Not ALL the physically dead are raised at the same time, the dead in Christ rise FIRST.

[Spiritual Israelite]

I responded to PinSeeker's post. The Romans 2 passage is speaking about the descendants of Jacob who are "true Jews" because they are circumcised. The Romans 9 passage is speaking about the descendants of Jacob who will become the True Israel when God circumcises their hearts.

You are obviously not reading those passages carefully at all. Paul specifically points out how one's physical nationality, where or who they descended from, has nothing to do with being the type of Israelite and Jew he was talking about.

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

One is NOT the kind of Jew Paul is talking about here by way of being one outwardly by way of being physically circumcised. Physical things have NOTHING to do with being that type of Jew. Instead, it has EVERYTHING to do with being circumcised "of the heart, in the spirit". That is what makes someone a true or spiritual Jew. And all Christians have been circumcised of the heart, in the spirit.

Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Paul explicitly indicates here that being part of true or spiritual Israel has NOTHING to do with being a physical, natural descendant of the nation of Israel and of Abraham, but rather has EVERYTHING to do with being reckoned/called through Isaac and being a child of God and of the promise. So, who are the ones called through Isaac and who are the children of God and of the promise? We can look at what Paul wrote in the following passages to determine that, if you believe in interpreting scripture with scripture.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So, the children of God and of the promise are all those who belong to Christ, including all Jew and Gentile believers, and they are the ones counted as Abraham's offspring/seed, which Paul indicated in Romans 9:6-8 are the ones who are part of the Israel of which not all of national Israel are part.

Who are the ones called through Isaac? The same ones who are the children of God and of the promise. This is Paul talking to Jew and Gentile believers collectively, while including himself as well:

Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

So, as you can see, my view is based on clear scripture. Your view is based only on your imagination and not on scripture.

 

[covenantee]

Name-calling is indicative of a weak argument

What name do you think applies to the attempt to distinguish and elevate one physical race over all others?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I clearly do not do that, as everyone else but you can see. You clearly have no argument, as this post of yours proves.

I have an argument but as you pointed out earlier, you have no reason to believe what I say.
I have previously presented my argument to others, and I am doing so here hoping that the scriptures might convince you.

Let this be a lesson in Bible study. Take a look at 1 Peter 1:1

1 Peter 1:1-2

[From] Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.​

those who reside as aliens
Based on your understanding, the Apostle Peter wrote a letter to the churches in five regions near Asia. However, it seems unlikely that he would divide the church into two groups: citizens and aliens. So why was it necessary for him to single out aliens in particular?

The most likely explanation is that Peter is talking to a specific kind of alien—a member of the Jewish diaspora. As the apostle to the circumcised, it makes sense that he would address his letter to them. He is talking to the circumcised who are spread out and living in other countries who are also chosen by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. To these people -- to the circumcision -- he reminds them that they are a chosen race.

God chose a race of people to be his people. That is a fact. And so far as we know, he has never chosen another race.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Right. What Peter described is the same church, consisting of Jew and Gentile believers, that Paul described. It couldn't be more clear.

Erroneous interpretations seem clear until they aren't.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What name do you think applies to the attempt to distinguish and elevate one physical race over all others?

I have not elevated that race; God did and does.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I have an argument but as you pointed out earlier, you have no reason to believe what I say.

That's correct. Which is why I should not waste any more time reading your nonsense. Thanks for reminding me.

I have previously presented my argument to others, and I am doing so here hoping that the scriptures might convince you.

You have already proven many times that you can't convince me of anything. I don't see that ever changing. I know how you twist scripture to make it say what you want it to say. And, you don't even trust any English translations, so why are you quoting scripture from English translations to me (as you did from 1 Peter below this)? The same English translations that you think get all the verses that teach the deity of Christ wrong? I'm supposed to take that (and you) seriously? I can't.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Erroneous interpretations seem clear until they aren't.

So, Peter described the "chosen generation, royal priesthood, holy nation, peculiar people" the same way Paul described the church in Ephesians 2:19-22 and we're supposed to just ignore that? I don't think so.

 

[covenantee]

I have not elevated that race; God did and does.

