Paul's gospel started late....

[Derf]

Jesus didn’t use the word grace, He was grace.
Grace and truth came from Him.
He was the dispenser of grace.
The very personification of grace.

John 1:

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.​

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.​

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.​

And Paul makes that clear.

Titus 2:11-14.​

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,​

12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.​

Prodigal son? Grace! Woman at the well? Grace! Woman caught in adultery? Grace! He didn't have to preach it, He lived it.

 

[glorydaz]

Prodigal son? Grace! Woman at the well? Grace! Woman caught in adultery? Grace! He didn't have to preach it, He lived it.

Amen. Grace walking among us.

 

[glorydaz]

Prodigal son? Grace! Woman at the well? Grace! Woman caught in adultery? Grace! He didn't have to preach it, He lived it.

Here is the first example of being saved by grace through faith.

Gen. 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.​

 

[Derf]

Some on TOL claim that salvation has always been the way that Paul preached it, but nobody knew it until Paul "made it clear". That is a very silly idea.

So God put all of this information in the scripture, starting in Genesis 1:1... but nobody knew about it until Paul. God kept the truth of salvation hidden for thousands of years.

Scriptures like these do not phase them at all:

John 4:22 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.​

​

Rom 11:11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.​

You just cannot put a dent is their false paradigm, no matter what you show them.

P.S.

Rom 2:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.​

​

Rom 16:25 (AKJV/PCE)​

(16:25) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,​

​

2Tim 2:8 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:8) Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: ​

I suppose your point is that Paul had a different gospel because he called it "my gospel". Do you worship Paul's different God?
Romans 1:8 KJV — First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
1 Corinthians 1:4 KJV — I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
2 Corinthians 12:21 KJV — And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.
Philippians 4:19 KJV — But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

 

[Derf]

Prodigal son? Grace! Woman at the well? Grace! Woman caught in adultery? Grace! He didn't have to preach it, He lived it.

I'm curious, @JudgeRightly. Why is that funny to you?

 

[glorydaz]

I'm curious, @JudgeRightly. Why is that funny to you?

Join the club. It seems to be mockery, doesn’t it?

Although, I did laugh about Paul’s use of the word MY In your previous post.
That laugh was not a bit of mockery, but a genuine chuckle at your wit.

 

[Derf]

Join the club. It seems to be mockery, doesn’t it?

Although, I did laugh about Paul’s use of the word MY In your previous post.
That laugh was not a bit of mockery, but a genuine chuckle at your wit.

There are certainly funny ways of saying things, and mockery isn't without its place, but I don't understand why it's funny to say Jesus was living out grace.

 

[glorydaz]

There are certainly funny ways of saying things, and mockery isn't without its place, but I don't understand why it's funny to say Jesus was living out grace.

It robs from Paul’s gospel would be my guess.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm curious, @JudgeRightly. Why is that funny to you?

Because I find it amazing the number of Christians who do not know the difference between mercy and grace.

Prodigal son? Grace! Woman at the well? Grace! Woman caught in adultery? Grace! He didn't have to preach it, He lived it.

Yes, the Bible says "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

That's a given. We don't dispute that.

But that has nothing to do with what was stated.

What was stated was:

Paul's use of the word 'grace' in his thirteen epistles: 90+

Times that Jesus is quoted using the word 'grace' during His earthly ministry: 0

Jesus sent Paul.

It's kind of hard to preach something if you never use the word for it.

On the other hand, the Gospels speak of law, commandment, ordinance, regulation, and Moses many dosens of times, frequently by Christ's own words. In fact, the word grace is only mentioned 4 times in the gospels, once in Luke 2:40, which says "the grace of God was upon ," and four times in John, once in 1:14, "the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," twice in 1:16, "and grace for grace," and once in 1:17, "but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

Remember, John was not written until later, WELL AFTER Paul came on the scene with his gospel given to him by Christ Himself, and certainly long after the Jerusalem Council (around 47 AD). John was likely written around 60 AD. More than enough time for the understanding of Paul's dispensation of grace to make its way into the minds of the Gospel authors, so it makes sense for John to write about Jesus bringing grace to the world.

Now, specifically regarding the latter two examples you gave:

With the woman at the well, she was a Samaritan woman, and according to the Jews, Samaritans were unclean, according to the law of Moses.

