Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will NOT be forgiven

[URwrongAgain]

There is not a verse in the Bible that talks about a Gentile Christian. Such a concept does not exist in the mind of God. In your mind it does. But I'm not trying to understand your mind. I'm trying to understand God's.

Here again as to which you basically do on every post you make on the forum, nothing but your own speculation
as to what is and what is not in all of God's creation.

It is even written in your bible that God's thoughts are not your thoughts
and His ways are not your ways, but here you are AGAIN, saying such things to me such as

" Such a concept does not exist in the mind of God. "

Like how on all the earth and in the name of heaven would you know
what does or does not exist in the mind of the living God?

 

[Peterlag]

Here again as to which you basically do on every post you make on the forum, nothing but your own speculation
as to what is and what is not in all of God's creation.

It is even written in your bible that God's thoughts are not your thoughts
and His ways are not your ways, but here you are AGAIN, saying such things to me such as

" Such a concept does not exist in the mind of God. "

Like how on all the earth and in the name of heaven would you know
what does or does not exist in the mind of the living God?

I know the Word of God and that's how I know there's no place in the Bible that talks about a Gentile Christian. I am also buddies with God and the Christ. I dwell in Christ and he in me.

 

[URwrongAgain]

I know the Word of God and that's how I know there's no place in the Bible that talks about a Gentile Christian. I am also buddies with God and the Christ. I dwell in Christ and he in me.

I disagree with you. Let that be on record before the Lord, I disagree with you on all this you have said to me.

 

[Peterlag]

I disagree with you. Let that be on record before the Lord, I disagree with you on all this you have said to me.

I do not believe you disagree with me concerning Gentile Christians. I believe you don't understand that God talks to different people in the Bible. When He's writing about Jews He's not writing about Christians. When He's writing about Christians He's not writing about Gentiles. You believe God is writing to everyone and so you don't understand what I'm saying.

I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).

To rightly understand the Word of God, one must understand what part is written to the Church of God and what part is written for the learning of the Church. Every word from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, is written for our learning. However, not all of the words from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, are addressed to us. We must learn to distinguish not only the various people, but also the different time periods God has spoken to if we want to understand the written Word of God. The time God spoke to the children of Israel is not the same time period He has spoken to us. The time He spoke to the prophets in the time of the Old Testament is not the same time period He spoke to His Son Jesus Christ in the time of the gospels.

 

[URwrongAgain]

I do not believe you disagree with me concerning Gentile Christians. I believe you don't understand that God talks to different people in the Bible. When He's writing about Jews He's not writing about Christians. When He's writing about Christians He's not writing about Gentiles. You believe God is writing to everyone and so you don't understand what I'm saying.

I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).

To rightly understand the Word of God, one must understand what part is written to the Church of God and what part is written for the learning of the Church. Every word from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, is written for our learning. However, not all of the words from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, are addressed to us. We must learn to distinguish not only the various people, but also the different time periods God has spoken to if we want to understand the written Word of God. The time God spoke to the children of Israel is not the same time period He has spoken to us. The time He spoke to the prophets in the time of the Old Testament is not the same time period He spoke to His Son Jesus Christ in the time of the gospels.

It does not take from me or add to me for you to believe or say these things about me or to me.
So that is alright by me. As for other Christians or people as to what you believe concerning them,
that is of no concern to me. So I am good, either way.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I do not believe you disagree with me concerning Gentile Christians. I believe you don't understand that God talks to different people in the Bible. When He's writing about Jews He's not writing about Christians. When He's writing about Christians He's not writing about Gentiles. You believe God is writing to everyone and so you don't understand what I'm saying.

The entire NT Scriptures speak of the transition from Jewish Religion to the Christian Religion, which largely consisted of Gentiles. The Bible uses the term "Gentile" and the Bible uses the term "Christian." It doesn't have to use it in the exact order "Gentile Christian" to imply that very thing.

When the Bible notes that someone is not a Jew, it is often speaking of a Gentile. And when that Gentile converts to Christianity he has become, logically, a Gentile Christian.