You still haven't read Numbers 25:9.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You are obviously not reading those passages carefully at all. Paul specifically points out how one's physical nationality, where or who they descended from, has nothing to do with being the type of Israelite and Jew he was talking about.

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

You are taking the verse out of context to support an incorrect doctrine. A review of the passage will reveal that Paul is talking directly to the Jews concerning Jewish stuff.

. . . all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law
. . . for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
. . . But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God
. . . you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?
. . . For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.
. . . For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law

All of the statements above apply exclusively to Paul's Jewish readers. He is not talking to Gentiles about being Gentile. He is talking to Jews about being Jewish. And it THAT context he says, "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."

One is NOT the kind of Jew Paul is talking about here by way of being one outwardly by way of being physically circumcised.

Paul is talking TO Jewish people who have already been circumcised about being inwardly Jewish.

Physical things have NOTHING to do with being that type of Jew.

Physical Jewishness is the context of the discussion.

Paul explicitly indicates here that being part of true or spiritual Israel has NOTHING to do with being a physical, natural descendant of the nation of Israel and of Abraham, but rather has EVERYTHING to do with being reckoned/called through Isaac and being a child of God and of the promise.

This isn't true. In Paul's argument he compares Isaac with Ishmael. Both boys are physically related to Abraham. Next he compares Jacob and Esau, and both of them are physically related to Isaac. To say that physicality has nothing to do with it is to ignore the details of his argument. The discussion in Romans 9 through 11 is centered around physical Israel and what is to become of it.

So, the children of God and of the promise are all those who belong to Christ, including all Jew and Gentile believers, and they are the ones counted as Abraham's offspring/seed, which Paul indicated in Romans 9:6-8 are the ones who are part of the Israel of which not all of national Israel are part.

Both of your statements are true, but your conclusion is mistaken. Not all of the children of Abraham are children of Jacob.

So, as you can see, my view is based on clear scripture. Your view is based only on your imagination and not on scripture.

Your view uses scripture but your conclusions need to be corrected.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, Peter described the "chosen generation, royal priesthood, holy nation, peculiar people" the same way Paul described the church in Ephesians 2:19-22 and we're supposed to just ignore that? I don't think so.

Paul never said that those in the church are a chosen race, a holy nation or a peculiar people.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That's correct. Which is why I should not waste any more time reading your nonsense. Thanks for reminding me.


You have already proven many times that you can't convince me of anything. I don't see that ever changing. I know how you twist scripture to make it say what you want it to say. And, you don't even trust any English translations, so why are you quoting scripture from English translations to me (as you did from 1 Peter below this)? The same English translations that you think get all the verses that teach the deity of Christ wrong? I'm supposed to take that (and you) seriously? I can't.

Bible students are taught to recognize and be sensitive to "textual dissonance." Textual dissonance refers to passages in the Bible that seem poorly worded, clumsy, or confusing in translation. When a passage is rendered in a clunky way or doesn't make sense, it is considered to have textual dissonance.

I read the Bible in English like every other English speaker, but when something doesn't make sense I want to know why. So I look it up in the Greek lexicon, read some commentaries, ask my pastor, ask friends and etc. Eventually, after study and hard work I discover what the author meant to say.

When you say such-and-such, a passage means 'x', and I recognize that your interpretation rests on one of those mistranslated words or phrases, I attempt to give you a brief synopsis of what I discovered. Take it or leave it or research it out yourself.

Did Peter address his letter to churches, intending to purposely ignore citizens in favor of aliens? I don't think so. Rather, he was writing to churches that were populated by members of the Jewish diaspora -- in other words, his kinsmen who are a chosen race.

Were they chosen for salvation? No. They were chosen to be a royal priesthood. That was and still is the role of the Jewish people. Out of all the families of the earth, God chose a people (read family) for himself to act as his representatives among the other nations.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You still haven't read Numbers 25:9.

What's your point?

 

[PinSeeker]

I didn't say they weren't alike at all. Good grief. Communicating with you is very painful.

