turbosixx
New member
It doesn't say gospel "of" but "to"
ECT How is Paul's message different?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
It doesn't say gospel "of" but "to"
turbosixx
New member
He was probably too young to be one of the twelve.
Who had the most zeal for God? Imagine the impact of taking the champion of the Jews and turning him against them.
Last edited:
Nope. Modern translations have it wrong. The KJV has it correct. It's "of".
Not that it would matter. The context makes it perfectly clear. There is no reason for Paul if there is no change in message.
And no, Paul did not have two gospels. His gospel which was given to him by revelation was different than that preached by the twelve. This is why he was directed, by revelation, to go explain what he was teaching to the twelve.
Incidentally, why would he have had to explain anything if he were teaching the same thing?
Paul was not eligible to be one of the twelve, besides, there will be twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes in the regeneration, not thirteen.
There is no age requirement. Had God wanted him to be one of the Twelve he would have been, or at least his age wouldn't have been the issue that prevented it.
This doesn't fit either. Paul was not converted through one of the twelve as was everyone else. God is no respecter of persons and so there would be no reason to make some special case for Paul's conversion if your presumption is that nothing was changing when his conversion took place.
Paul was clearly converted for the purpose of the Dispensation of Grace and he repeatedly claimed to have received what he called "his gospel" by revelation and that he did not receive it from any man nor was it taught to him. There was clearly something new going on. No other explanation for Paul makes any sense, especially if his only role was to be a new Apostle with the same message as the other twelve. God would have been undermining His own set up. He (God) specifically gave to Peter full authority to act in Christ's absence, even to the point of forgiving sins. Peter simply didn't need Paul and God certainly wouldn't have needed him.
Okay, now I really do have to go to bed! We'll talk more later!
God bless!
Resting in Him,
Clete
turbosixx
New member
It's hard to sleep with this stuff churning in your head.
From the context, the point of interest was circumcision.
3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
He was making sure they were in agreement and he was not preaching another gospel.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
If Paul's gospel was different, why did he preach the kingdom and baptism? The same things the 12 preached. When I look at Peter's sermon on Pentecost and Paul's let's say in Acts 13, they're the same. Forgivenesss of sins through Jesus' death, burial and ressurection.
I didn't notice the "of" in the KJV. Good point.
I see "the" gospel in the context and they discuss no differences in the passage. They were in agreement and the only thing mentioned is 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.
From the context, the point of interest was circumcision.
3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
He was making sure they were in agreement and he was not preaching another gospel.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
If Paul's gospel was different, why did he preach the kingdom and baptism? The same things the 12 preached. When I look at Peter's sermon on Pentecost and Paul's let's say in Acts 13, they're the same. Forgivenesss of sins through Jesus' death, burial and ressurection.
Last edited:
1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV - 1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV -
turbosixx
New member
Clete pointed it out that's it's the KJV that says gospel "of".
turbosixx
New member
If your taking Christ did not send me to baptize as proof that Paul didn't teach or perform baptisms, then it's confusing why he did he baptize people. That view doesn't agree with what we see him teaching and doing.
On his second missionary journey:
Acts 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.
On his third:
Acts 19:3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
I would suggest that Paul is saying, you can't baptize someone until they believe and they can't believe until they hear, therefore preaching is priority.
Rom. 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
I agree, Paul was a special case. Would you agree that Cornelius was also a special case? There is a complete long chapter devoted to his conversion and it’s referenced in two other chapters. Although it was special, I don’t see it changing anything. The gospel from the beginning was for everyone, not just the Jews.
Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
The Jews just needed some help to better understand that the gospel is for everyone and this is how God showed them, but it didn't change the message.
Paul being chosen doesn’t change the message. Calling it the gospel of grace doesn't make it a different gospel. Didn't those on Pentecost believe and were baptized just as the jailer believed and was baptized? If you can show me where the message changed I would have an easier time seeing it as you do.
This was unresponsive and served only to try and steer the discussion toward your pet doctrine.
I left a link to the relevant passage.