WIth the woman caught in adultery, the Pharisees brought her before Christ for Him to judge her according to the law of Moses.

The context is law.

Grace has no part in the law.

MERCY, on the other hand, has plenty to do with the law.

To make this simple:
Grace is getting something that one does not deserve.
Mercy is NOT getting something that one DOES deserve.

In both of the latter examples, BOTH WOMEN were guilty of violating the law, and at least in the latter example, and arguably in the former, Jesus showed mercy to each of the women. They did not receive the punishment they deserved.

And regarding the parable of the prodigal son, which, while it is specifically teaching a specific lesson, again, the context is the law.

Specifically, the son says to his father, "I have sinned . . . and am no longer worthy to be called your son." He deserved to be cut off. But His father did not cut him off. He showed mercy to his son.

Basically, NONE of the examples you gave were about grace. They were about mercy. Their context was law, not grace.

 

[Bladerunner]

Because I find it amazing the number of Christians who do not know the difference between mercy and grace.

Your words:"To make this simple:
Grace is getting something that one does not deserve.
Mercy is NOT getting something that one DOES deserve."

very good answer!

 

[Derf]

Because I find it amazing the number of Christians who do not know the difference between mercy and grace.



Yes, the Bible says "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

That's a given. We don't dispute that.

But that has nothing to do with what was stated.

What was stated was:



It's kind of hard to preach something if you never use the word for it.

On the other hand, the Gospels speak of law, commandment, ordinance, regulation, and Moses many dosens of times, frequently by Christ's own words. In fact, the word grace is only mentioned 4 times in the gospels, once in Luke 2:40, which says "the grace of God was upon ," and four times in John, once in 1:14, "the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," twice in 1:16, "and grace for grace," and once in 1:17, "but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

Remember, John was not written until later, WELL AFTER Paul came on the scene with his gospel given to him by Christ Himself, and certainly long after the Jerusalem Council (around 47 AD). John was likely written around 60 AD. More than enough time for the understanding of Paul's dispensation of grace to make its way into the minds of the Gospel authors, so it makes sense for John to write about Jesus bringing grace to the world.

Now, specifically regarding the latter two examples you gave:

With the woman at the well, she was a Samaritan woman, and according to the Jews, Samaritans were unclean, according to the law of Moses.

WIth the woman caught in adultery, the Pharisees brought her before Christ for Him to judge her according to the law of Moses.

The context is law.

Grace has no part in the law.

MERCY, on the other hand, has plenty to do with the law.

To make this simple:
Grace is getting something that one does not deserve.
Mercy is NOT getting something that one DOES deserve.

In both of the latter examples, BOTH WOMEN were guilty of violating the law, and at least in the latter example, and arguably in the former, Jesus showed mercy to each of the women. They did not receive the punishment they deserved.

And regarding the parable of the prodigal son, which, while it is specifically teaching a specific lesson, again, the context is the law.

Specifically, the son says to his father, "I have sinned . . . and am no longer worthy to be called your son." He deserved to be cut off. But His father did not cut him off. He showed mercy to his son.

Basically, NONE of the examples you gave were about grace. They were about mercy. Their context was law, not grace.

But if one gets mercy, something he doesn't deserve, then by your definition, he gets grace. While your distinction is true, it is not something that needs to be argued about, since dispensation of mercy is, by definition, grace--no matter the context.

 

[glorydaz]

But if one gets mercy, something he doesn't deserve, then by your definition, he gets grace. While your distinction is true, it is not something that needs to be argued about, since dispensation of mercy is, by definition, grace--no matter the context.

It is a bit humorous. Grace and truth came through the Lord Jesus Christ. Not Paul.

If you want to get to the bottom of it, you’ll find the blood of Christ is the grace of God. Which also contains His Mercy and His Peace. Three in one. Lumped together. Which of those three are unconnected?

1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.​

​

​

 

[JudgeRightly]

But if one gets mercy, something he doesn't deserve, then by your definition, he gets grace. While your distinction is true, it is not something that needs to be argued about, since dispensation of mercy is, by definition, grace--no matter the context.

The point is that there IS a distinction made. Ignoring that distinction in order to force a certain view upon the text is what causes confusion.

Saying "everything's actually just grace" is oversimplifying things, and makes it harder to rightly divide the word of Truth. The Bible is more nuanced than that for a reason. Words have meaning. Ideas have consequences.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Grace and truth came through the Lord Jesus Christ. Not Paul.

So Paul didn't teach grace and truth?

 

[Derf]

The point is that there IS a distinction made. Ignoring that distinction in order to force a certain view upon the text is what causes confusion.

Saying "everything's actually just grace" is oversimplifying things, and makes it harder to rightly divide the word of Truth. The Bible is more nuanced than that for a reason. Words have meaning. Ideas have consequences.

So Paul didn't teach grace and truth?

Are you listening to yourself? You just did the exact thing you complained about in my post. Of course he taught grace and truth. But grace and truth didn't originate with Paul, and never could...remember how much grace he showed to the Christians before his conversion?

Paul even rejects the idea that grace and truth came from him:
1 Corinthians 3:10-11 KJV — According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

 

[Right Divider]

Paul even rejects the idea that grace and truth came from him:
1 Corinthians 3:10-11 KJV — According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

You skipped right over a VERY important part of the verses that you quoted.

I HAVE LAID THE FOUNDATION and another buildeth thereon.

PAUL LAID THE FOUNDATION of the gospel of grace that Jesus gave him.

Of course that foundation is Jesus Christ, but NOT the same Jesus as came to His people Israel.

1Cor 12:4-6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:4) Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. (12:5) And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. (12:6) And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.​

You guys just cannot see the truth even when it stares you right in the face.

Paul was given a DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATION. This is why Paul emphasizes the DISPENSATION of the gospel given to HIM.

 

[Derf]

You skipped right over a VERY important part of the verses that you quoted.

I HAVE LAID THE FOUNDATION and another buildeth thereon.

PAUL LAID THE FOUNDATION of the gospel of grace that Jesus gave him.

Yes, of course. He was writing to Corinth, talking about the church in Corinth. Apollos had been there after Paul. The discussion was about who the people should be loyal to, and Paul was quick to point out that it should be Jesus, not Paul or Apollos.

You do know, that the Corinthians first heard the gospel from Paul, and so the phrase you're referring to about laying the foundation was specificly to and about the Corinthian church, don't you?

Of course that foundation is Jesus Christ, but NOT the same Jesus as came to His people Israel.

What do you mean, "not the same Jesus"? Was Paul talking about a person not born of Mary, who was not crucified on Calvary?

1Cor 12:4-6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:4) Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. (12:5) And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. (12:6) And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.​

You guys just cannot see the truth even when it stares you right in the face.

You haven't convinced me that what you are preaching is truth. That's hardly my fault now, is it?

Paul was given a DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATION. This is why Paul emphasizes the DISPENSATION of the gospel given to HIM.

Yes, he was ministering to the Gentiles. (That's why he was writing to the Corinthians.) But you are pointing out that the administration of Paul's was not a different means of salvation...just a different "dispensing" of it. That's why Paul speaks of "the same Lord" and "the same Spirit", but compares the different administrations to the different gifts of that Spirit.

And if not a different means of salvation, then not a different gospel. Just a different administration of the same gospel. Else there would be no need to speak of different administrations when there are different gospels.

 

[glorydaz]

So Paul didn't teach grace and truth?

Did I say that? No, of course not.
Can you give me your definition of grace?

What is that GRACE we are saved by? Perhaps this? Made near by the blood, purchased by the blood, justified by the blood, redemption through the blood, and peace through the blood. God’s grace is shed abroad on the world, and we access it by faith. Surely we can agree on this much, before we go any further.

Eph. 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.​

​

Acts 20:28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.​

​

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.​

​

Col, 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.​

​

Col. 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.​

 

[glorydaz]

You skipped right over a VERY important part of the verses that you quoted.

I HAVE LAID THE FOUNDATION and another buildeth thereon.

PAUL LAID THE FOUNDATION of the gospel of grace that Jesus gave him.

Of course that foundation is Jesus Christ, but NOT the same Jesus as came to His people Israel.

1Cor 12:4-6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:4) Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. (12:5) And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. (12:6) And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.​

You guys just cannot see the truth even when it stares you right in the face.

Paul was given a DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATION. This is why Paul emphasizes the DISPENSATION of the gospel given to HIM.

No, Paul is speaking of the different gifts and ministries within the church. In context….gifts, words of wisdom, etc. There is nothing to do with dispensations, not even close. Paul is speaking of the Spirit’s working in the body, and the ministry being produced.

1 Cor. 12:8-11 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.​

 

[Idolater]

Yes, just Israel 'and' gentiles who converted, at this venture. It was only through the Abrahamic Covenant that 'all nations would be blessed.' At the time, that meant conversion.

Look how your mind works with the presupposition: You are stuck with a go-between authority. We are not at all at the mercies of Luther. We all have internet and minds that work just fine. The 'authority' wall has fallen.

Then you're in even worse shape. Because you're at the mercy of Bible PRINTERS and publishers. THEY'RE the authorities making the table of contents of YOUR Bible.

I get that you don't want to admit that there actually is real power at play here, but the reality is that your only option when it comes to choosing the table of contents in your OWN Bible, is to buy someone's printed Bible, and either accept, endorse, approve, validate, recognize, cosign, countenance, that table of contents, or, you can cut out books of that published Bible.

You can't add any contents to the Bible.

In fact what happened with the KJB is that it was first printed with the 73 books of the Roman Catholic table of contents, but it set aside seven books from the Old Testament, and printed them as a section, which came to be known as the Apocrypha. The table of contents was the same content, but a different order, as a result. The Apocrypha was printed between the rest of the Old Testament books, and the New Testament.

Eventually Evangelical printers decided to print Bibles without the Apocrypha at all, saving on paper and ink expenses. It was as much a theological decision as a business decision.

I'm in the same boat btw, I have no advantage here. I'm just choosing the table of contents approved by the Apostles, the founding fathers of the Church. The Septuagint. That was the Scriptures Paul talked about being God-breathed.

Luther simply read the scriptures and for himself, eschewed "Bel and the Dragon" for instance. Why? His Bible, his choice. You are thinking 'rights' as if the RC has them.

No, the APOSTLES' Bible, THEIR choice. The "RC" is merely OBEYING the Apostles. THEY are the ones with the RIGHT to set the Bible's table of contents.

It can be turned around: "What gave them the right?"

The Church founded by Christ and His Apostles is just a continuing body, like the United States Senate is a continuing body, unlike the United States Congress, which is a new body every two years. So the same continuing body consisting of the original Apostles had the power or right to set the Bible's table of contents, and that body still today has that same power.

ofc the Church hasn't changed the table of contents once the Apostles set it. But Luther did. And you guys all approve of his edits. Contra what the Apostles set out.

Rather, a Protestant/Evangelical will do the work his or her own self as they read the scriptures. It is of much more import to 'read' them than argue over them. There are 66 books in the shorter version: plenty enough to keep one studying and learning for a lifetime.

Half the Bible would be plenty—does that mean half the table of contents is also an acceptable option for you?

How often have you read Leviticus?

A few times.

I have favorite books I've read and reread many times. I have read the Catholic/coptic/Greek Orthodox Bible. I don't believe I've gained any special insight, especially as I've only one Apostle-to-the-gentiles.

Interesting. So your theology writ large informs your theology of the Bible's table of contents, rather than your theology writ large being based on an already established table of contents, iow.

OK.

Marcion said the table of contents should only include Paul, ofc he also considered Hebrews to be Pauline, so he wasn't exactly Mid Acts.

The rest is good history and relationship stories with the Father, Spirit, and Son. It fleshes out the pictures, like coloring in a coloring book. The black and white was already there.

That'd be like to me, the difference between Evangelicalism and vanilla Roman Catholicism simpliciter. The skeleton of the faith is in Evangelicalism but the faith is fully fleshed out in vanilla Roman Catholicism simpliciter.

Difference: We ratify his work, aren't slaves to it. If you only had a N.T., nay even just Paul's letters, you'd understand the gospel and your need of relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, Spirit, and Father. "What is needed" is the impetus for reading scriptures. I ask every new believer to simply read the gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters three times through, then Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs. After that, they can be on their own and choose books or read the whole Bible through.

That's great. You don't even have to read the Bible if you don't want to. This is a smoke screen though since we're not talking about whether or what parts of the Bible we should read. We're talking about the table of contents of it. Vanilla Roman Catholicism simpliciter merely "ratifies" the Apostles' table of contents. Evangelicals "ratify" Luther's table of contents. Thomas Jefferson carved up the Gospels even to remove all miracles to make his own version of the Bible. Some "Bibles" are just the Psalms, and New Testament.