It’s Paul For Me

[Guojing]

Define "circumcized little flock". And do so substantially.
That seems to be the important key to you. Yet it has been left rather ambiguous, vague.
The easiest position to defend is a vague one.

Spend a complete paragraph or more on "circumcized little flock" defining this crtical phrase of yours adaquately well.

Actually the important key is the 3 apostles, James, Peter and John. (Galatians 2:7-9).

I don't need to define these 3 to you.

 

[oikonomia]

Actually the important key is the 3 apostles, James, Peter and John. (Galatians 2:7-9).

I don't need to define these 3 to you.

So you will not define "circumcized little flock" for us.
You would rather mention something ELSE which you say you do not need to define to me.

This is what I mean about pulling teeth.
Anything in my writing you asked me to define very clearly I would be glad to at least give it a try.
Re-consider. What could it hurt?

 

[Guojing]

So you will not define "circumcized little flock" for us.
You would rather mention something ELSE which you say you do not need to define to me.

This is what I mean about pulling teeth.
Anything in my writing you asked me to define very clearly I would be glad to at least give it a try.
Re-consider. What could it hurt?

You are trying to avoid answering my direct question.

Because you won't answer honestly that they never said those 4 points in their epistles.

As I said, I will respect you more if you are at least willing to state that.

Galatians 2:7-9 and Luke 12:32 will be enough for anyone to understand who belongs to the circumcised little flock.

 

[oikonomia]

You are trying to avoid answering my direct question.

Because you won't answer honestly that they never said those 4 points in their epistles.

As I said, I will respect you more if you are at least willing to state that.

Galatians 2:7-9 and Luke 12:32 will be enough for anyone to understand who belongs to the circumcised little flock.

I'm not craving your respect.
I am seeking a clear definition of your term "the circumcized little flock".

I gather that you mean from Galatians 2:7-9 people to whom the Apostle Peter was sent to preach.
Peter was also sent to preach to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius.

And while Peter was pondering over the vision, the Spirit said to him, Behold, there are three men seeking you.
But rise up, go down and go with them, doubting nothing, because I have sent them. (Acts 10:19,20)

So defining "the circumcized little flock" as only the people Peter was sent by God to preach to is inadaquate.

Then you offer for a definition of "the circumcized little flock" Luke 12:32.

Do not be afraid, little flock, because your Father has been well pleased to give you the kingdom. (Luke 12:32)

Luke 12:32 mentions "little flock" but makes no mention of circumcision as a requirement to be His little flock there.
The gospel of Luke clearly is written for the benefit of the believing of all people.
The words of Jesus there to His twelve Jewish disciples should not be artificially restricted such that uncircumcized should not heed them.
The words of Jesus immediately following verse 32 are intended fo all followers of Christ.

For where your treasure is, there also your heart will be.
Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning,
And you be like men waiting for their own master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that when he comes and knocks they may open to him immediately.
Blessed are those slaves whom the master, when he comes, will find watching. Truly I tell you that he will gird himself and will have them recline at table, and he will come to them and serve them. (vs. 33-37)

If you want to develop some paradigm that argues "Aha! But those words are ONLY to the circumcized little flock proving that they cannot be Christ's Body" the definitions you offered won't do that for you.

When the Lord told Peter to feed His sheep and shepherd His lambs in John 21:1-14 do you suppose
the only sheep and lambs He meant were the circumcized the little flock?

I think what you imagine to do is say that because Peter, James, or John didn't use the phrase "the Body of Christ" as Paul did,
it proves that no one/s as recipients of their teaching should be considered as members of the Body of Christ.

That would be rediculous. And I showed in a past post that if Peter used the term "spiritual house" being built up by "living stones" (1 Pet. 2:5) he was only speaking of the same profoound corporate entity by a different expression.

An if John wrote of the Lord's words of Him being the true vine and the believers as the abiding branches (John 15)
he too was speaking of the same corporate reality as the Head and the Body of Paul in words Christ had used.

 

[Guojing]

Luke 12:32 mentions "little flock" but makes no mention of circumcision as a requirement to be His little flock there.
The gospel of Luke clearly is written for the benefit of the believing of all people.
The words of Jesus there to His twelve Jewish disciples should not be artificially restricted such that uncircumcized should not heed them.
The words of Jesus immediately following verse 32 are intended fo all followers of Christ.

See Matthew 15:24.

You know you are not the little flock in Luke 12:32, otherwise, you will have to follow what Jesus commanded them to do in the very next verse, Luke 12:33, which you don't.

 

[oikonomia]

See Matthew 15:24.