The term "Gentiles" comes from the Jewish sense of "nations," which was the main object of God's promise to Abraham. He began with Israel, but He planned to advance into the Gentile world through conversion to what had begun with Israel.

In fact, the term for "nations" can be attributed to Jews who had migrated there, or who had ended up there in the diasporas. They would not, technically, be called "Gentiles" today, but it's basically the same word (see Acts 2).

So what we're really speaking of when we say "Gentile Christians" is the conversion of the nations to Christianity, which had begun after the death of Jesus. To say this idea or terminology didn't exist in the Bible is wrong, in my opinion.

Rom 4.13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Gal 3.8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).

These kinds of statements can easily be misconstrued. Was the Bible predetermined by God to be for the Church? Of course.

Were all the epistles and gospel written for specific groups at certain times or were they written more broadly for any future generations? I would have to say that some parts of the Bible had certain groups in mind but were of such quality that God determined in advance that they could also be used for future generations.

Some books were evidently given for any group of Christians for any future generation. It does help to know if there is a specific group being referenced in any particular work.

For example, 1 Peter seems addressed to Jewish believers. The book of Revelation was written to 7 churches of Asia Minor. Philemon was written to Philemon, Romans to Roman Christians, etc. But the historic Church has seen fit to include them in the "Christian Scriptures," recognizing their universal value and apostolic authority. God obviously knew this could and perhaps would happen.

To rightly understand the Word of God, one must understand what part is written to the Church of God and what part is written for the learning of the Church. Every word from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, is written for our learning. However, not all of the words from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, are addressed to us. We must learn to distinguish not only the various people, but also the different time periods God has spoken to if we want to understand the written Word of God. The time God spoke to the children of Israel is not the same time period He has spoken to us. The time He spoke to the prophets in the time of the Old Testament is not the same time period He spoke to His Son Jesus Christ in the time of the gospels.

Well, of course. The OT spoke of the era of the Law. The NT starts with the Gospel of Christ, which began in Jesus' ministry while he was still under the Law. The NT epistles and Revelation speak to the Christian Church. These things are obvious.

But I agree that it is important to know what covenant is in the background of many Scripture authors. The Law had a different code to live by than the NT Gospel. So when we read the OT Scriptures and the Gospels we should keep in mind that the Law was still in effect, and that a new set of rules come into play in the NT era.

 

[Peterlag]

The entire NT Scriptures speak of the transition from Jewish Religion to the Christian Religion, which largely consisted of Gentiles. The Bible uses the term "Gentile" and the Bible uses the term "Christian." It doesn't have to use it in the exact order "Gentile Christian" to imply that very thing.

When the Bible notes that someone is not a Jew, it is often speaking of a Gentile. And when that Gentile converts to Christianity he has become, logically, a Gentile Christian.

The term "Gentiles" comes from the Jewish sense of "nations," which was the main object of God's promise to Abraham. He began with Israel, but He planned to advance into the Gentile world through conversion to what had begun with Israel.

In fact, the term for "nations" can be attributed to Jews who had migrated there, or who had ended up there in the diasporas. They would not, technically, be called "Gentiles" today, but it's basically the same word (see Acts 2).

So what we're really speaking of when we say "Gentile Christians" is the conversion of the nations to Christianity, which had begun after the death of Jesus. To say this idea or terminology didn't exist in the Bible is wrong, in my opinion.

Rom 4.13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Gal 3.8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”


These kinds of statements can easily be misconstrued. Was the Bible predetermined by God to be for the Church? Of course.

Were all the epistles and gospel written for specific groups at certain times or were they written more broadly for any future generations? I would have to say that some parts of the Bible had certain groups in mind but were of such quality that God determined in advance that they could also be used for future generations.

Some books were evidently given for any group of Christians for any future generation. It does help to know if there is a specific group being referenced in any particular work.

For example, 1 Peter seems addressed to Jewish believers. The book of Revelation was written to 7 churches of Asia Minor. Philemon was written to Philemon, Romans to Roman Christians, etc. But the historic Church has seen fit to include them in the "Christian Scriptures," recognizing their universal value and apostolic authority. God obviously knew this could and perhaps would happen.

Well, of course. The OT spoke of the era of the Law. The NT starts with the Gospel of Christ, which began in Jesus' ministry while he was still under the Law. The NT epistles and Revelation speak to the Christian Church. These things are obvious.

But I agree that it is important to know what covenant is in the background of many Scripture authors. The Law had a different code to live by than the NT Gospel. So when we read the OT Scriptures and the Gospels we should keep in mind that the Law was still in effect, and that a new set of rules come into play in the NT era.

And when that Gentile converts to Christianity he has become, logically, a Gentile Christian.

You are using words in the above statement that God does not use. We can understand you when you write Gentile Christian. But we cannot understand God when we refer to His writings with Gentile Christian because He does not use that word. In God's writing that statement makes no sense and when you use it and say it's God's Word makes no sense. In the Bible a Gentile means an unbeliever. A Christian means a believer. There's no such thing in the Bible as a unbeliever believer.

 

[Randy Kluth]

And when that Gentile converts to Christianity he has become, logically, a Gentile Christian.

"Gentile" in common vernacular indicates someone not a Jew. But originally, it indicated "nations," as opposed to the one nation "Israel."

You are using words in the above statement that God does not use. We can understand you when you write Gentile Christian. But we cannot understand God when we refer to His writings with Gentile Christian because He does not use that word. In God's writing that statement makes no sense and when you use it and say it's God's Word makes no sense. In the Bible a Gentile means an unbeliever. A Christian means a believer. There's no such thing in the Bible as a unbeliever believer.

I understand what you're saying but do not agree. If indeed we are using "Gentile" the way you describe then yes, it would not make sense to say there is an "unbeliever believer."

But that is not what a "Gentile Christian" means--not in the way the Bible uses the term and not in the way we use the term normally.

The term can in fact be used as you use it, as a pejorative, indicating a "pagan," which is what the "nations" meant in the time of ancient Israel. But that is not how we're referring to "Gentiles" today!

The original meaning of "Gentiles" was simply "nations." Originally, these nations were pagan, and so the pejorative concept was associated with "nations." However, "nations" can be used in a more religiously-neutral sense, because God planned to saved the nations, and not just Israel. And so, "nations" could never mean, for God, unbelievers, if He planned to make them believers!

I do understand the problem. If the former pagan nations converted to Christianity, would they still be referred to as "Gentiles?' --well yes, even though those nations are no longer associated with paganism. They would then refer to nations that are distinct from Israel, as they had been in ancient times when Israel was denied fellowship with them.

But once Christ had broken down the partitioning wall between Jew and Gentile, the nations maintained a distinction from Israel without the necessary "pagan" association with them.

That's what you're ignoring. We're still members of the nations outside of Israel, ie "Gentiles," but we're no longer "pagan nations." "Gentiles" does not automatically infer "pagan Gentiles."

But inasmuch as the nations still include pagans, they can be viewed as "pagan Gentiles" as well, and will need to convert to Christianity. Thus, there have been, even in biblical times, Gentile Christians and Gentiles converts. Nowhere are we told that Gentiles stop being "Gentiles" when they convert to Christianity. On the contrary, the word means "nations," and nations do not stop being nations.

 

[Peterlag]

"Gentile" in common vernacular indicates someone not a Jew. But originally, it indicated "nations," as opposed to the one nation "Israel."

I understand what you're saying but do not agree. If indeed we are using "Gentile" the way you describe then yes, it would not make sense to say there is an "unbeliever believer."

But that is not what a "Gentile Christian" means--not in the way the Bible uses the term and not in the way we use the term normally.

The term can in fact be used as you use it, as a pejorative, indicating a "pagan," which is what the "nations" meant in the time of ancient Israel. But that is not how we're referring to "Gentiles" today!

The original meaning of "Gentiles" was simply "nations." Originally, these nations were pagan, and so the pejorative concept was associated with "nations." However, "nations" can be used in a more religiously-neutral sense, because God planned to saved the nations, and not just Israel. And so, "nations" could never mean, for God, unbelievers, if He planned to make them believers!