As I call it? The passage cited uses the phrase, "they had all things in common". That's what the word "communal" means. Those who live communally are communist, by definition. It isn't "my term" its THE term. I don't get to define words; no one even asks my opinion about what words should mean. They just mean what the mean. I have nothing to do with it.
You are a lunatic.
Do you own your house? Do you have a savings account? Do the members of your church have the authority to make a claim on the production of your labor based solely on what they think is their need?
I know they don't! If they did, you couldn't afford the computer required to post on this forum.
Do you agree with the following notion?...
From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.
I attend a Baptist church but do not consider myself a Baptist. Their doctrine is just the least wrong of the churches near me, that I can find. Why do you ask?
Huh?
Resting in Him,
Clete
This is the difficulty of these discussions in such a forum. The things you keep bringing up are evidence FOR Acts 9 Dispensationalism not against it. How is the gospel being for everyone not a change? And yet you use one of the most important evidences of a change as evidence of no change at all. I can't figure out a way to respond to that substantively on this forum. There's too many details. So many details that it stops being about details.
In other words, this Mid-Acts Dispensationalism issue is not the same sort of doctrinal debate that you have when dealing with many other doctrinal issues. Its far more fundamental in nature. It is at the level of a paradigm not individual issues. It is a framework upon which the details of your doctrine are built. This makes it much more difficult to discuss with someone because it becomes like trying to discuss the difference between blue and black with someone who is wearing red tinted glasses. If they don't take those glasses off, they'll never see it.
Acts 9 Dispensationalism (the particular form of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism I hold too) is about the big picture or the over all plot line of the bible, not about a collection of particular positions or specific issues, as LA seems to think. In other words, it is not my position on Baptism or miracles or speaking in tongues or whatever that makes me an Acts 9 Dispensationalist, its the other way around. My positions on those issue are what they are as a result of the fact I'm an Acts 9 Dispensationalists. And trying to get you to see what I see with your "glasses" on is a hopeless task. If I can't convince you that my glasses give a more rationally coherent understanding of the scripture enough for you to switch, I'm sunk. I know for sure that I CANNOT do that by wondering through the weeds. No matter how many blue cards I show you, they'll all look black to you so long as your red glasses are in place.
The key is the paradigm shift - its the only way.
I BEG YOU to read this...
Things That Differ by C.R. Stam - Free!
or
The Plot by Bob Enyart - Not free but way better!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Here's another great example of the sort of doctrinal debate that falls right down the line between Paul vs. the rest of the biblical authors...
This should end the discussion about easy grace and OSAS!
Of course it doesn't end the discussion at all. It only shows you which authors the poster prefers to put into the lead position. Even those in that thread who attempt to make an argument in opposition to the opening post by citing the occasional non-Pauline epistle do so out of context. For example, they might bring up a 1 Peter passage while talking about OSAS and think that means that the passage they cite is talking about OSAS when it actually isn't. It's the same tactic I was talking about before just modified a bit. Instead of taking a problem text and forcing it to say something other than what it says, they take an entirely unrelated text and pretend that it supports their position and hope that the reader doesn't notice. Either way, the only way to let the text of scripture mean what it seems to mean is to rightly divide the word of truth and allow Israel to be Israel and the Body of Christ be the Body of Christ - two different groups with different messages and different Apostles.
Resting in Him,
Clete
This should end the discussion about easy grace and OSAS!
Of course it doesn't end the discussion at all. It only shows you which authors the poster prefers to put into the lead position. Even those in that thread who attempt to make an argument in opposition to the opening post by citing the occasional non-Pauline epistle do so out of context. For example, they might bring up a 1 Peter passage while talking about OSAS and think that means that the passage they cite is talking about OSAS when it actually isn't. It's the same tactic I was talking about before just modified a bit. Instead of taking a problem text and forcing it to say something other than what it says, they take an entirely unrelated text and pretend that it supports their position and hope that the reader doesn't notice. Either way, the only way to let the text of scripture mean what it seems to mean is to rightly divide the word of truth and allow Israel to be Israel and the Body of Christ be the Body of Christ - two different groups with different messages and different Apostles.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
I agree this is very difficult to do in a forum. I agree I am wearing glasses but I am honestly trying to see without them but it’s hard please bare with me. From my view point you’re wearing glasses too. It’s amazing and sad all the different beliefs people have by reading the same words. I try hard to read what it says without reading into it and that’s were talking with others helps to see things from a different perspective.
