Theology Club: can ya help a brother out

[Tambora]

Heir,

No one is disputing that unbelieving Jews of Peter's gospel could believe in Paul's gospel to be saved.
The question is about what would happen when a believing Jew of Peter's gospel later hears Paul's gospel and believes it.

A Jew that heard Peter's gospel and completely believes Peter's gospel travels to another town where Paul is and hears Paul's gospel.
He then completely believes Paul's gospel.
It he a kingdom saint or a BOC saint?

 

[patrick jane]

Heir,

No one is disputing that unbelieving Jews of Peter's gospel could believe in Paul's gospel to be saved.
The question is about what would happen when a believing Jew of Peter's gospel later hears Paul's gospel and believes it.

A Jew that heard Peter's gospel and completely believes Peter's gospel travels to another town where Paul is and hears Paul's gospel.
He then completely believes Paul's gospel.
It he a kingdom saint or a BOC saint?

BOC

 

[Tambora]

BOC

That answer indicates that Peter would be in the BOC if he ever believed Paul's gospel. Right?

 

[patrick jane]

That answer indicates that Peter would be in the BOC if he ever believed Paul's gospel. Right?

Yes, I think so. IMO, Paul's gospel supersedes Peter's.

 

[Danoh]

I get it bud. My study practices are not up to your standards. Sorry.

YOU are reading THAT...INTO my post to you.

My point has been basically sharing with you study approaches I have found helpful in my studies of these things.

YOU have read something else into THAT.

Your conclusion that I am asserting you failed to meet some supposed standard of mine is YOUR conclusion.

I subscribe to the concept that there is no failure, only feedback.

That any result is merely information one can then learn from and adjust from towards moving forward.

As in the Apostle Peter's learning from a result, and adjustment forward from, in the following...

Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12.

 

[Tambora]

Yes, I think so. IMO, Paul's gospel supersedes Peter's.

I am going to have to disagree.
Or at least with the classic definition of 'supersedes' (discard one by replacing it with another).
The kingdom gospel was not replaced, but put on hold.
In other words, Peter's gospel (kingdom gospel) will continue just as Peter preached it.
So it's not being discarded and replaced, just interrupted.

I suppose 'supersede' could work for a definition if used loosely.
Wasn't sure if you were using it that way, so just wanted to clarify my position about it.

 

[Danoh]

...

Paul's gospel would have been contrary to the gopel of the circ which includes the keeping of the law. I don't see Jews at Pentecost who followed the apostles doctrine changing to follow Paul's. In fact, I see evidence to the contrary. Those who were added to the church at Pentecost were "zealous of the law" all the way in Acts 21:20 KJV!


Peter believed that what Paul spoke was scripture 2 Peter 3:16 KJV. It does not mean tht Peter believed what Paul preached for salvation. All the scriptural evidence I have seen points to the fact that Peter did not. I believe what is spoken by James, Cephas and John, but it doesn't mean that I am saved by believing what they wrote.

That second to last paragraph only makes obvious the hole in your assertions that the Romans were law keeping prosylites via (your stated guess elsewhere on TOL that) someone from Acts 2 evangelized them; but they then ended up in the Body after Paul wrote Romans to them.

I'll concede you your point in that last paragraph, though - that the Israel of God is the Israel of God, and the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

 

[patrick jane]

I am going to have to disagree.
Or at least with the classic definition of 'supersedes' discard one by replacing it with another.
The kingdom gospel was not replaced, but put on hold.
In other words, Peter's gospel (kingdom gospel) will continue just as Peter preached it.
So it's not being discarded and replaced, just interrupted.

I suppose 'supersede' could work for a definition if used loosely.
Wasn't sure if you were using it that way, so just wanted to clarify my position about it.

Yes, you're right. We used superseded part numbers at work a lot, so I used that word loosely

 

[Danoh]

Is your answer Peter was saved by his gospel or saved by Paul's gospel? I can't tell what your answer is. Sorry.

That's nothing - if we go back further, it is evident, say, in John 1, that such as Nathaniel (one of the Twelve Apostles) were saved before even meeting, let alone believing, that Jesus was their Prophesied Christ.

Such were saved under "the righteousness of the law."

In other words, those Israelites who not only kept the Law, but did so from the heart - "not as pleasing men" (mere outward performance) "but as pleasing God."

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

With His arrival, to their believing their Law and their Prophets would have then been added the requirement that they believe that Jesus was the Christ their Law did say would come...

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Romans 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 2:29 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.

