ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Clete]

Sorry, I’ve been told before that works “of the law” was not talking about the law of Moses.



Of course, my paradigm says different. I see Galatians as the best argument that the law of Moses and the law of Christ are incompatible but let’s start in Romans.

If we look at the language, it’s clear the law was no longer binding to those in Christ.
6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Galatians is dealing with circumcision being added to the gospel and Paul gets on to Peter because he is dividing Christ based on circumcision like it was under the law.
Acts 10:28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him;
Paul then says 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

He then shows them the law was added but it didn’t change the promise. The law was added so man could see his sins.
Gal. 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions,
Rom. 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet."
In seeing their sins they saw they were dead and in need of a savior.
Rom. 7:9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

The law wasn’t the promise and it wasn’t meant to continue. I was only in effect until Christ.
Gal. 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

There is no division in Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile, just Christian.
3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus….28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Chapter 4 uses Sarah and Hagar as an example of the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, one a slave and one free. Christians are free.

Chapter 5 makes it perfectly clear, that no one can be in Christ and follow the law.
5:2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
No one can be saved outside of Christ.
Gal. 2:16..... since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Those verses us used do not show anyone teaching the law or instruction to keep it. The apostles were doing the same thing Paul as doing, picking battles. There are verse where Paul is seen keeping the law of Moses so that in itself should prove the law of Moses is no longer binding.

This response is going to sound cryptic and unresponsive but it isn't...



I rest my case.


Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I'm very short on time. I'll try to explain later. In the mean time see if you can figure out what I mean. There are several people participating in the thread who will instantly understand the point I'm making. Perhaps they can weigh in on it. Perhaps more than one perspective on the same topic will help me out here.

 

[turbosixx]

This response is going to sound cryptic and unresponsive but it isn't...



I rest my case.


Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I'm very short on time. I'll try to explain later. In the mean time see if you can figure out what I mean. There are several people participating in the thread who will instantly understand the point I'm making. Perhaps they can weigh in on it. Perhaps more than one perspective on the same topic will help me out here.

I'm not surprised but I have no idea what you mean and I am curious.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Is it your flesh that causes you to issue death threats to posters, or the Spirit?

Gods word issues death threats to people like you and John W who call the saints bad names like, sons of cain, of your father the devil, liar, and the like, when they speak the truth to you.

LA

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Gods word issues death threats to people like you and John W who call the saints bad names like, sons of cain, of your father the devil, liar, and the like, when they speak the truth to you.

LA

You just love giving those death predictions.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Gods word issues death threats to people like you and John W who call the saints bad names like, sons of cain, of your father the devil, liar, and the like, when they speak the truth to you.

LA

We are Eph 2:6 (KJV)

Cannot kill a man twice, as we were crucified with Christ.

Were you?

 

[Clete]

I'm not surprised but I have no idea what you mean and I am curious.

I have no time....


Basically, you pick a doctrinal stance and make an argument. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism effectively predicts that there is a high likelihood that your arguments will be either from Paul or from the non-Pauline portions of the New Testament. Look at your post! Any argument that is anti-law and pro-grace has to come from Paul.


By the way, you're almost right! Law does negate grace but grace does not negate law. I'll try to briefly explain...

If you are under a dispensation of law where works are required, an addition of grace does not negate the requirements of the law, otherwise everyone prior to the Paul would have gone straight to Hell when they died because no one is able to follow the law perfectly. It does not work the other way around though. If you have a dispensation of grace where works are not required, the addition of law destroys the grace - destroys it.

For example, when you go get your hair cut, the price is $20. The barber cuts your hair and instead of $20, you give him $30. Not because you're required too and not because the barber needs it but because you want to, its a gift! The $20 you owe him for the work he's done is law and the extra $10 is grace. It works!

Now lets say you suffer a great disaster, a tornado knocks your house over and you lose everything. A friend of yours owns a home building business and because he's a close friend he offers to rebuild your house for you free of charge, he just asks that you stay out of it and let him and his crew do the work. You accept and he gets started. One afternoon you stop by and because you feel like you owe them something, you surprise the whole crew with lunch from McDonald's. Months later, you and your friend are sitting in your band new sun room drinking a cold beer and you say to your friend, "Wow, what a great job you did on this house! And to think, all it cost me was $40 worth of Chicken McNuggets!" Then you glance at your friend and see the pain in his eyes. What you did with good intentions had the effect of cheapening the gift. It doesn't work! Law DESTROYS grace!