You know you are not the little flock in Luke 12:32, otherwise, you will have to follow what Jesus commanded them to do in the very next verse, Luke 12:33, which you don't.

I'll have to address Matthew 15:24 in another post.

But to seize upon rather specific instructions to the twelve disciples there, which I happy to acknowledge, is not
sufficient to exclude followers of Jesus through the centuries as part of His flock.

1.) Followers of Jesus have often made such sacrifices in order to serve the Lord.
Those sacrifces may not have been identical in the specifics instructed there. But in nature
such sacrifices have been made for the sake of serving the indwelling Lord Jesus.

2.) Many instances of details instructed by Jesus to the twelve or some audience can be found.
In every case the same details may not apply to a Christian in exactly the same way.

For example - Jesus instructing them to go find the place for His last supper;
Jesus instructing them to cast the net on the other side of the fishing boat;
Jesus instructing them to fill six pots with water that was to be turned into wine.
You cannot say "Because you didn't exactly perform these instructions you are not of His sheep."

There are colloquial like circumstances of the audiences of Jesus which are not exactly the same for
every believers in every age who desires to follow Jesus. Sometimes the line needs to be discerned logically.
"What things here were only meant for the twelve disciples and what things here apply universally down through the age?"

The important key is that this Jesus is alive now and mysteriously available to all people as He became "a life giving Spirit" that can
supply us with Himself from within to abide in Him in all things.
[T]he last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45b)

All who receive Christ in His resurrection form as "a life giving Spirit" are of His one flock and members of His mystical Body.
These members consist of Jews, Greeks, Barbarians, Scythians, and any ethnic or nationals stratifications as divisions in the "one new man".

And have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all and in all.
(Col. 3:10,11)

This is the truth we should stand upon, live out through His empowering grace and be ready to die for in this church age.
In the Body of Christ we must realize that there "CANNOT BE" the walls, partitions, schisms, and divisions of the "old man".

It is not a liberal like magnanimous attitude that "there should not be". I mean as in "Now we OUGHT not behave that way."
There is no possibility in the Body of Christ as in "there cannot be".

The two matters are mutually disqualifying. If we want to prevailing and victorious church there is no possibility of retaining
divisions of Jews on one side of a wall and Gentile on the other side holding hands over the fence.
We must choose if we want to experience of Christ's Body and of normal new testament church life.

In the healthy expression of the Body of Christ His church Christ as the life giving Spirit must fill, saturate, make home,
and permeate every part of our psychological and spiritual heart. Christ must be all in all. Christ must be in everyone and be
everyone. This process of Christ filling up the lives and living of all the members is powerful and must be allowed to proceed for it
is our victory over the world, Satan, the flesh, and sin.

 

[oikonomia]

See Matthew 15:24.

Concerning your phrase "little circumcized flock" you refer me to Matthew's Gospel.
But He answered and said, I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt. 15:24)

Now should I conclude by this that Jesus misspoke or contradicted Himself when from His own mouth came these words?

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (John 3:16,17)

 

[Guojing]

Concerning your phrase "little circumcized flock" you refer me to Matthew's Gospel.
But He answered and said, I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt. 15:24)

Now should I conclude by this that Jesus misspoke or contradicted Himself when from His own mouth came these words?

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (John 3:16,17)

The book of John is full of author commentary.

John 3:16-17 is a commentary from the author.

Jesus never said those words to Nicodemus.

 

[Guojing]

2.) Many instances of details instructed by Jesus to the twelve or some audience can be found.
In every case the same details may not apply to a Christian in exactly the same way.

You began with such confidence saying

The words of Jesus there to His twelve Jewish disciples should not be artificially restricted such that uncircumcized should not heed them.
The words of Jesus immediately following verse 32 are intended fo all followers of Christ.

Then when you realize what the very next verse said about your money, Luke 12:33, you conveniently change your tune to "the same details may not apply to a Christian in exactly the same way."

Well done, if you want to use this kind of flip flop reasoning, to convince yourself you are part of the little flock, so be it.

 

[oikonomia]

The book of John is full of author commentary.

The book of John contains the words Jesus spoke and also some accompanying comments of John the writer.
Some so-called "red letter" Bibles indicate which is which.

John 3:16-17 is a commentary from the author.

Guojing, for me to accept this I have to assume John is being dishonest.
The words of verses 16 and 17 are a continuation of a quotation starting from verse 10.
Jesus ANSWERS Nicodemus. Allow me to give it to you both in English and in Greek.

Verse 10 - Jesus answered and said to him . . .
ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· . . .

The rest of verse 10 through verse 17 are a seamless continuation of Jesus speaking. Please read carefully -

Jesus answered and said to him, You are a teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things?