Arminianism and provisionism... Right, I didn't say you didn't. And really, the tone in which you said what you said, I gathered that you were acknowledging at least some degree of similarity. I just said they were. You seem to be making it painful for yourself, really ~ reading things into what I say that I didn't say at all; this is far from the first instance even in this thread. And I don't think there is any, shall we say, malicious intent on your part in doing this, but it is what it is. So yeah, you say it's painful, and I believe that, but it seems self-inflicted to me. And that makes it painful for me, too, actually.

But, again, it does appear that Arminius himself believed in total depravity, at least in some sense, and I don't.

It seems to me that by saying "in some sense," you seem to be acknowledging that, regarding our "depravity," he didn't believe it was total.

An aside: I think people see that term ('total depravity') and don't really understand what John Calvin meant by that, and kind of put in their own connotation of that, maybe just because of the 500 years that has elapsed between then and now. There is a bit of a language barrier. English is English, of course, but English now is a bit different than English 500 years ago... words are used a bit differently, so different connotations can be made, and that can be a problem.

Anyway, regarding whether you are acknowledging that Arminius did not believe in our depravity, maybe not, but no matter; he did not; that was his very objection, that it was not total. In other words, Jacobus Arminius believed that the Adam's fall in Genesis 3 did not render him at that point ~ and his progeny, the rest of mankind after him, initially, even from birth ~ spiritually dead and therefore absolutely unable in and of himself to bring himself to belief and repentance (this is the true connotation of Calvin's "total depravity'). However, Spiritual Israelite, this is what God told Adam, in Genesis 2:17, would happen...

"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'"​

...and happen it did. And because the wife God gave Him, Eve, is the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20), that state of physical death is inherited from birth by all Adam's progeny, all mankind... as Paul says very specifically in Romans 5:12...

"...sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned."​

And... yeah, I get that you don't. Fair enough. But this is why, as Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3:8, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." We must be born again of the Spirit, else we remain in our natural state: dead in our sin.

And as I have said, if one truly gets this ~ the 'T' in John Calvin's "TULIP" acronym ~ then the 'U,' 'L,' 'I,' and 'P' inevitably follow. Ah, yes, though, one may never fully accept them, but they are still unavoidable:

• Because of his "total depravity," God's grace of salvation must be unconditional, because man cannot meet God's standard of perfect righteousness.
• Jesus's atonement must be limited, in the sense that some will not be born again of the Spirit.
• This being born again of the Spirit and thus being brought from death in sin to life in Christ must be irresistible... in the sense that man is aware, made alive to, the fact that he is in need of salvation, and then is compelled to choose rightly.
• We then inevitably persevere in faith (which is the gift of God ~ Ephesians 2:8; His assurance of salvation and conviction by the Spirit ~ Hebrews 11:1) to the end, not in and of ourselves (else we would "fall away") but because of the Spirit's work in us, sealing us and keeping us. As Paul says, we can "work out our own salvation... for (because) it is God who works in (us), both to will and to work for His good pleasure" ~ Philippians 2:13.

So... there you go. I mean, I get why it seems painful to you, but it's... well, it's absolutely glorious.

Grace and peace to you, Spiritual Israelite.

 

[covenantee]

What's your point?

If you don't know, just leave it for those who do.

 

[PinSeeker]

Okay, I agree. According to that passage, "True Israel" are those descendants of Jacob whom God will circumcise their hearts.

Right, Good. And ethnicity is not the determinate of that.

I agree. Here again, Paul declares that the True is a Jew inwardly.

Right. Spiritually, of the Spirit. Not necessarily ethnicity.

A True Jew is a descendant of Jacob who is also inwardly Jewish -- inwardly circumcised.

Right. But they are descendants of Jacob by the Spirit, not by the flesh.

...I very much appreciate your dedication to the truth. :)

Thank you; the same to you.

Paul never said that those in the church are a chosen race, a holy nation or a peculiar people.

Peter did. <smile> I think that was just a mistake by... whoever said that.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[covenantee]

Bible students are taught to recognize and be sensitive to "textual dissonance." Textual dissonance refers to passages in the Bible that seem poorly worded, clumsy, or confusing in translation. When a passage is rendered in a clunky way or doesn't make sense, it is considered to have textual dissonance.