I think if we stick with one important point maybe that would help and I think one of your comments would be a good one to look at.
When did this change take place? I assume you believe Acts 9 but that is not my understanding based on what I read.
1) Can we agree the foundation of the gospel is Christ’s D,B &R?
2) Can we agree the gospel was to be preached to the Jews first?
3) So after Jesus’ D,B&R when do you see the gospel first preached?
I think if we stick with one important point maybe that would help and I think one of your comments would be a good one to look at.
When did this change take place? I assume you believe Acts 9 but that is not my understanding based on what I read.
1) Can we agree the foundation of the gospel is Christ’s D,B &R?
2) Can we agree the gospel was to be preached to the Jews first?
3) So after Jesus’ D,B&R when do you see the gospel first preached?
I know precisely what it means and I am not being dishonest in the least.
Do you know how many Communists (i.e. governmental Communists) are aware of and commonly use Acts 4 as proof that their system of government is righteous?
ALL OF THEM!!
From Carl Marx on!
Prove them wrong! Can you even make an argument?
I haven't slipped.
I knew you were a lunatic before I posted a word on this thread. I simply decided to ignore it until now.
You claim that Paul taught that we should live communally. You're either stupid or you're a lunatic. Your other posts prove you aren't stupid.
I found an article about a city in the Philippine Islands that has a serious garbage disposal crisis on their hands.
So what?
Again, you are a lunatic.
For those of you not following his point, this was a proof text of his, suggesting that God makes communism work supernaturally I suppose.
Is that as big a sin as lying?
I am not nearly as stupid as seem to think I am. I know that your income is not distributed among your your fellow church members.
Is that a yes or a no? Its so typical of lunatics, when backed into a corner that can't escape to just avoid the issue. You scared to give a straight answer! Afraid that your lunacy will be fully exposed for what it is?
Give me a straight answer - I DARE YOU!!
None that I am aware of, no.
Of course I am. If you read carefully, I even said as much in my last post. Everyone wears glasses. The trick is figuring out a way to evaluate their effectiveness. Of all theological pursuits, it is by far the most difficult.
Acts 9 is when Saul was converted and became Paul. He was the first member of the Body of Christ but its difficult to say precisely when the Gospel of Grace became available to Jew and Gentile. Certainly not prior to Paul preaching that gospel message.
Pinning down the precise timing isn't really important though, is it? There came a time when God cut off Israel and turned to the Gentiles. What was expected (by the Twelve and their followers), even prophesied in scripture and preached by Peter in Acts 2 was that Israel would repent and that God would send Jesus back and they'd get their Kingdom. That was the gospel according to Peter. What actually happened was that Israel officially rejected that Gospel which was delivered by Stephen to the rulers of Israel in Acts 7. Note at the end of chapter 7 Stephen sees Jesus standing. Standing is often associated with judgment. It is my belief that it was the stoning of Stephen, an event Saul was present at and likely headed up, that triggered the cutting off of Israel.
So whether you say the change occurred in Acts 7 or Acts 9 or at some point shortly after that is somewhat irrelevant. The point is that there was a change from getting to God through the nation of Israel (i.e. observance of the law) to getting to God through faith alone apart from the law.
Yes, without Calvary there is no gospel for either group.
Paul explicitly stated as much.
Which one?
The gospel of Grace was never ever preached at all by anyone, anywhere before Paul preached it.
Ephesians 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),
Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),
Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Resting in Him,
Clete
turbosixx
New member
I see the point of contention, but I’m not sure which approach is best to discuss it. Here it goes.
I don’t understand your answer to #3 based on your answers to 1 & 2. Maybe if you can show me what is different from Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 verses Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:16- based on what’s contained in the sermons, I might be able to better understand how you see two gospels. I know they're not exact or word for word but the message is the same.