Jn 3:11Truly, truly, I say to you, We speak that which we know and testify of that which we have seen, and yet you do not receive our testimony.

Jn 3:12If I told you of the things on earth and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of the things in heaven?

Jn 3:13And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.

Jn 3:14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,

Jn 3:15That everyone who believes into Him may have eternal life.

Jn 3:16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life.

Jn 3:17For God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Jesus never said those words to Nicodemus.

Guoging, who has been taking care of you that you would not trust the word of God here?
Verse 10 - Jesus answered and said to him . . .

The words from the mouth of Jesus conclude in verse 21.
And then it says "After these things, Jesus and His disciples . . . etc. etc."
Μετὰ ταῦτα ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ . . . etc. etc.

And from verse 22 it goes on to record the discussion of
some of the disciples of John the Bapstist with him.

Ask yourself how you would feel if I told you that Jesus didn't speak the words of Matthew 15:24.
If I said "Oh that's just Matthew's commentary which, by the way, we can't trust" how would you feel?

You would surely protest.
This is not the way to solve the paradox of the two passages, by saying Jesus didn't say something
and what is written there is error prone and faulty commentary of Matthew or John.

There are far better ways to discuss how the two passages in the long run are both true.
Shall we explore then thier reconciliation rather than use one to suppress the other?

 

[oikonomia]

You began with such confidence saying



Then when you realize what the very next verse said about your money, Luke 12:33, you conveniently change your tune to "the same details may not apply to a Christian in exactly the same way."

Well done, if you want to use this kind of flip flop reasoning, to convince yourself you are part of the little flock, so be it.

You never offered an adaquate definition of the circumcized little flock.

There is to the Lord Jesus ONE FLOCK of His followers. And I certianly am a sheep in the one flock. Am I not?

And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must lead them also, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one flock, one Shepherd. (John 10:16)

Try again to specifically identify who your circumcized little flock IS and maybe I'll admit "Well, I'm not in THAT group."
But if you think you're going to deprive me of confessing that I'm in Christ's one flock of which He is the Good Shepherd, forget about it.

 

[Guojing]

You never offered an adaquate definition of the circumcized little flock.

There is to the Lord Jesus ONE FLOCK of His followers. And I certianly am a sheep in the one flock. Am I not?

And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must lead them also, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one flock, one Shepherd. (John 10:16)

Try again to specifically identify who your circumcized little flock IS and maybe I'll admit "Well, I'm not in THAT group."
But if you think you're going to deprive me of confessing that I'm in Christ's one flock of which He is the Good Shepherd, forget about it.

That is why I said you are trying to avoid answering my direct question about Peter James and John epistles, when you purposely focus on that phrase.

I already knew that, no matter how I explain, you will persist on this phrase, to avoid addressing that question.

 

[Guojing]

Ask yourself how you would feel if I told you that Jesus didn't speak the words of Matthew 15:24.
If I said "Oh that's just Matthew's commentary which, by the way, we can't trust" how would you feel?

Looks like you are unaware of the gospel of John and how the author's commentary is inserted throughout the book.

Alright then, I will leave this point and you can come to the understanding at your own timing.

 

[oikonomia]

Looks like you are unaware of the gospel of John and how the author's commentary is inserted throughout the book.

Alright then, I will leave this point and you can come to the understanding at your own timing.

So where John wrote "Jesus answered and said to him . . ." (John 3:10a) we should understand that as "Jesus did [NOT] answer or say to him . . .".

But where Matthew wrote "But He answered and said . . . " (Matt. 15:24) that is a trustworthy quotation from Jesus.

No, I am not going down that route. Then whatever you don't like you just dismiss as what Jesus didn't say.

 

[Guojing]

So where John wrote "Jesus answered and said to him . . ." (John 3:10a) we should understand that as "Jesus did [NOT] answer or say to him . . .".

But where Matthew wrote "But He answered and said . . . " (Matt. 15:24) that is a trustworthy quotation from Jesus.

No, I am not going down that route. Then whatever you don't like you just dismiss as what Jesus didn't say.

I was specifically talking about John 3:16-17. Your poor reading comprehension of my posts shows again.

If you cannot see how John 3:16-17 differs literally from John 3:10, as I said, you will realize that at your own timing.

 

[oikonomia]

I was specifically talking about John 3:16-17. Your poor reading comprehension of my posts shows again.

If you cannot see how John 3:16-17 differs literally from John 3:10, as I said, you will realize that at your own timing.

The number of things which you won't or cannot explain is lengthening I notice.

 

[Guojing]

The number of things which you won't or cannot explain is lengthening I notice.

Just because you disagree with my explanation does not mean it wasn't given.