I read the Bible in English like every other English speaker, but when something doesn't make sense I want to know why. So I look it up in the Greek lexicon, read some commentaries, ask my pastor, ask friends and etc. Eventually, after study and hard work I discover what the author meant to say.

When you say such-and-such, a passage means 'x', and I recognize that your interpretation rests on one of those mistranslated words or phrases, I attempt to give you a brief synopsis of what I discovered. Take it or leave it or research it out yourself.

Did Peter address his letter to churches, intending to purposely ignore citizens in favor of aliens? I don't think so. Rather, he was writing to churches that were populated by members of the Jewish diaspora -- in other words, his kinsmen who are a chosen race.

Were they chosen for salvation? No. They were chosen to be a royal priesthood. That was and still is the role of the Jewish people. Out of all the families of the earth, God chose a people (read family) for himself to act as his representatives among the other nations.

Your attempt to racialize Peter's epistle is a fallacious failure.

1 Peter 1:1 Greek

3927 [e]
parepidēmois
παρεπιδήμοις
sojourners
Adj-DMP

" in the N. T. metaphorically, in reference to heaven as the native country, one who sojourns on earth: so of Christians, 1 Peter 1:1;"

Those Christians, i.e. the Church, comprised both Jews and Gentiles, as I've previously shown from Scripture (Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22) that Israel was comprised of both from its beginning and throughout its history.

1290 [e]
Diasporas
Διασπορᾶς
of [the] Dispersion
N-GFS

"sojourners far away from home, in Pontus, 1 Peter 1:1"

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are taking the verse out of context to support an incorrect doctrine. A review of the passage will reveal that Paul is talking directly to the Jews concerning Jewish stuff.

. . . all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law
. . . for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
. . . But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God
. . . you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?
. . . For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.
. . . For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law

All of the statements above apply exclusively to Paul's Jewish readers. He is not talking to Gentiles about being Gentile. He is talking to Jews about being Jewish. And it THAT context he says, "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."



Paul is talking TO Jewish people who have already been circumcised about being inwardly Jewish.

Physical Jewishness is the context of the discussion.

This isn't true. In Paul's argument he compares Isaac with Ishmael. Both boys are physically related to Abraham. Next he compares Jacob and Esau, and both of them are physically related to Isaac. To say that physicality has nothing to do with it is to ignore the details of his argument. The discussion in Romans 9 through 11 is centered around physical Israel and what is to become of it.


Both of your statements are true, but your conclusion is mistaken. Not all of the children of Abraham are children of Jacob.

Your view uses scripture but your conclusions need to be corrected.

Total nonsense. All of it. I showed the correct context and you reject it. So be it. I know that nothing is going to convince someone who can't even discern the deity of Christ, so I trust that anyone else reading along can see how off base and biased your arguments are.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Arminianism and provisionism... Right, I didn't say you didn't. And really, the tone in which you said what you said, I gathered that you were acknowledging at least some degree of similarity. I just said they were. You seem to be making it painful for yourself, really ~ reading things into what I say that I didn't say at all;

And you did that repeatedly when we discussed this topic before. And, I mean repeatedly. So, it's completely pointless to try to discuss anything with you. You admitted to getting the subset of premillennialism messed up, but, yeah, I'm the one reading things into what you say.

this is far from the first instance even in this thread. And I don't think there is any, shall we say, malicious intent on your part in doing this, but it is what it is. So yeah, you say it's painful, and I believe that, but it seems self-inflicted to me. And that makes it painful for me, too, actually.

No, it's definitely not self-inflicted, but go ahead and use your free will to choose to believe that if you want.

An aside: I think people see that term ('total depravity') and don't really understand what John Calvin meant by that, and kind of put in their own connotation of that, maybe just because of the 500 years that has elapsed between then and now. There is a bit of a language barrier. English is English, of course, but English now is a bit different than English 500 years ago... words are used a bit differently, so different connotations can be made, and that can be a problem.