I do understand the problem. If the former pagan nations converted to Christianity, would they still be referred to as "Gentiles?' --well yes, even though those nations are no longer associated with paganism. They would then refer to nations that are distinct from Israel, as they had been in ancient times when Israel was denied fellowship with them.

But once Christ had broken down the partitioning wall between Jew and Gentile, the nations maintained a distinction from Israel without the necessary "pagan" association with them.

That's what you're ignoring. We're still members of the nations outside of Israel, ie "Gentiles," but we're no longer "pagan nations." "Gentiles" does not automatically infer "pagan Gentiles."

But inasmuch as the nations still include pagans, they can be viewed as "pagan Gentiles" as well, and will need to convert to Christianity. Thus, there have been, even in biblical times, Gentile Christians and Gentiles converts. Nowhere are we told that Gentiles stop being "Gentiles" when they convert to Christianity. On the contrary, the word means "nations," and nations do not stop being nations.

Again, you can use Gentile Christian and write about it in all the books that you would enjoy doing so. God does not use that word and why you continue to say He does when He does not is beyond me.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Again, you can use Gentile Christian and write about it in all the books that you would enjoy doing so. God does not use that word and why you continue to say He does when He does not is beyond me.

Apparently it is beyond you, for whatever reason. Surely you can understand that "Gentiles" and "Christians" are biblical words? If so, why would you deny that they are biblical words?

Also, to use "Gentiles" as a synonym for "nations" is also biblical, since the words are essentially the same. In the context of the Mosaic Law, the "nations" were viewed as pagan. However, as I said, they are not viewed as necessarily pagan in the context of the promise to make "nations" heirs of Abraham. I quoted that for you, and yet you still do not understand? Oh well... Perhaps others will understand?

The problem does go deeper than what has been said thus far. I've discovered that Replacement Theology, which is the dominant view in history, has determined that "nations" are an unbiblical distinction, even though we use the term in modern parlance.

I, however, happen to believe that God distinctly promised "nations" to Abraham. And this may make an important difference in our disagreement.

You seem to say that "Gentiles" necessarily means "pagan nations?" Again, this cannot have been established, except that Christian nations did not yet exist, and outreach to them had only begun in biblical days.

At any rate, "Gentiles" had long referred to nationalities outside of Israel. So when non-Jews converted, such as Cornelius, it appears that a Gentile did convert to Christ. It's strange that you cannot say this, whether or not you find it in the Bible.

Acts 11.20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21 The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord. ...The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Paul referred to his non-Jewish brothers as Gentiles/nations when he identified them as Christians and also as "nations." You ignored my quote of this, and then deny it exists. You seem to want the Bible to be a dictionary? It says there are Gentiles called Christians in many ways. You just refuse to acknowledge it because you want to believe that the nations outside of Israel are "pagans."

Gal 3.14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. ...8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

These quotes do not suggest remotely that Gentiles stop being "nations" when they accept Christ. They become Christians and remain "nations." That you require this to be said indicates you refuse to put 2 and 2 together, or at any rate come up with 3. Your claim, then, is equally unbiblical.

 

[Peterlag]

Apparently it is beyond you, for whatever reason. Surely you can understand that "Gentiles" and "Christians" are biblical words? If so, why would you deny that they are biblical words?

Also, to use "Gentiles" as a synonym for "nations" is also biblical, since the words are essentially the same. In the context of the Mosaic Law, the "nations" were viewed as pagan. However, as I said, they are not viewed as necessarily pagan in the context of the promise to make "nations" heirs of Abraham. I quoted that for you, and yet you still do not understand? Oh well... Perhaps others will understand?

The problem does go deeper than what has been said thus far. I've discovered that Replacement Theology, which is the dominant view in history, has determined that "nations" are an unbiblical distinction, even though we use the term in modern parlance.

I, however, happen to believe that God distinctly promised "nations" to Abraham. And this may make an important difference in our disagreement.

You seem to say that "Gentiles" necessarily means "pagan nations?" Again, this cannot have been established, except that Christian nations did not yet exist, and outreach to them had only begun in biblical days.

At any rate, "Gentiles" had long referred to nationalities outside of Israel. So when non-Jews converted, such as Cornelius, it appears that a Gentile did convert to Christ. It's strange that you cannot say this, whether or not you find it in the Bible.

