Theology Club: The Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of Grace

G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Nick M said:
godrulz disagrees with you. He says Paul only ministers to gentiles.

Galatians 2

7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

And of course I have asked you what he means in this thread more than once. Paul went to Jews, yet says he preaches uncircumcision. What gives? Rhetorical. You know the answer. Different gospel.
Click to expand...

I did not say Paul only ministers to Gentiles. I said the normative ministry pattern of Jesus ff. was to the Jew first, then Gentile, or concurrently.

Paul preached to Jews and Gentiles the same gospel as Peter, James, John preached to Jews/Gentiles (post-cross).
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Pneuma said:
That is the same gospel Nick.
Click to expand...

Matthew 19

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”17..... But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Romans 7:10

10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.

Only a totally dishonest person with an agenda would say they are saying the same thing.
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
I did not say Paul only ministers to Gentiles....Paul preached to Jews and Gentiles the same gospel as Peter, James, John preached to Jews/Gentiles (post-cross).
Click to expand...

godrulz said:
It is the same gospel to two different target audiences. Gal. 2:7 is a demarcation of ministry, not two true post-cross gospels .
Click to expand...

You would be dangersous if your posts weren't so stupid and easily crushed.
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Nick M said:
Matthew 19

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”17..... But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Romans 7:10

10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.

Only a totally dishonest person with an agenda would say they are saying the same thing.
Click to expand...


The MAD issue is two gospels post-cross. Mt./Jesus is pre-cross.

Regardless, it is a moot point since we fully affirm the Pauline gospel (MAD is not the only group that believes Paul's teaching). Your idea of a circ gospel is NOT what any of us embrace, so you are freaking out about nothing causing unnecessary division and confusion in the Body.
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Nick M said:
You would be dangersous if your posts weren't sto stupid and easily crushed.
Click to expand...

Demarcation of ministry is how virtually all interpreters and translations understand the proof text. You are the one out on a limb. If it was so stupid, virtually all believers would not agree with me.
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Nick M said:
You would be dangerous if your posts weren't so stupid and easily crushed.
Click to expand...

No contradiction. Grace/faith is always the issue, not your works gospel (Rom. 4-5 even in the OT). The Mt. verse also has a context. It is normative in all dispensations for believers to love and obey God. Jesus was making the point that no one can obey God perfectly (His standard of holiness) and merit eternal life. This is why He simply said to follow Him, trust Him, etc. Elsewhere, He was asked about the workS of God required (Jn.). He answered that the worK of God was simply to believe (Jn. 3:16, a verse you reject).

You don't know the Bible, but you do know a version of MAD, a modern heresy/fad.
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Pneuma said:
Because if Paul taught the same gospel to both Jew and gentile then Peter and the boys would have been at cross purposes in teaching the Jews something else.

What you have is Paul and Peter and the boys each teaching the Jews a different gospel.
Click to expand...

  1. Only if they preached to the same Jews.
  2. Why do you think they made the agreement in Galatians 2:9?
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
No contradiction. Grace/faith is always the issue, not your works gospel (Rom. 4-5 even in the OT). The Mt. verse also has a context. It is normative in all dispensations for believers to love and obey God. Jesus was making the point that no one can obey God perfectly (His standard of holiness) and merit eternal life. This is why He simply said to follow Him, trust Him, etc. Elsewhere, He was asked about the workS of God required (Jn.). He answered that the worK of God was simply to believe (Jn. 3:16, a verse you reject).

You don't know the Bible, but you do know a version of MAD, a modern heresy/fad.
Click to expand...
Explain to me how one can pass from death to life, or vice versa, of their own accord...
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
No contradiction. Grace/faith is always the issue, not your works gospel (Rom. 4-5 even in the OT). The Mt. verse also has a context. It is normative in all dispensations for believers to love and obey God. Jesus was making the point that no one can obey God perfectly (His standard of holiness) and merit eternal life. This is why He simply said to follow Him, trust Him, etc. Elsewhere, He was asked about the workS of God required (Jn.). He answered that the worK of God was simply to believe (Jn. 3:16, a verse you reject).

You don't know the Bible, but you do know a version of MAD, a modern heresy/fad.
Click to expand...

Are you both on the same page with "open theism"?
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Lighthouse said:
Explain to me how one can pass from death to life, or vice versa, of their own accord...
Click to expand...

The issue is conditions. One is not saved apart from faith, but the basis is grace. In your view, universalism should be true if OSAS is true.

Our choices are involved and affect God's responses. I assume you are a synergist, not a Calvinistic, deterministic monergist.
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Bright Raven said:
Are you both on the same page with "open theism"?
Click to expand...

Basically, except LH and others here add a caveat that I find problematic...God knows all that is knowable of what He wants to know....the last part is problematic for normative Open Theism since it would make God ignorant of things that men and Satan know.
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
Basically, except LH and others here add a caveat that I find problematic...God knows all that is knowable of what He wants to know....the last part is problematic for normative Open Theism since it would make God ignorant of things that men and Satan know.
Click to expand...

Thanks rulz, I'm not of the Open persuasion but can tolerate it. As long as we are agreed on the basics, other issues are debatable.
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Nick M said:
So God forces people to love him, trust him, and believe him?
Click to expand...

In your OSAS view, He does?!:hammer:

Arminians and Calvinists who reject Open Theism do not believe that God forces people to love and believe in Him (though Calvinism could be misunderstood to imply this).
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
In your OSAS view, He does?!:hammer:

Arminians and Calvinists who reject Open Theism do not believe that God forces people to love and believe in Him (though Calvinism could be misunderstood to imply this).
Click to expand...

Here I can say I do not agree with your conditional security view. There is too much scripture that supports eternal security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top