Anyway, regarding whether you are acknowledging that Arminius did not believe in our depravity, maybe not, but no matter; he did not; that was his very objection, that it was not total. In other words, Jacobus Arminius believed that the Adam's fall in Genesis 3 did not render him at that point ~ and his progeny, the rest of mankind after him, initially, even from birth ~ spiritually dead and therefore absolutely unable in and of himself to bring himself to belief and repentance (this is the true connotation of Calvin's "total depravity'). However, Spiritual Israelite, this is what God told Adam, in Genesis 2:17, would happen...

"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'"​

...and happen it did. And because the wife God gave Him, Eve, is the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20), that state of physical death is inherited from birth by all Adam's progeny, all mankind... as Paul says very specifically in Romans 5:12...

"...sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned."​

And... yeah, I get that you don't. Fair enough. But this is why, as Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3:8, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." We must be born again of the Spirit, else we remain in our natural state: dead in our sin.

And as I have said, if one truly gets this ~ the 'T' in John Calvin's "TULIP" acronym ~ then the 'U,' 'L,' 'I,' and 'P' inevitably follow. Ah, yes, though, one may never fully accept them, but they are still unavoidable:

• Because of his "total depravity," God's grace of salvation must be unconditional, because man cannot meet God's standard of perfect righteousness.
• Jesus's atonement must be limited, in the sense that some will not be born again of the Spirit.
• This being born again of the Spirit and thus being brought from death in sin to life in Christ must be irresistible... in the sense that man is aware, made alive to, the fact that he is in need of salvation, and then is compelled to choose rightly.
• We then inevitably persevere in faith (which is the gift of God ~ Ephesians 2:8; His assurance of salvation and conviction by the Spirit ~ Hebrews 11:1) to the end, not in and of ourselves (else we would "fall away") but because of the Spirit's work in us, sealing us and keeping us. As Paul says, we can "work out our own salvation... for (because) it is God who works in (us), both to will and to work for His good pleasure" ~ Philippians 2:13.

So... there you go. I mean, I get why it seems painful to you, but it's... well, it's absolutely glorious.

It's absolutely glorious to you for a hateful "God" (in contrast to the true God who loves the world) to have purposely created some people to spend eternity in the lake of fire by His choice. Which I find to be absolutely horrifying and is not a description of the God who sent His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2) and genuinely wants all people to repent and to be saved (Acts 17:30-31, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:3-6) and genuinely offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Bible students are taught to recognize and be sensitive to "textual dissonance." Textual dissonance refers to passages in the Bible that seem poorly worded, clumsy, or confusing in translation. When a passage is rendered in a clunky way or doesn't make sense, it is considered to have textual dissonance.

I read the Bible in English like every other English speaker, but when something doesn't make sense I want to know why. So I look it up in the Greek lexicon, read some commentaries, ask my pastor, ask friends and etc. Eventually, after study and hard work I discover what the author meant to say.

You mean you discover what the author didn't say since it seems that pretty much everything you believe is false. Do these people you consult with agree with you that the many passages that those of us who believe in the deity of Christ are mistranslated in every English Bible translation?

When you say such-and-such, a passage means 'x', and I recognize that your interpretation rests on one of those mistranslated words or phrases, I attempt to give you a brief synopsis of what I discovered. Take it or leave it or research it out yourself.

LOL. You don't realize what a joke this is. You obviously don't trust in any Bible translation, so you clearly just make scripture say whatever you want it to say. You have no baseline to go by, so there's nothing to keep you from just believing whatever you want to believe.

Did Peter address his letter to churches, intending to purposely ignore citizens in favor of aliens? I don't think so. Rather, he was writing to churches that were populated by members of the Jewish diaspora -- in other words, his kinsmen who are a chosen race.

Were they chosen for salvation? No. They were chosen to be a royal priesthood. That was and still is the role of the Jewish people. Out of all the families of the earth, God chose a people (read family) for himself to act as his representatives among the other nations.

Total nonsense. You have to ignore the entire New Testament in order to come to that conclusion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Paul never said that those in the church are a chosen race, a holy nation or a peculiar people.

You're missing the point. Tell me how this....

1 Peter 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Is describing a different entity than this...

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.