John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

 

[Tambora]

YOU are reading THAT...INTO my post to you.

That is YOU reading into his post to you.

He was giving you a subtle dig that he does not give a flip about how many study approaches you have found.

My point has been basically sharing with you study approaches I have found helpful in my studies of these things.

Then start a thread, and if anyone is interested they will know right where to go.
But for crying out loud stop cluttering up so many threads with this stuff, and just stick with the topic as presented instead of trying to interject your pet topic into every thread.

YOU have read something else into THAT.

Your conclusion that I am asserting you failed to meet some supposed standard of mine is YOUR conclusion.

Oh the irony!
You are the one that read his post wrong!

I subscribe to the concept that there is no failure, only feedback.

Well, that's bull!
You are constantly telling folks they have failed ----- failed to read something right, failed to understand, failed to lay it out properly, failed, failed, failed.

That any result is merely information one can then learn from and adjust from towards moving forward.

ROFL!
That information does not have to be presented in every thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As in the Apostle Peter's learning from a result, and adjustment forward from,

If only you would, instead of cluttering every thread with your pet topic of "Principles and Study Approaches".
And then act as though going off topic by cluttering every thread with your own pet topic instead of the one being presented is taking some moral high-ground that it shouldn't be perceived as ANNOYING.


Oh, and ......
:chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:8

 

[heir]

Heir,

No one is disputing that unbelieving Jews of Peter's gospel could believe in Paul's gospel to be saved.
The question is about what would happen when a believing Jew of Peter's gospel later hears Paul's gospel and believes it.

A Jew that heard Peter's gospel and completely believes Peter's gospel travels to another town where Paul is and hears Paul's gospel.
He then completely believes Paul's gospel.
It he a kingdom saint or a BOC saint?

I don't see any scriptural evidence for those who were added to the church at Jerusalem (Christ's "My church") who continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, leaving their lively hope, inheritance and future salvation for another not even Peter.

 

[Tambora]

I don't see any scriptural evidence for those who were added to the church at Jerusalem (Christ's "My church") who continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, leaving their lively hope, inheritance and future salvation for another not even Peter.

It could very well be that none of them did.
I don't know.

But I agree that it wouldn't make much sense to give up a sure thing when you've got it in your hand.

Also reminds me when Jesus Christ told how Peter would die, and then Peter ask Christ about what would happen to John.
Jesus Christ tells him, "YOU just mind your own bees-wax and follow me as I instructed YOU to do." John 21:22

 

[Danoh]

I don't see any scriptural evidence for those who were added to the church at Jerusalem (Christ's "My church") who continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, leaving their lively hope, inheritance and future salvation for another not even Peter.

Exactly.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 19:30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

THAT is THEIR inheritance.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

 

[LoneStar]

Better yet, forget Paul for a moment and back up just one more step: was there something wrong with the Gospel of the Kingdom which they were given to take to the world? It obviously did not get carried out per Christ's commission. What happened? Why was it not carried out back then?

Denominational churches NEVER ask that question -- they don't see clearly enough to even see the need TO ask it. What say you?



I'm not being obtuse or teasing; I believe in the Socratic question/answer method. It's what helps me understand new things. So I refer you to the blue part above so we can build to that.

i'm game. Nothing wrong with it. Was postponed due to their rejection.

Time limit isn't it. There was no time limit. They were told to go do something. They started to but never finished. Later, one guy replaced them with a different commission. The FIRST question to answer is, what happened to that FIRST commission? If I may refer to you Acts ch. 7, some of us believe that chapter is pivotal to all this and is key to answering your questions. Take another look at it. Keep thinking, keep asking. You're getting closer.

I read chapter 7 during my lunch break to refresh my memory of it. Their rejection culminated with the stoning of Stephen. Stephen sees the Lord standing to kickoff the wrath. Put on hold and Paul is commissioned. If there is more to it i'm drawing a blank.

 

[LoneStar]

Yes, because at THAT point, what Paul called "my gospel" was the sole "power of God unto salvation" for all, Jew and Gentile without distinction, as you said. Do we see Peter and the rest still going about preaching to Israel first after the salvation of Paul? Nope.

I'm not privy to the date timeline of the epistles written. I can't confirm or deny. i'll have to research that.

It's not quiet either one.

The 12 were going to go to Jews first, starting in Israel, and when Israel repented to Messiah and was renewed from her apostasy, THEN the nation of priests foretold as far back as Moses would carry word of Him to the whole world. That was the plan (again, going all the way back to Moses). But it depended on one thing happening...and it didn't.



You have nothing to apologize for. As long as you are not the guy who called himself Dodge pretending to play nice (long story), we're good.

Thanks buddy. No worries. LoneStar is the only name I have used here.

 

[LoneStar]

I hope it doesn't irritate you but I like this method of discussion because, instead of posting a lot of information that may not absorb but might just bounce off of someone's skull, asking a connected chain of questions helps lead an honest questioner to come to their own conclusions without anything being misrepresented..."Why do you think _____ happened?" or "What do you find the Bible says about _______?" So since you're asking MADs about our general beliefs, I find it a handy way to participate in a discussion (some have said "leading questions!" but hey, they asked me about what I believe, and that's how I answer. But I also like that method when I myself am trying to learn something new.

It also tends to weed out trolls, who are legion on TOL. So far you're doing fine.

I'll get the feel of it. I am more encouraged about it all today. I was on the verge of telling my wife to have me tested for stupidity there for a day or so.

 

[LoneStar]

I already attempted in short to answer you to aid you in casting down an imagination (an imagination in that, I'm not really sure where you heard that it was "what God wanted to be preached to both Jews and Gentiles and was the only gospel that could save him at that time" Yikes!) that it was difficult for you, "to imagine Peter wouldn't believe and preach the same as Paul once he knew it was what God wanted to be preached to both Jews and Gentiles and was the only gospel that could save him at that time" when I said, "...nowhere do we read Peter preaching the gospel of Christ as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth or that he believed it for his or their (Israel's) salvation (1 Peter 1:5-10 KJV)".

I thought that in citing even just the 1 Peter passage you would see what Peter believed concerning his (and Israel's)salvation (specifically 1 Peter 1:5 KJV, 1 Peter 1:9 KJV). Please look it over again. It is contrary to the gospel of our salvation! In the entirety of 1 and 2 Peter he didn't once mention the gospel of Christ as the power of God. Peter did not speak of a present possession salvation (like Paul did as we "are saved" 1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:2 KJV, Ephesians 2:5 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, Titus 3:5-7 KJV), but one that was future at the revelation of Jesus Christ (2 nd coming talk) in accordance with Acts 2:47 KJV, Acts 3:19-21 KJV, 1 John 1:9 KJV, Romans 11:25-26 KJV, Hebrews 8:8-12 KJV). Peter's message (like the rest of the Hebrew epistles) is consistent with the kingdom gospel, an endure to the end message, a future day of atonement and one of a royal priesthood, an holy nation (1 Peter 2:9 KJV) whereas we in the BoC "are saved" as shown above, have now received the atonement (Romans 5:11 KJV) and in the Body of Christ where there is no nationality (Galatians 3:27-28 KJV, Colossians 3:11 KJV).

I cited Galatians 2 previously so that you could see that when Peter, James and John saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto Paul, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; that they perceived the grace that was given unto Paul. It does not say that they trusted the Lord believing the gospel Paul preached as the power of God for their salvation. No way! Paul was the first of the we who first trusted (1 Timothy 1:13 KJV, Ephesians 1:12 KJV). There is no scriptural evidence that they trusted the Lord believing that gospel that Paul preached among the gentiles. There is too much evidence to the contrary. Allow the scripture to mean what it says, as it says it and to whom and don't try to read into it what it doesn't by letting your imagination carry you away and you'll be on solid ground.

i'm liking all the verse pop ups alongside your commentary. I will also comment on your avatar. Very attractive. The lighting and shadows are stunning. Good photography. that's not flattery. That's a fact. Now for the flattery. Informative post. Very helpful. Appreciated.

 

[LoneStar]

You've been given the answer to that more than once.

The left side of my brain wasn't in gear.

 

[LoneStar]

I don't see any who trusted the Lord believing Paul's gospel for salvation that the Lord previously "added to the church daily, such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47 KJV) out of Peter's ministry. I'm not sure what all of the worrying is about the 12 and Israel's salvation anyway. It seems pretty clear to me that theirs is future when ours is now. And anyway, the Lord knows what He's doing and has this all sorted out.

There were however those who weren't in the Lord's "My church" (Matthew 16:18 KJV) from Pentecost, but of whom God foreknew would believe and be saved into the BoC. They are those to whom Paul was first sent and Paul went in synagogue after synagogue through the book of Acts to gather them in (Romans 11:1-6 KJV). They were Jews and Greeks.

The two gospels were not meant to crossover into the other. Is that what Paul meant when he said he would not build on another's foundation?