Last edited:
The message isn't remotely the same.
Peter's message was to the Jews about Jesus being their Messiah.
This as good an example of the sort of thing I've been alluding to in regards to the complexity involved in an attempt to sort out the details while climbing the wall of a differing paradigm. To me, reading Acts 2 is all that is necessary to answer your question because I can see it, clear as day. I understand fully that you are in a position that causes what is plain to me to be hidden from you. The only remedy I can think of is to go through the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Acts in more detail. Hopefully, this will allow you to see it...
The following is an excerpt from Chapter 3 of The Plot by Bob Enyart - please buy the book - its awesome!
Acts 2 & 3 - The Apostles Preach to the Men of Israel
The apostles preached to the men of Israel, the common folds, before they declared their message to the leaders:
There was a persistent realization that the nation must corporately repent:
Using Solomon's Temple as a meeting place, the Temple being the seat of the nation and the identity if Israel, indicates that the apostles were consciously working toward the nation's collective repentance.
"So continuing daily with one accord in the temple," Acts 2:46
[Peter said] “Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this?... The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus..." Acts 3:12-13
Old Testament scriptures contain many prophecies concerning Christ's coming. His earthly ministry, His death and resurrection, and Israel's intended proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Early passages in Acts suggest that all the prophesies were on track and that Plan A was still in effect and that Plan B, the "casting away" of Israel (Rom. 11:15), was still future:
Peter here was offering the Kingdom to Israel, if only the Jews would repent. At this point Plan A, the prophesied plan, was still on track.
The special mention of Samuel undoubtedly refers to the promise of a Kingdom to Israel (2 Sam. 7:12-16) since Samuel is the prophet through whom God established Israel's kingdom and David's throne. Some might suppose that, at this point in Acts, Israel was no longer under the Covenant of Circumcision. However, they are twice in Acts identified with the covenant God made with Israel. In Acts 3:25 that are "sons of the covenant" and in Acts 7:8 the twelve tribes are descendants of the "covenant of circumcision." The governing covenant for Israel throughout the Gospels and into the Acts period was the Covenant of Circumcision. Hence Peter and the other apostles would soon be surprised at God's acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles (after Acts 9). Thus, the sons of Abraham were still the sons of the covenant in Acts 3:
The same argument Jesus used to prove life after death proves that the Old Covenant was still in effect here in Acts. For Jesus said "have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?[c] God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mat. 22:31-33). So too here, the Jews "are sons of... the covenant which God made with... Abraham." Thus Peter would not call them sons of a dead covenant, but of a living one.
Again, Jesus was sent to Israel and Peter's mission was for the nation to repent:
The apostles preached to the men of Israel, the common folds, before they declared their message to the leaders:
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. Acts 2:14
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesusof Nazareth
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesusof Nazareth
There was a persistent realization that the nation must corporately repent:
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Acts 2:36
Then Peter said... "For the promise is to you [Israel] and to your children, and to all who are afar off...” Acts 2:38-39
Then Peter said... "For the promise is to you [Israel] and to your children, and to all who are afar off...” Acts 2:38-39
Using Solomon's Temple as a meeting place, the Temple being the seat of the nation and the identity if Israel, indicates that the apostles were consciously working toward the nation's collective repentance.
"So continuing daily with one accord in the temple," Acts 2:46
[Peter said] “Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this?... The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus..." Acts 3:12-13
Old Testament scriptures contain many prophecies concerning Christ's coming. His earthly ministry, His death and resurrection, and Israel's intended proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Early passages in Acts suggest that all the prophesies were on track and that Plan A was still in effect and that Plan B, the "casting away" of Israel (Rom. 11:15), was still future:
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. Acts 3:19-21
Peter here was offering the Kingdom to Israel, if only the Jews would repent. At this point Plan A, the prophesied plan, was still on track.
Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days. Acts 3:24
The special mention of Samuel undoubtedly refers to the promise of a Kingdom to Israel (2 Sam. 7:12-16) since Samuel is the prophet through whom God established Israel's kingdom and David's throne. Some might suppose that, at this point in Acts, Israel was no longer under the Covenant of Circumcision. However, they are twice in Acts identified with the covenant God made with Israel. In Acts 3:25 that are "sons of the covenant" and in Acts 7:8 the twelve tribes are descendants of the "covenant of circumcision." The governing covenant for Israel throughout the Gospels and into the Acts period was the Covenant of Circumcision. Hence Peter and the other apostles would soon be surprised at God's acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles (after Acts 9). Thus, the sons of Abraham were still the sons of the covenant in Acts 3:
You [Israel] are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ Acts 3:25 based on Gen. 12:3
The same argument Jesus used to prove life after death proves that the Old Covenant was still in effect here in Acts. For Jesus said "have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?[c] God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mat. 22:31-33). So too here, the Jews "are sons of... the covenant which God made with... Abraham." Thus Peter would not call them sons of a dead covenant, but of a living one.
Again, Jesus was sent to Israel and Peter's mission was for the nation to repent:
To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities. Acts 3:26
Note that the bold and underlined portions of biblical passages aren't merely for emphasis but are part of a specific technique used throughout Enyart's book which he calls "The "Sentence Within" Technique"....
The "Sentence Within" Technique
While completely reading all quotations herein, learn to focus on core ideas contained in Scripture passages. Verses that may seem familiar will almost certainly present new information previously overlooked, because every good Bible teacher will bring out new information from the Word.
In the quotations in the book, bold words will highlight a sentence within a sentence. For example consider the footnote just referenced.
A sentence:
Therefore every scribe concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.
Notice that the bold words within that sentence highlight another sentence, drawing attention to a particular thought.
A sentence within a sentence:
Every scribe brings out of his treasure things new and old.
So the bold words not only form a sub-sentence, but they indicate exactly which words support the point being made by the writer using the technique. Bold underlining brings into focus an even more basic idea, always forming a narrower sentence.
A sentence within a sentence within a sentence:
Every scribe brings out things new.
While completely reading all quotations herein, learn to focus on core ideas contained in Scripture passages. Verses that may seem familiar will almost certainly present new information previously overlooked, because every good Bible teacher will bring out new information from the Word.
In the quotations in the book, bold words will highlight a sentence within a sentence. For example consider the footnote just referenced.
A sentence:
Therefore every scribe concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.
Notice that the bold words within that sentence highlight another sentence, drawing attention to a particular thought.
A sentence within a sentence:
Every scribe brings out of his treasure things new and old.
So the bold words not only form a sub-sentence, but they indicate exactly which words support the point being made by the writer using the technique. Bold underlining brings into focus an even more basic idea, always forming a narrower sentence.
A sentence within a sentence within a sentence:
Every scribe brings out things new.
One final note. You must keep in mind that this is one tiny potion of this book. There are several ideas contained within what I've posted that the author spends the time to biblically establish before getting to this. The point being that this not even close to as detailed an argument as exists, nor is this, by itself, intended to be taken as a proof of Acts 9 Dispensationalism. Its just one point made in a 300+ page book.
My intent is merely to hopefully allow you to get a glimpse of the paradigm from which I see the scripture. That Israel was still 100% on track to have all of the Messianic prophecies fulfilled, Pentecost being one of those prophesies by the way, and that therefore Peter's message at Pentecost could not have been about anything other than Israel and its promised kingdom.
Resting in Him,
Clete
turbosixx
New member
Thanks for taking the time to type all this and I appreciate you working with me. I feel the same about seeing something clearly that others can’t see. I’m going to digest this and get back with you, but here is one thing that jumped out at me.
I get the feeling you didn't even look at Paul's sermon in Acts 13.
You said.
Paul's message is the same as Peter's.
16 Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen:
23 From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus,
This is what I'm seeing with MAD, claims being made but the evidence doesn't support the claims.
I get the feeling you didn't even look at Paul's sermon in Acts 13.
You said.
Paul's message is the same as Peter's.
16 Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen:
23 From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus,
This is what I'm seeing with MAD, claims being made but the evidence doesn't support the claims.
Last edited: