have differences and to teach two different doctrines
to the one new man causes major confusion.
Everyone already knows that God is not the author of confusion. So causing
confusion is not the Lord’s way of doing things. Confusion comes
from man, not the Lord. Let’s give a quick example.
Example:
Paul teaches that God is saving the ungodly but Peter does not. In Romans
4 Paul says,
"5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
And in chapter 5 he says,
"6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ
died for the ungodly."
But Peter teaches quite differently. In Acts 10 he says,
"34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I
perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness,
is accepted with him."
And in first Peter 4 he says,
"18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall
the ungodly and the sinner appear?"
Now if Peter and Paul were both in the one new man and they are both
teaching to the one new man and they are teaching two completely different
things then which one is correct?
Is God saving the ungodly or not?
Confusion.
You can’t do this. You have to separate Peter and Paul’s
doctrines and put them in their proper place or else you will bring
mass confusion unto the believers.
But I can clearly see why that brother Stam thought that the twelve
eventually became members of the one new man, and he gave the answer
himself in his own document. In his conclusion he writes:
We rejoice that in the "Grace Movement"
we may freely discuss these matters, and we ask only that the above
arguments be considered prayerfully in the light of the Word, for any
one truth misunderstood can affect our understanding of other truths
and bring us into confusion in our study and proclamation of the Word.
And here is the part we need to put emphasis on:
…FOR ANY ONE TRUTH MISUNDERSTOOD CAN AFFECT
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF OTHER TRUTHS AND BRING US INTO CONFUSION IN OUR
STUDY AND PROCLAMATION OF THE WORD.
I totally agree with brother Stam on this. If we misunderstand one truth,
it can cause us to misunderstand other truths which eventually causes
confusion.
So there is a very specific reason brother Stam came to the conclusion
of the twelve being in the one new man: misunderstanding truths can
cause more misunderstanding of other truths.
If you are building a house and your foundation is not square and level
and you continue to build upon that house what is going to happen is
that your walls will not be square and level which makes your roof not
square and level and so on.
After you get the walls and roof on and you try to do the interior stuff
you are going to run across all kinds of problems putting the interior
together because your structure is not correct.
This is why brother Stam came to the conclusion that the twelve eventually
became part of the one new man. His structure or foundation of his teachings
were not square and level which causes the end result to not be square
and level.
As I read brother Stam’s article I noticed several things about
the structure or foundation of his teachings which I found to be off,
which eventually led him to believe and teach that the twelve became
part of the one new man.
So what I will attempt to do is to show brother Stam’s structure
that he built upon and show the flaws in this structure. After we see
the flaws in his foundational teachings then we can clearly see why
he came to his conclusion about the twelve becoming part of the one
new man.
Now many of you that read this document might be a follower of brother
Stam’s teachings and do not see any flaws in it whatsoever and
you also believe that the twelve eventually became part of the one new
man. But there are many brethren that do see the flaws in his teachings
and believe that the twelve did not become part of the one new man,
I am not the only one.
But this is what this article is all about, working out our division
problems. If by chance the Lord can use me to point out a flaw in a
teaching that someone has never seen before, then that is just one little
step closer to working towards unity in the body of Christ.
Many of you already know that division in the body of Christ is a bad
thing. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who died for us and paid for
our sins does not want us to have this division but rather to all speak
the same thing and have the same mind and same judgment.
This article is an attempt to work towards that goal.
Now before we get started, let’s take a quick glance at some of
the flaws that I see in brother Stam’s foundational teachings,
which eventually led him to believe that the twelve became partakers
of the one new man. We will cover all these things in detail later in
this article.
1. The one new man is the body of Christ.
Many brethren do not see this as a flaw but I do. The body of Christ
is the church. The one new man was made into the church. By calling
the one new man the body of Christ causes confusion, as you will see.
2. The one new man is separate from the church.
Teaching that the one new man is separate from the church once again
causes confusion. The one new man is part of the church.
3. The kingdom program faded out as the body faded in.
This is brother Stam’s approach. I will show scripture why this
is incorrect.
4. The middle wall of partition was gradually broken down.
This was not a gradual thing. When God broke down the middle wall of
partition it was done at once, not gradual.
5. The one new man has an eternal heavenly position.
This doctrine comes from the Acts 28 doctrine. This doctrine is incorrect
and we will give scripture to prove it so.
6. Believers switched from kingdom to body.
This is what his document was all about, brethren switching from one
program to another, from the Kingdom program (the church) to the body
program (one new man), and what caused them to switch.
7. Uses Romans 12:13 to show kingdom believers are in the one
new man.
This is caused by teaching that the one new man is the body of Christ,
rather than the church being the body of Christ.
8. Uses 1st Corinthians 12:13 to prove all are in the one new
man.
Once again, this is caused by teaching that the one new man is the body
of Christ, rather than the church being the body of Christ.
9. Paul wrote the epistle, “To The Hebrews”.
Paul did not write, “To The Hebrews” and I will explain
why by the holy scriptures.
10. Peter received Christ died for our sins from Paul.
By the scripture we will show that this is incorrect.
11. Dual position for the twelve.
This has to do with the one new man having an eternal heavenly inheritance
and Peter being part of the one new man.
12. Does not believe someone in the kingdom could lead someone
into the one new man.
We will cover scripture that goes against this.
So building upon which brother Stam stated:
…FOR ANY ONE TRUTH MISUNDERSTOOD CAN AFFECT
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF OTHER TRUTHS AND BRING US INTO CONFUSION IN OUR
STUDY AND PROCLAMATION OF THE WORD.
…we will show the flaws in his foundational truths that allowed
him to believe and teach that the twelve became part of the one new
man.
So this is the end of our summary of the bulk of this article, and now
on to the main event.
As we get started I will include brother Stam’s main points in
this document so you will not have to go back and forth. His words will
be in red.
So let’s get started on what brother Stam believes.
WHAT WE BELIEVE
We believe that when God ushered in the dispensation of grace and began
to form the Body of Christ all believers were included in it, just as
all the children of Israel came under the dispensation of law when the
law was given at Sinai, even though they had previously lived under
another dispensation. God's dispensations are not dependent upon degrees
of human understanding, but upon His own sovereign will.
Nevertheless, the truth of "the mystery" was gradually revealed
to and through the Apostle Paul (Acts 26:16; II Cor. 12:1) so that there
was gradual transition from the old program to the new. The old program
did not immediately disappear, to be replaced by the new, thus:
From here brother Stam gives 3 different views of how the kingdom and
body programs could have been and we will take these views and put them
in separate windows. His first one is figure1.
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/images/Charts/Stam1.jpg
Rather; the kingdom program gradually disappeared,
as the program for the one Body emerged, thus:
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/images/Charts/Stam2.jpg
We do not mean to say that there were not those
among the Judean believers who tenaciously held on to the old program.
There were, in fact, many such believers. There were even some who sought
to bring the Gentile believers under the old program. But in spite of
them, we note in the book of Acts as well as in the Epistles, a gradual
breaking down of the "middle wall of partition "Jewish believers
gradually leaving Judaism behind and coming more and more fully to enjoy
their oneness with the Gentile believers in Christ.
This is why we reject the argument that the kingdom believers living
after the raising up of Paul did not become members of the Body of Christ,
but that it was God's will for them to continue in their kingdom calling
indefinitely, while the members of the Body continued in theirs, the
two economies running parallel, thus:
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/images/Charts/Stam3.jpg
Our object in this article, then, will be to
defend by Scripture the position
represented by figure 2 against that represented by figure 3, and to
show how these kingdom saints, having now become members of the one
Body, were brought into an enlarged1 position and hope.
So brother Stam does not believe figure 1 that the old program shut
down and the body started nor does he believe figure 3 to where the
kingdom program goes on indefinitely side by side with the body program.
He will attempt to show figure 2 that the kingdom gradually faded out
as the body gradually faded in.
Now before we move on, there is a view that brother Stam has not considered
and that is that the body program is inside the kingdom program or as
I put it, the one new man was made inside the church. Here is a chart
to show that view:
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/images/Charts/Inserted.jpg
Once again, brother Stam is one of the brethren that calls the one
new man the body of Christ. In our article, NAME TAGS: AN EXPERIMENTAL
STUDY, we clearly see that that is not necessarily true. But for the
sake of clarity we will take for granted that when brother Stam says,
The body of Christ, we will take that to mean the one new man.
AN OBJECTION ANSWERED
It is sometimes objected that if the twelve apostles are to occupy twelve
thrones in the kingdom on earth, then how can they be members of the
Body of Christ, with its position in heaven? This question seems to
bear some weight. Many, indeed accept this argument as conclusive, but
the subject is not as simple as that.
Our Lord Himself will reign with the twelve on earth and He is the Head
of the Body. We believe there are many more evidences too that the twelve
and the kingdom believers living after the raising up of Paul did in
fact become members of the Body of Christ.
Brother Stam does not believe that the 12 apostles became members of
the one new man immediately after it was made into the church, but rather
that they eventually were put into it. Soon we will see why he feels
what caused them to be put into it.
TOO MANY EXCEPTIONS
It is certain that some of the kingdom saints became members of the
Body of Christ. Among these were:
Barnabas, the Levite, who sold his land for the common good just after
Pentecost (Acts 4:36,37) but later was called by God to become Paul's
co-worker (Acts 13:2).
Silas, a leading member of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22) who also
later
became Paul's co-worker (Acts 15:39,40).
John Mark, Barnabas' nephew, who became Paul's helper, and is referred
to in Paul's latest epistles as a co-worker (Acts 12:25; 13:5; Col.
4:10; II Tim. 4:11).
Luke, the "beloved physician," who wrote one of the synoptic
"gospels," but
became Paul's constant companion, even after his imprisonment at Rome
(See Acts and II Tim. 4:11).
Apollos, a Jew who knew only "the baptism of John," until
shown "the way of God more perfectly" by Aquilla and Priscilla
(Acts 18:24-26). Later we find him "watering" what Paul had
"planted," as "one" with Paul (I Cor. 3:6-8).
Andronicus and Junia, who were "in Christ" before Paul, but
later became his "fellow prisoners" (Rom. 16:7).
In addition to these there are many more who are not specifically named.
These evidently became, and recognized themselves to be, members of
the one Body, for they could hardly have been Paul's fellow workers
and fellow prisoners had they continued preaching the kingdom message.
It is not enough to say that these mentioned were exceptions. Rather
they are examples which prove at the very least that it is possible
that kingdom saints could become members of the Body of Christ.
What about the Pentecostal believers who traveled, for example, to Rome,
and to whom Paul writes, telling them that they are members of the one
Body" (Rom. 12:5)? It is evident that these individuals did not
become members of the Body of Christ by merely seeing and accepting
the truths concerning the Body. Otherwise it would follow that millions
of believers today are not members of the Body because they do not understand
"Body truth." Evidently the dispensation of the mystery had
united all believers into one Body - which truth some gradually came
to understand and others never came to understand, even as many believers
today do not understand it.
Now in brother Stam’s last paragraph I find a contradiction in
his statements for here he states:
It is evident that these individuals did not become
members of the Body of Christ by merely seeing and accepting the truths
concerning the Body. Otherwise it would follow that millions of believers
today are not members of the Body because they do not understand "Body
truth."
So brother Stam admits that you do not have to understand “Body
Truths” in order to be made partakers of the Body. To this I totally
agree. You have to trust Jesus Christ as your Saviour to be part of
the Body, your lack of understanding does not put you in, neither does
it keep you out of the Body of Christ. When you trust Jesus as your
Saviour he puts you where he has made a place for you regardless of
your understanding of the holy scriptures.
But later on you will see that he believes the apostles became partakers
of the Body because they started teaching what he calls “Body
Truths”.
So according to his teaching, if you didn’t need to know or understand
“Body Truth” to be put into the body of Christ, then the
apostles and all kingdom believers should have been immediately put
into the body when the Body was given, but he teaches that they were
“eventually” put in or gradually put in.
My question is, “OK, if this is so, what caused them to be gradually
put into the body of Christ if they did not need to know Body truth
to be put in? If this is so, why were they not immediately put into
the Body of Christ? What kept them from being immediately put into the
body of Christ?
I see a conflict here with his reasoning.
Brother Stam also gives examples of brethren that switched from the
kingdom program to the body program and says,
These evidently became, and recognized themselves
to be, members of the one Body, for they could hardly have been Paul's
fellow workers and fellow prisoners had they continued preaching the
kingdom message.
He teaches that these brethren started teaching Paul’s doctrine,
which caused them to be put into the body for they could not be in the
body if they had been teaching the kingdom message.
This is contrary to what he stated about not being necessary to know
“Body Truth” to be put into the body.
So here is the question:
Did someone in the kingdom program have to know body truth before they
were put into the body?
In one place Stam says yes, and in another place he says no. This is
very confusing to the believer.
Which one is it?
Let’s continue.
ALL MEN EVERYWHERE
There are other evidences that the kingdom saints of Paul's day became
members of the Body of Christ.
In I Corinthians 1:2, Paul addresses his letter to the Corinthian church,
"with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ
our Lord, both theirs [those in every place] and ours [those with Paul]."
And he says to "all" these believers "in every place":
"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body, whether we
be Jews or Gentiles" (I Cor. 12:13). How can this be made to exclude
the Judean believers?
Further; in II Corinthians 5:16, the apostle says: "Wherefore henceforth
know we NO MAN after the flesh." Can this sweeping declaration
be made to exclude the Judean believers? And does Paul not emphasize
the fact that he is including kingdom saints when he goes on to say:
"Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, [as had the
kingdom believers] yet now, henceforth know we Him [so] no more."?
But our apostle has still more to say about this matter; for continuing
in Verse 17 he says: "Therefore if ANY MAN be in Christ, he is
a new creation...." Does not this phrase "any man" include
the Judean saints? Were they not men? Were they not "in Christ"?
Like Paul's kinsmen of Romans 16:7, they were in Christ before him,
and Paul now declares that all in Christ are "henceforth"
members of the "new creation" (Cf. Eph. 2:14-16; 3:1-6).
Again, in Galatians 3:27,28, the apostle declares that in Christ "there
is neither Jew nor Greek.. for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Some people make this passage to read that there is neither Jew nor
Greek in the Body of Christ. This, of course, we all know, but it is
not what Paul says in Galatians 3:28. In this passage he says that in
Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, and as we have shown from Scripture,
these believers were in Christ even before Paul, therefore they were
"henceforth" one with the Gentile believers in the joint Body.
Once again, brother Stam uses scripture that describes the body of Christ
and applies it to the one new man. By doing this, he uses these scriptures
and tries to teach the kingdom saints became partakers of the one new
man.
This is where name tags must be correct.
Some brethren call the church that started in Acts 2 “the body
of Christ”. Some brethren call the one new man that started with
Paul, “the body of Christ”.
In some cases when you are teaching, this is not critical, but in some
cases it is very critical.
The one new man was made into the church. The church was initially Jew
only and when the Lord inserted or made the one new man in himself then
Gentiles also could be added to the church through the one new man.
Once again, if you have not read the article, “Name Tags:
An Experimental Study” please do so now. We are getting
to a stage where you need to know the difference between the church
and the one new man. Here it is:
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/AdvancedSeriesDoc/NameTags.htm
This teaching on name tags will clear up a lot of confusion.
Because Stam teaches that the kingdom is separate from the body as in
figure 2:
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/images/Charts/Stam2.jpg
He takes Ephesians 2 and 3 and claims the kingdom saints switched from
the kingdom to the body rather than the Gentiles were made partakers
of the body through the one new man. The one new man was made into the
body so that the Lord could add the Gentiles into the same body as the
Jews.
But this did not make the kingdom saints partakers of the one new man.
We’ll catch more details on this later.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Did not Paul, or certainly some
Pauline person, write to the Hebrews (not just the Jews of the dispersion)
to leave Judaism and take their stand with the rejected Christ (Heb.
13:13)? Did he not bid them to go "without the camp" and "within
the veil," to take their places with Christ at God's right hand
(Heb. 6:19,20; 10:19,20)? Did he not bid them enter into God's rest
and to sit down with Christ in the heavenlies (Heb. 4:9,10)? Did he
not call them “partakers of the heavenly calling" (Heb. 3:1)
and bring them into a "better hope" (Heb. 7:19)?
Is it objected that the terminology of Hebrews is different from that
of Paul's
epistles to the Gentiles? Of course! He is writing to Hebrews!
In light of these facts it is difficult to understand how some can say
that there is not any scriptural support for the argument that the twelve
apostles became members of the Body of Christ.
This is always a fun subject to talk about. Did Paul write the epistle,
“To the Hebrews”?
NO WAY!
But brother Stam believes he did. God did not give an author to the
book of Hebrews. The correct title is, “To The Hebrews”,
not “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews” as
some bibles have it.
Teaching that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews causes confusion in the
body of Christ. God left it without an author and so should we.
Nevertheless, many preachers contribute this epistle unto Paul, which
causes confusion in the body of Christ. Now why would they teach this?
Because you can take a few scriptures and it seems to contribute it
to the apostle Paul. Now this article is not appropriate to teach why
Paul did or did not write Hebrews, for I am trying to keep this article
as short as possible, but we can give a few highlights of the teaching.
For instance, in 2nd Peter 3 it says,
“15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is
salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom
given unto him hath written unto you;”
Peter acknowledges that Paul wrote a letter to the same people that
Peter wrote to. There is no doubt in my mind that Paul wrote a letter
to them, but that does not mean it was the epistle to the Hebrews. In
Hebrews 13 it says,
“23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty;
with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.”
The author of Hebrews knew Timothy. Paul knew Timothy. In verse 24 it
says,
“24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all
the saints. They of Italy salute you.”
Paul was in Rome. Rome is in Italy.
See, there are a few verses that seem to contribute the book of Hebrews
to the apostle Paul. This is why many preachers do so.
But contributing the book of Hebrews to the apostle Paul can cause much
confusion in the body of Christ. For instance in Hebrews 10 it says,
“26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation,
which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three
witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy,
who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood
of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath
done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
Notice in verse 26 the author of Hebrews says, “WE”.
What does this mean? The author is including himself in the passage.
The author of Hebrews clearly states that he could lose his salvation.
If you do not have a sacrifice for your sins you are going to end up
in the lake of fire.
This is not the apostle Paul.
Let’s do another one. In Hebrews 6 it says,
“4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened,
and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the
Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world
to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing
they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an
open shame.”
The author of Hebrews teaches that if someone were to fall away it is
impossible to renew them again unto repentance.
This is not the apostle Paul.
Paul taught the one new man is sealed unto the day of redemption. If
you were to take these scriptures and put them anywhere in Paul’s
epistles they would not fit in with his doctrine.
If you were to take these scriptures and put them anywhere in Paul’s
epistles they would cause massive confusion. For instance:
Is the one new man sealed unto the day of redemption or can a member
of the one new man lose their salvation?
If Paul teaches both, which one is it?
Confusion.
There are many other verses to prove that Paul did not write Hebrews
but these few verses will give the readers plenty to consider. We do
not want to include the whole teaching on who wrote Hebrews in this
article. God left it without an author and so should we. When we teach,
instead of saying “Paul” or “Luke” we should
say, “The author of Hebrews”.
If you notice in the book of Hebrews, the author clearly teaches that
Christ died and paid for sins but yet he also teaches that they could
lose their salvation. So just because someone believed that Christ died
and paid for their sins did not put them into the one new man nor did
it seal them unto the day of redemption. Christ dying for sins was the
foundation for Peter’s doctrine as well as Paul’s doctrine,
for the gospel of the circumcision as well as the gospel of the uncircumcision.
Obviously, brother Stam believes just because the author of Hebrews
was teaching that Christ died and paid for sins that it must have been
Paul and he was talking to the one new man.
THE TRANSITION
Some brethren do not even deal
with the transition so evident in the Acts and the Epistles of both
Paul and Peter. Some do not even believe there was a transition, contending
that even Peter's epistles are no advance upon his message at Pentecost.
They hold the view illustrated in figure 3, while we believe that there
was such a transition (see figure 2) and that the gradual breaking down
of “the middle wall of partition" affected those on both
sides. Let us see what the Scriptures say about this.
Paul, himself having been baptized under the kingdom program, had the
truths of the mystery revealed to him gradually (Acts 26:16; II Cor.
12:1). In his early epistles he still recognizes water baptism and the
Pentecostal signs, but these are "done away" by the time we
reach his prison epistles. Similarly, we come more and more fully into
the glorious truths of the mystery as we proceed from his earlier to
his later epistles. Thus there is a fading out of the old program and
gradual unfolding of the new.
Peter; too, began dealing with Israel only (Acts 2), then later was
shown by God that he could and should eat with uncircumcised Gentiles
(Acts 10).2 Still later at the Jerusalem Council his testimony induced
the Judean saints to recognize the Gentile believers as one with them
in Christ, Peter declaring that God had made "no difference between
us and them" (Acts 15:9) and that "through the grace of the
Lord Jesus Christ" the Jewish believers would be saved "even
as they" (the Gentile believers). In this connection we should
also compare Acts 2:38, where, in obedience to the "Great Commission,"
Peter demands repentance and baptism "for the remission of sins,"
with his epistles where, later; he proclaims the finished work of Christ
for salvation (I Pet. 1:18,19; 2:24; 3:18). Also Acts 3:19-21, where
he offers the return of Christ to reign, with II Peter 3:3,4,8,9,15,16,18,
where he explains the delay in Christ's return and refers his readers
to "our beloved brother Paul," whose epistles speak of "these
things."
We must confine this section to these examples for there are so many
evidences of transition from the old program to the new, that one finds
it difficult to understand how anyone could question that it exists.
Brother Stam teaches a transition period. This is incorrect. The kingdom
program ceased having members added to it when the one new man was given.
From the time that the one new man was given with the apostle Paul,
everyone that trusted Christ as their Saviour from that point forward
went into the church through the one new man. When this took place,
the kingdom program, which was Jew only, ceased to have members added
to it and they started diminishing as they died out as Paul tells us
in Romans 11.
Instead of explaining this in this article and turning it into a small
book, we’ll just provide the links to prove our point. You might
want to start from the beginning:
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/AdvancedSeriesDoc/TheRulePrimer.htm
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/AdvancedSeriesDoc/TheRuleTesting.htm
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/AdvancedSeriesDoc/TheRuleGospels.htm
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/AdvancedSeriesDoc/TheRuleNewCovenant.htm
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/AdvancedSeriesDoc/TheRuleKingdomCeased.htm
This last article, “The Rule: The Kingdom Program Ceased”,
is the main one to show there was no transition period. If you are familiar
with “The Rule”, then you should be able to go straight
to it and comprehend it fairly well. If you are not familiar with “The
Rule”, then I highly recommend you start from the beginning of
the series.
Also, in his third paragraph he says,
In this connection we should also compare Acts
2:38, where, in obedience to the "Great Commission," Peter
demands repentance and baptism "for the remission of sins,"
with his epistles where, later; he proclaims the finished work of Christ
for salvation (I Pet. 1:18,19; 2:24; 3:18).
This is the major reason why Stam believes Peter and the apostles were
put into the one new man. Stam believes that Peter did not know that
Christ died and paid for sins and he later found out from Paul and then
Peter and apostles started preaching that Christ died and paid for sins
and they were put into the one new man.
This misunderstanding of truth caused other misunderstandings to be
built on top of it. Peter found out that Christ died and paid for sins
right after Jesus was raised from the dead. In Luke 24 it says,
“44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I
spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled,
which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in
the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the
scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ
to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:”
Jesus opened their understanding, gave them scripture and showed them
why he had to suffer. This happened right after Christ’s resurrection.
And Peter said in 1st Peter 3,
“18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just
for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in
the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:”
Peter knew why Christ had to suffer before Paul ever got saved. Christ
dying and paying for sins was the foundation for Peter’s gospel
and Paul’s gospel. Peter did not get this from Paul. What he got
from Paul was the gospel of the grace of God that he was preaching among
the Gentiles as Paul records in Galatians 2 from the meeting they had
in Acts 15.
Stam believes that Christ dying and paying for sins was something new
to Peter but it was not. In the book of Acts, Luke never records where
Peter or Paul taught that Christ died for sins. Look it up and see for
yourself, it’s not in there.
This is the main reason why Stam believes the twelve went into the one
new man. He believes that the twelve received from Paul that Christ
died and paid for sins, which they did not.
This article goes into great detail about the situation:
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/AdvancedSeriesDoc/FoundationOfTheGospels.htm
After reading this, if you believe the holy scriptures, you will see
that Peter did not get this from Paul.
This is a major flaw in brother Stam’s foundational teachings
which causes him to eventually see that the twelve were put into the
one new man.
Now here is a really good question that just crossed my mind. In Acts
12 it says,
“1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth
his hands to vex certain of the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.”
James the brother of John was one of the Apostles. He was killed in
Acts 12. So if brother Stam believes the twelve were put into the one
new man, when were they put in?
According to his teaching, Peter received from Paul that Christ died
and paid for sins in Acts 15 when they met.
Wait a minute! James was already dead! If he did not know that Christ
died and paid for sins in Acts 12, then according to Stam’s teaching
then James could not be partaker of the one new man until Paul taught
them his gospel.
There is no way James could have been partaker of the one new man according
to the teachings of brother Stam. I guess Stam should have said eleven
in or eleven out instead of twelve in or twelve out.
James will definitely be on one of the twelve thrones judging the twelve
tribes of Israel, but according to Stam’s teaching he can’t
be with the rest of the apostles in the one new man.
That makes no sense at all.
See! If you ask the right questions it throws a rock in the gears.
ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS
We now proceed from our own arguments
for the affirmative, to deal with those arguments of some for the negative.
1. If the twelve are to reign on earth with Christ, how can they belong
to the
Body of Christ, with its position in the heavenlies?
The answer to this, the over-all argument, is simply that like Christ
they will have a dual p0sition during the kingdom reign. Their reign
on twelve thrones with Christ surely does not imply that each one will
sit on one seat in Jerusalem for a thousand years! The twelve and those
associated with them will have a position in the kingdom, but will not
be confined to earth as will those who survive the "great tribulation"
to enter the kingdom.
This writer believes that we ourselves will reign with Christ, not on,
but over the earth, much as the "principalities and powers in the
heavenlies" reign over it now, behind the scenes. Why, then, cannot
the twelve reign with Christ, both over and on the earth?
Surely the members of the Body will not be separated from their Head
for 1,000 years but will reign with Him (Col. 1:13 cf. I Thes. 2:12;
II Tim. 2:12; 4:18). Indeed I Thessalonians 4:17 states that after our
Rapture to heaven we will be with Christ forever. Thus our Lord will
occupy a dual position, with us in the heavenlies and with Israel on
earth.
Here it is easy to see that brother Stam believes in an ETERNAL heavenly
inheritance for the one new man. I certainly agree that we are going
into heaven when the adoption (rapture) takes place, but the apostle
Paul is very clear that we will be coming back to this earth with the
Lord.
Just because we will have glorified bodies as the Lord Jesus Christ
does not mean that we will not be coming back with him.
Does Jesus Christ have a glorified body? YES.
Is Christ coming back to earth with his glorified body? YES
In 1st Thessalonians 3 Paul says,
“12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love
one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:
13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before
God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all
his saints.”
Paul is very clear in this passage that whatever saints are with him
at his second coming will come back with him.
Paul says “ALL” the saints, not “SOME” of the
saints or “MANY” of the saints but “ALL”.
Many times I have been in conversations with people that hold this doctrine
and they will tell me that the Lord will not come back with all his
saints, just some of them.
I have also been told that angels are saints and he will come back with
the angels. Of course the angels are coming back, they are the reapers.
But even if you want to claim the angels are saints also he still says
“ALL” the saints which would include the angels and the
rest of the saints in heaven.
Zechariah says the same thing also in chapter 14 which says,
“5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for
the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee,
like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king
of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.”
But to top it all off Paul says in Ephesians 1,
“10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he
might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in
heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:”
The Lord is going to gather together in one all things in Christ both
which are in heaven and which are on earth.
Where is he going to gather them together in one at?
On the earth, just as Paul says when the Lord comes back. Let’s
look at this chart:
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/images/Charts/Resurrections.jpg
This chart shows the one new man coming back with the
Lord at the second coming just as Paul says and the Lord gathering us
together in one just as Paul says.
The one new man having an ETERNAL heavenly inheritance is an Acts 28
doctrine that worked its way into the mid-Acts camp.
I have even had Acts 28 people tell me that when the Lord gathers all
in Christ together in one that they will still be separated with the
one new man in heaven and Israel on the earth. This is exactly opposite
of what the verse says.
There are some people out there that do not believe the bible means
what it says, and they are causing confusion in the body of Christ.
2. Some say that to believe that the twelve apostles
have a dual calling destroys the foundation of our distinctive message.
The promise to the twelve to reign on earth was not made to them as
members of the Body, but as heirs of the kingdom; however; it does not
follow from this that they could not have later also been baptized into
one Body with the Gentile believers. If it did, this would necessarily
also be true with regard to Barnabas and the others we have listed above;
it would mean that the Holy Spirit "called" at least one person
to help gather members into the Body who was not himself a member of
the Body! (Acts 13:2).
Let us not forget that Christ, the Head of that Body to which no earthly
promises are made, will nevertheless sit on David's throne in fulfillment
of Old Testament promises.
There are no dual callings. The apostles will be here on this earth
reigning just as Christ told them they would. Even if they were in the
one new man the one new man is coming back to this earth according to
the apostle Paul.
The teaching of the ETERNAL heavenly inheritance for the one new man
just adds to the confusion. Our new glorified heavenly bodies will be
eternal, but not our eternal location in heaven.
3. Others say that we are confused as to the basic
salvation message-all one in Christ as the Head of the new race, as
compared with our dispensational position. They say that this basic
salvation, through Christ's work is a matter of one's faith and is true
of all believers regardless of calling.
We should like to ask who, before Paul, proclaimed the finished work
of Christ for salvation. Did Peter preach this at Pentecost? (See Acts
2:38 and cf. Rom. 3:21; Gal. 3:23; I Tim. 2:5-7). And who before Paul
presented Christ as the Head of a new race? Did Peter at Pentecost?
Did he not rather present Him as the King of Israel? (See Acts 2 and
3) Christ as Head of a new race was revealed through Paul with the ushering
in of the dispensation of grace and the mystery (Rom. 5:12- 19; cf.
Eph. 2:15; 3:1-3). Does this sound as if "basic salvation"
was presented for the faith of "all believers, regardless of calling"?
Once again, brother Stam did not realize that Jesus taught the apostles
in Luke 24 that he died and paid for sins, was buried and rose again.
Christ dying and paying for sins was always part of the gospel of the
circumcision just as it was part of the gospel of the uncircumcision.
Luke does not record in the book of Acts that Peter or Paul preached
this, but we know they did from their epistles. Peter and Paul’s
gospels had the same foundation.
Stam believed that Peter got it from Paul, so this is why Stam believed
that Peter and the apostles were eventually put into the one new man.
This is not the case. Peter preached this from the beginning right after
the cross and Paul said he also received it. In 1st Corinthians 15 Paul
said,
“3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I
ALSO received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according
to the scriptures:”
Furthermore Paul states in verse 11,
“11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach,
and so ye believed.”
The apostle Paul acknowledged that it didn’t matter whether it
were himself or the apostles that taught it to the Corinthians as long
as they believed.
Paul acknowledges that Peter was preaching that Christ died for sins
in 1st Corinthians 15:11.
Paul said that he himself ALSO received it.
In Matthew 26 at the last supper Jesus told the apostles,
“26 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it
to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
27 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many
for the remission of sins.”
Jesus taught Peter and the apostles that he died for sins in Luke 24.
In Acts 8 Philip taught the Ethiopian eunuch Isaiah 53 and told him
it was talking about the Lord Jesus Christ.
In Peter’s epistles he tells us he was teaching that Christ died
for sins.
Peter was preaching that Christ died and paid for sins. Once again,
if you haven’t read it, please read “The Foundation
of the Gospels”:
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/AdvancedSeriesDoc/FoundationOfTheGospels.htm
Nevertheless, even though Peter was preaching that Christ died and paid
for sins, this did not put him in the one new man. He knew this and
taught this before the one new man was ever made into the church.
4. Some brethren read more into Galatians 2:7-9,
than the passage states.
Galatians 2:7 does not say that "the gospel of the circumcision"
was committed to Peter at that time, nor does Verse 9 indicate that
he was then sent to the circumcision to proclaim this gospel to them.
Rather Verse 7 states that the Jerusalem believers "saw that the
gospel of the uncircumcision was [i.e., had been] committed unto [Paul]
as the gospel of the circumcision was [had been] committed unto Peter."
Verse 9 then adds that Peter agreed to confine his ministry to "the
circumcision," but it does not say what he should preach. Thus
Galatians 2:2-9 does not indicate that the two groups were henceforth
to continue with their present programs, but rather indicates a recognition
by the Judean believers of the further revelation given to Paul. Certainly,
if Peter agreed to continue preaching "the gospel of the circumcision,"
he broke his word, for he does not proclaim this gospel in his Epistles.
We should compare Galatians 2 with Acts 15, where the great Jerusalem
Council agreed only that the Gentiles should not be subject to circumcision
or the law but made no decision as to the Jews, nor did they even discuss
how the new turn of events might affect the Jews.
Then note Acts 15:9 where Peter declares that God had shown him that
He had henceforth put "no difference" between Jew and Gentile
and goes so far as to acknowledge:
"But we believe that THROUGH THE GRACE OF OUR LORD JESUS
CHRIST, WE [JEWS] SHALL BE SAVED EVEN AS THEY" (Ver. 11).
Certainly Peter returned to his people with a greater knowledge of what
God was doing. Surely he could hardly have kept still, in his ministry
at Jerusalem, about the all-sufficiency of Christ's finished work, or
about the grace that had made Jewish and Gentile believers one in Christ.
Here brother Stam uses Peter’s statement in Acts 15 to show that
because Peter is going to be saved by grace as the Gentiles were that
Peter was also put into the one new man.
This is simply not the case. The new covenant church, kingdom church,
Israel, Peter’s group, the circumcision or whatever you prefer
to call it was always going to be saved by grace. This is the whole
plan of the new covenant.
But their grace does not come until the second coming of Christ. In
first Peter 1, Peter says,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth
not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready
to be revealed in the last time.”
Question: When will their salvation be revealed unto them? In the last
time.
He goes on to verse 13 and says,
“13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober,
and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at
the revelation of Jesus Christ;”
When will they receive their grace? At the revelation of Jesus Christ.
This is when the Lord comes back to this earth, the second coming of
Christ. When their salvation comes, they will be saved by grace.
Until this time, they have to endure unto the end or they will not be
saved. In 2nd Peter chapter 2 he says,
“20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the
world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they
are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with
them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness,
than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered
unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog
is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her
wallowing in the mire.”
Peter teaches if they turn away it is worse off with them than the beginning.
It is just like Jesus said in Matthew 24,
“13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall
be saved.”
These statements are also backed up by the author of Hebrews, James,
and John.
So yes, they will be saved by grace just as Peter said, but they will
have to endure unto the end to get it and if they do not endure unto
the end then they won’t get it.
This is NOT the doctrine for the one new man preached by the apostle
Paul.
5. Some also read far more into
Acts 21:20 than it says. This passage simply
records the statement of James and the Judean elders that many thousands
of
Jews which believed were "all zealous of the law." This does
not at all prove that they ought to have been zealous of the law (See
Heb. 5:11). Many of the Galatians also were zealous of the law. Does
this mean they were not members of the Body of Christ?
Here we must remember what the Scriptures say about James, the legalist,
and his influence over the Judean Church. James, "the Lord's brother,"
was not even one of the twelve and certainly not Christ's appointed
head over the twelve. Our Lord had clearly appointed Peter to this position
(Matt. 16:19) but somehow James had gained the leadership, probably
because of his physical relationship to the Lord. In Acts 15 we even
find him presiding over the Jerusalem council and closing it with the
words: "Wherefore, my sentence is... (Lit., "Wherefore I decide.")
Providentially the Holy Spirit had used the testimonies of Paul, Barnabas,
and Peter to persuade the council to recognize officially the liberty
of the believing Gentiles, but this was clearly not due to James' influence.3
Peter, not James, should have presided over the council and the church
at
Jerusalem. This is doubtless why, in Galatians 2, Paul so strongly emphasizes
Peter's call to the apostleship of the circumcision (Vers. 7,8) and
refers to the present leadership as "those who seemed to be somewhat,"
adding: “Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me"
(Ver. 6).
Three times in this passage Paul, by the Spirit, refers to these leaders
as those who seemed to be somewhat, and this shows how remarkably God
overruled in this troubled convention so that even James, the legalist,
joined with Cephas and John in giving to Paul and Barnabas "the
right hands of fellowship," officially recognizing Paul's message
and his ministry among the Gentiles (Ver. 9).
6. It is said that Peter wrote to the circumcision
believers, not in order to lead
them on into further and new truth, but to stir up their memories in
the things they had already received by the Old Testament prophets and
our Lord after the flesh and their apostles. They say that the message
Peter proclaimed at Pentecost was the present truth in which they were
established by his epistles. (See II Pet. 1:10- 12).
Just think: In I Peter 1:18,19; 2:24; 3:18, Peter tells his readers
how they were redeemed by "the precious blood of Christ,"
how Christ Himself "bore our sins in His own body on the tree"
and how He "suffered, the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God."
Does this sound like his Pentecostal message, where he referred to the
cross only to blame his hearers for it and then, in response to their
"What shall we do?" demanded that they "repent and be
baptized.. .for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:37,38)? Surely Peter
did not preach the finished work of Christ at Pentecost.
As to II Peter, it is true that here the apostle reminds his readers
of their stake in the kingdom and declares that he had not been telling
them fables when he made known to them the power and coming of Christ,
but he does this to prepare them for his further declaration that God,
in longsuffering, is now to delay Christ's return to judge and reign
(II Pet. 3:3,4, 8,9) and then he commends them to "our beloved
brother Paul," who "in all his epistles," writes of "these
things" (II Pet. 3:15,16).
It should be noted here too that Peter states that Paul had already
written to
them about these things (Ver. 15). If these Jews were to "retain
their fleshly
standing" and were not to be members of the one Body, what business
did Paul have writing them?
In the light of the above it is significant that Peter opens his second
epistle with the words: "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you
through the knowledge of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ."
It is true that Peter does not deal with "Body truth," as
such, in his epistles. Here the selective principle in divine inspiration
is in operation because God would keep Paul as the distinctive apostle
of this great truth. But who can deny that Peter, in his epistles, taught
his readers more-and wished that they might know still more, about our
glorified Lord than they had known in the Pentecostal era? How, then,
can we agree that Peter's epistles contain no new or further truth from
that which he had proclaimed at Pentecost?
Brother Stam declares here plainly that Peter did not teach “Body
Truths”. Once again, because Peter writes in his epistles that
Christ died and paid for their sins, brother Stam believes Peter is
now part of the one new man.
Just reading Acts 2 does not give you the full scope of what Peter knew
or preached at Pentecost or the early part of his ministry. The books
of Acts is an overview of the Acts of the apostles, not the details
of what Peter and Paul taught. Luke never records of anybody teaching
that Christ died and paid for sins, not even Paul.
7. It is objected that although Peter heard something
of the heavenly calling of the one Body from Paul, he was not called
to it, but he retained his fleshly standing (Gal. 2:9-11).
If this is true, why does Galatians 2 go on to tell how Paul rebuked
Peter when he stopped eating with the Gentiles at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14)?
If Peter "retained his fleshly standing," he should have been
rebuked for eating with Gentiles. Had not Peter himself indicated that
his fleshly standing no longer counted when he said that God had put
"no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith"
(Acts 15:9)? And is it not true that those who had come "from James"
had intimidated Peter, so that in withdrawing from the Gentiles he went
back on light which all of them had received (Acts 15:9; Gal. 2:2,9-16)?
Had he not previously relinquished his fleshly standing to rejoice in
his oneness with Gentile believers in Christ?
Again, if Peter only "heard something of the heavenly calling,"
but himself
retained his fleshly standing, as it is contended, why was he called,
in Hebrews 3:1, a "partaker of the heavenly calling," along
with the other Hebrew believers of his time? Surely this argument breaks
down completely here.
Here brother Stam teaches that Peter became partakers of the heavenly
calling later after Pentecost. According to scripture, Peter and the
apostles were always partakers of the heavenly calling.
They were promised the kingdom of heaven. In Matthew 3 it says,
“1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the
wilderness of Judaea,
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
And in Matthew 6 it says,
“9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which
art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”
The kingdom of heaven is going to brought down to this earth. Peter
is not going into heaven to get it, but rather it will be brought to
him.
In 1st Peter it says,
“4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and
that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,”
Peter’s inheritance is reserved in heaven and it always was. It
will be brought to him at the 2nd coming of Christ. Verse 13 says,
“13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober,
and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at
the revelation of Jesus Christ;”
Once again, Peter is not going into heaven to receive his heavenly inheritance,
it will be brought to him at the second coming of Christ.
Just because Peter’s inheritance is reserved in heaven does not
make him partaker of the one new man. Peter will be in the kingdom of
heaven, it just so happens that the kingdom of heaven will be brought
down to this earth where Peter will reign with Christ.
8. Some say that to believe that the twelve apostles
have a dual calling renders Paul's statement in Ephesians 4:4 ["one
hope of your calling'] false.
We have never subscribed to the idea that the "hope" here
refers only to the Rapture of the Church, as compared with our Lord's
return to earth. We rather connect this passage with Ephesians 1:18,
where Paul expresses his desire that believers may know, or understand,
"what is the hope of His calling [of us]" i.e., "the
hope which His call to you inspires" (Weymouth Translation). This
"calling" is, of course, the "holy calling" referred
to in II Timothy 1:9, with its "all spiritual blessings in heavenly
places." It is a present matter rather than merely a future one.
And this was the "heavenly calling" into which these Jewish
believers now came and which, as they came to understand it more fully,
would inspire them with "hope" despite the postponement of
the kingdom. As to the future aspect of this hope and calling, we must
not forget that even today the instructed and spiritual believer longs
not only to go and be with Christ at the Rapture, he also longs to reign
with Christ.
When anyone uses the term, “Rapture of the Church” this
is a very misleading statement. The church will not be raptured, it
is the one new man that will be raptured or adopted as Paul calls it
in Romans 8:23. The church will continue though Daniel’s 70th
week commonly known as the tribulation.
If the church is raptured into heaven, then who will be the believers
during the tribulation?
This is one reason why some brethren teach that there are 2 separate
churches. They teach the “church the body of Christ” will
be raptured into heaven and the “kingdom church” goes through
the tribulation, which causes much confusion because there is only one
church.
The one new man was made into the church and is part of the church.
There are not two separate churches. Once again, this article on Name
Tags will explain in detail:
http://www.gracebiblestudy.net/AdvancedSeriesDoc/NameTags.htm
9. Based on Ephesians 4:4-6, some
say that there is only one hope and calling for members of Christ's
Body and that to say that the twelve came into a heavenly calling renders
Paul's statement in Ephesians 4:4 false.
We agree that "there is only one hope and calling for members of
Christ's Body," but this is not what Ephesians 4:4 teaches. Read
Ephesians 4:4-6 carefully. It does not say that in the Body there is
one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father (though this would be true). It rather lists the one Body along
with all the other unities, indicating that God recognized but one Body,
one hope, one baptism, etc. This means that the Jewish believers then
living were recognized as one Body with the Gentile believers, that
they should now be enjoying the present "holy calling" which
inspired the Gentile believers with hope. It also means that water baptism
was now a thing of the past and that both should rejoice together in
the one baptism by which they had been united. Thus it is they,
not we, who violate Ephesians 4:4-6, for by leaving the Judean believers
of Paul's day out of the one Body, to continue with their Pentecostal
program, they must also recognize two separate hopes, two callings and
two baptisms.
Once again the error here is calling the one new man “the church
which is his body”.
The one new man was made into the “church which is his body”
so in most cases calling the one new man “the church which is
his body” is not a problem because the one new man became part
of the church. But when you are dealing with a subject such as this
one, “Were the twelve in the body or out”
you MUST be very specific on EXACTLY what the church the body of Christ
is, if you are not specific, then you can cause great confusion among
believers.
Once again, some people call the church that started in Acts 2 “the
body of Christ” and some people call the one new man that started
with Paul “the body of Christ”.
Instead of teaching the one new man was made “IN” himself
(Christ), some people just teach there are two separate churches which
causes confusion and division.
When you take the term “the church which is his body” and
just apply it to the one new man rather than the church itself, it will
cause you to believe that the twelve were in the one new man, which
is was happened to brother Stam.
10. Some say that because there is neither Jew
nor Gentile, circumcision nor
uncircumcision before God in Christ's Body, the twelve circumcision
apostles could not be members of the Body of Christ with its ONE spiritual
heavenly calling.
If this is so, what about all the Jews among the Gentiles saved under
Paul's
ministry? Were these not members of "the circumcision"? Yet
our objectors agree that they became members of the one Body This is
the whole tenor of I Corinthians 12:13. Further; they have overlooked
the fact that according to Paul's own statement, in Christ's Body there
is "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision." Therefore if
the circumcision of the twelve would keep them out of the Body, our
uncircumcision would keep us out! The fact is that believers from both
the circumcision and the uncircumcision have been made one in Christ,
where these distinctions disappear.
God gave the one new man so that he could save the Gentiles and join
them together with the Jews into the same body. The church was Jew only.
The one new man allowed Gentiles to become partakers of the church with
the Jews. Paul explains this very clearly in the book of Ephesians.
CONCLUSION
With this we must close, though
there is much more to say. We rejoice that in the "Grace Movement"
we may freely discuss these matters, and we ask only that the above
arguments be considered prayerfully in the light of the Word, for any
one truth misunderstood can affect our understanding of other truths
and bring us into confusion in our study and proclamation of the Word.
Together; thank God, we stand for the distinctive character of the revelation
committed to Paul. The question is simply whether or not the Judean
"kingdom" believers living after the raising up of Paul became
members of the one Body with which his message was concerned. Therefore
let us not make this issue a larger one than it is, lest we cause division
among those who, above all people, should be united in making known
the riches of God's grace.
Once again, brother Stam very graciously teaches us that this subject
should not cause division in the body of Christ. It just makes great
bible study for those who are interested in the subject. We will discuss
this in more detail at the end of this document.
So as brother Stam comes to the conclusion of his document, so shall
we. Let’s go into detail and compare the two completely different
viewpoints.
CONCLUSION
So as we look back at all the detail we have covered let’s compare,
not the preachers themselves, but rather the two different viewpoints
taken by many believers. It’s not just the preacher’s viewpoints
but rather the viewpoints of many different believers. Let’s call
the viewpoint that the twelve were in the one new man “VIEW A”
and let’s call the viewpoint of the twelve were out of the one
new man “VIEW B”.
Now before we go on that you need to understand that even though many
teach that the twelve were in the one new man, they do not necessarily
take everything that is presented in view “A”.
The same goes for view “B”. Just because there are many
that teach the twelve were out of the one new man does not mean they
agree with everything presented in view “B”.
View “A” and view “B” are just typical viewpoints.
They are not the only views in this matter, just typical.
First let’s make a few charts and do a side by side visual comparison
of the two different views.
But because this article also contains brother Stam’s article
and it is getting kind of long, let’s stop here and split this
article in two. To continue click on:
Two Different Mid-Acts Views
|