Acts 11.20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21 The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord. ...The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Paul referred to his non-Jewish brothers as Gentiles/nations when he identified them as Christians and also as "nations." You ignored my quote of this, and then deny it exists. You seem to want the Bible to be a dictionary? It says there are Gentiles called Christians in many ways. You just refuse to acknowledge it because you want to believe that the nations outside of Israel are "pagans."

Gal 3.14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. ...8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

These quotes do not suggest remotely that Gentiles stop being "nations" when they accept Christ. They become Christians and remain "nations." That you require this to be said indicates you refuse to put 2 and 2 together, or at any rate come up with 3. Your claim, then, is equally unbiblical.

The problem that blows my mind that I find so many on here that just don't get it. If we think we can make up our own words and call them biblical then we fool the new people in not knowing who the Scriptures are talking to. So when we read those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Then when we do not know who the flesh people are and we look at our hand like someone just told me last week and see flesh. Then we think God is referring to us when He is not.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I do think it's a bit of a ruse to argue that biblical ideas do not exist in the Bible because the specific wording, fit for its own time, does not express evolving applications of the same ideas. "Gentile Christian" is one of those ideas that existed in the Bible and yet is not fully described in the way it would later be expressed in history.

"Gentile," as we use the term, was a more appropriate term for its use in biblical times because the Law of Moses had been in effect, distinguishing between Israel and the rest of the nations, the latter being pagans. But once people from other nations began to become "Christians" the terms began to change, or the description began to become more nuanced and in touch with NT times.

There had been no term "Christians," but once the NT era began both Jews and non-Jews, ie those from other nations, began to be called "Christians." We wouldn't likely want to say "Gentile Christians" because that seems to convey the OT sense of division between Jew and Gentile, which the Bible articulated in its own time. But once Christianity had been transplanted into other nations, the term was less "Gentile Christians" and more "Greek Christians" or "Roman Christians."

These ideas were synonymous, "Gentiles" or "Greeks," and yet "Greek" and "Roman" were more specific as "Gentiles," or "nations." The sense of a division between Jew and Gentile gave way to expressed differences, in our times, between Judaism and other ethnic groups. But we can still use the terms "Gentiles" and "Jews" in a proper, biblical sense.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The problem that blows my mind that I find so many on here that just don't get it. If we think we can make up our own words and call them biblical then we fool the new people in not knowing who the Scriptures are talking to.

Your mind should grasp that the people who confuse you aren't making up words at all, but are using the very words used in the Bible--words like "Gentiles" and "Christians." You have not once acknowledge that "Gentiles" and "nations" are synonymous. Perhaps you want to have a "blown mind?" Perhaps you don't even want to hear the argument?

Who are these people, Peterlag? Are you saying that the Bible is not calling them "Gentiles," and is not calling them "Christians?" Your mind is blown why?

Eph 2.11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Did these Gentiles top being "Gentiles by birth?" Where does the Bible stop calling these Christians "Gentiles?"

 

[Gottservant]

Isn't that a bit harsh?

[...]


They stubbornly accuse the Holy Spirit in Jesus as unclean. Persisting in calling the Holy Spirit evil is a specific case of blasphemy against the Spirit. For the general case, see What is the unforgivable sin?.

Bear in mind, that in every case but one, the blasphemy people against the Holy Spirit are guilty of is unique to them.

There is no way for you to ask me, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit for you, I wouldn't know how - not because I don't know what blasphemy is, but because I don't know what your relationship to the Holy Spirit is, unless one or the other of you tells me (and even then I probably wouldn't understand it)!

 

[Peterlag]

Your mind should grasp that the people who confuse you aren't making up words at all, but are using the very words used in the Bible--words like "Gentiles" and "Christians." You have not once acknowledge that "Gentiles" and "nations" are synonymous. Perhaps you want to have a "blown mind?" Perhaps you don't even want to hear the argument?

Who are these people, Peterlag? Are you saying that the Bible is not calling them "Gentiles," and is not calling them "Christians?" Your mind is blown why?

Eph 2.11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Did these Gentiles top being "Gentiles by birth?" Where does the Bible stop calling these Christians "Gentiles?"

Well, let's look at your verse. Where in it does it say the Gentiles were Christian at birth? Where?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, let's look at your verse. Where in it does it say the Gentiles were Christian at birth? Where?

Peter, when these Gentiles became Christians is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact these Gentiles remained Gentiles after they became Christians.

Being a Gentile, therefore, is not a derogatory term. It's a term that identifies who someone is. They are not Jews. They are from other nations. They at one time were considered to be pagans. But as nations they can convert to Christianity and have.

That is the point. Christian Gentile, Christian Jew--these are terms that make sense and are biblical even if they are not put in that exact form. People argue with these kinds of terms all of the time because of background issues.

I get it that "Christian Gentile" is not the form of the term you get in the Bible, and I've taken pains to explain why that is. But the concept is unmistakably there. And you have yet to acknowledge that.

But you don't have to--we can agree to disagree?

 

[Peterlag]

Peter, when these Gentiles became Christians is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact these Gentiles remained Gentiles after they became Christians.

Being a Gentile, therefore, is not a derogatory term. It's a term that identifies who someone is. They are not Jews. They are from other nations. They at one time were considered to be pagans. But as nations they can convert to Christianity and have.

That is the point. Christian Gentile, Christian Jew--these are terms that make sense and are biblical even if they are not put in that exact form. People argue with these kinds of terms all of the time because of background issues.

I get it that "Christian Gentile" is not the form of the term you get in the Bible, and I've taken pains to explain why that is. But the concept is unmistakably there. And you have yet to acknowledge that.

But you don't have to--we can agree to disagree?

God does not agree with you. He writes nothing about Gentiles remaining Gentiles after becoming Christian. Now you think that. You understand it in your mind and it makes perfect sense to you. God does not share your concept and He never writes about Gentile Christians.

 

[Randy Kluth]

God does not agree with you. He writes nothing about Gentiles remaining Gentiles after becoming Christian. Now you think that. You understand it in your mind and it makes perfect sense to you. God does not share your concept and He never writes about Gentile Christians.

You seem to think you speak for God? How arrogant!

I quoted you the Scriptures that identified Gentiles as they are. And they are depicted as becoming Christians without any sense that they have stopped being Gentiles. So, *you* are the one reading things into the passage that just aren't there.

Eph 2.11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

*Gentiles* are brought near by the blood of Christ, ie Gentiles become Christians, or as I phrase it, become "Gentile Christians" or "Christian Gentiles."

They were formerly "uncircumcised"--they did not stop being Gentiles. They stopped being "uncircumcised!"

I offered to agree with you agreeably, and you ignored that. I suppose that indicates you are not a very "agreeable" person?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Funny this thing: It is thought that when Gentiles convert to Christ they stop being Gentiles, or those from other nations. And it is thought by some that when Gentiles convert to Christ, they become "Israel," and Jews stop being "Israel." Funny, and yet, not really very funny... Language can be like that when there is an agenda.

The only important thing is that we belong to God, and not what name we have. Our ethnicity and our nationality only matter insofar as God has created a variety to be His People. We should stop demanding that differences have no meaning in the Church. If variety is important to God, then variety should be important to us, and we should recognize it.

 

[Peterlag]

You seem to think you speak for God? How arrogant!

I quoted you the Scriptures that identified Gentiles as they are. And they are depicted as becoming Christians without any sense that they have stopped being Gentiles. So, *you* are the one reading things into the passage that just aren't there.

Eph 2.11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

*Gentiles* are brought near by the blood of Christ, ie Gentiles become Christians, or as I phrase it, become "Gentile Christians" or "Christian Gentiles."

They were formerly "uncircumcised"--they did not stop being Gentiles. They stopped being "uncircumcised!"

I offered to agree with you agreeably, and you ignored that. I suppose that indicates you are not a very "agreeable" person?

The Word of the Lord came unto me when I was getting a cup of tea saying Gentiles are unbelievers and Christians are believers. Therefore there's no such thing as an unbeliever-believer.