Thus a doctrine that teaches that works are required cheapens the gift God has given us. Its as though we are saying that the price God paid is great and all but please let me chip in a little. It's an insult to the gift and the gift giver. But that is only so for those in a dispensation of grace! If the relationship was already based on law then it is natural to expect for works to be required regardless of whatever grace is added on top.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[turbosixx]

I have no time....


Basically, you pick a doctrinal stance and make an argument. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism effectively predicts that there is a high likelihood that your arguments will be either from Paul or from the non-Pauline portions of the New Testament. Look at your post! Any argument that is anti-law and pro-grace has to come from Paul.


By the way, you're almost right! Law does negate grace but grace does not negate law. I'll try to briefly explain...

If you are under a dispensation of law where works are required, an addition of grace does not negate the requirements of the law, otherwise everyone prior to the Paul would have gone straight to Hell when they died because no one is able to follow the law perfectly. It does not work the other way around though. If you have a dispensation of grace where works are not required, the addition of law destroys the grace - destroys it.

For example, when you go get your hair cut, the price is $20. The barber cuts your hair and instead of $20, you give him $30. Not because you're required too and not because the barber needs it but because you want to, its a gift! The $20 you owe him for the work he's done is law and the extra $10 is grace. It works!

Now lets say you suffer a great disaster, a tornado knocks your house over and you lose everything. A friend of yours owns a home building business and because he's a close friend he offers to rebuild your house for you free of charge, he just asks that you stay out of it and let him and his crew do the work. You accept and he gets started. One afternoon you stop by and because you feel like you owe them something, you surprise the whole crew with lunch from McDonald's. Months later, you and your friend are sitting in your band new sun room drinking a cold beer and you say to your friend, "Wow, what a great job you did on this house! And to think, all it cost me was $40 worth of Chicken McNuggets!" Then you glance at your friend and see the pain in his eyes. What you did with good intentions had the effect of cheapening the gift. It doesn't work! Law DESTROYS grace!

Thus a doctrine that teaches that works are required cheapens the gift God has given us. Its as though we are saying that the price God paid is great and all but please let me chip in a little. It's an insult to the gift and the gift giver. But that is only so for those in a dispensation of grace! If the relationship was already based on law then it is natural to expect for works to be required regardless of whatever grace is added on top.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sorry your short on time. I will be soon, going on vacation.

Once again, you did an excellent job in presenting your argument. I have a better understand of your point of view. I wish I could do as well; we might be further along in this discussion. Like you said, I almost agree with you.

Having a better understanding has created more questions but I'll start here. Your comment “works are not required” got me to thinking. I'm not sure of your position so I have to aks, if nothing is required of us, are we under “any” law? Can a Christian sin?

I’m sure you know my point of view but I will go ahead and answer the questions. I believe we are under law and we can sin. Not the law of Moses but Christ’s law as Paul says.
1 Cor. 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

Coupled with being under the law of Christ I see far too many passages that tell us not to sin to believe otherwise. So does grace mean that nothing is required of us? Grace gives us instructions. Does grace give us a choice in following its instructions?
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

Since we can sin I believe we are covered by grace but only so far. Grace is not a license to sin so there must be a line somewhere. This passage is how I understand it.
Heb. 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

 

[musterion]

THE NEW BIRTH

The Bible says “ye must be born again” (John 3:7). I believe that those to whom our Lord spoke must be begotten anew. What right have I or anyone else to say that all must be born again? John was a minister of the Circumcision. He was never sent to the Uncircumcision. If I were asked to name the principal causes of incorrect doctrine in Fundamentalists’ creeds I should surely include their almost complete apostasy from Paul, to whom alone the present secret administration was entrusted (Ephesians 3:8,9). They, like “all they which are in Asia,” have turned away from him (II Timothy 1:15). They do not believe that Paul was entrusted with the gospel of the Uncircumcision, as Peter and John of the Circumcision (Galatians 2:9).

The “new birth” is displaced by a deeper truth in Paul’s epistles. He introduces a new creature (II Corinthians 5:17).

A. E. Knoch (1874-1965)
The Words of Man’s Wisdom

 

[Clete]

Sorry your short on time. I will be soon, going on vacation.

Once again, you did an excellent job in presenting your argument. I have a better understand of your point of view. I wish I could do as well; we might be further along in this discussion. Like you said, I almost agree with you.

Having a better understanding has created more questions but I'll start here. Your comment “works are not required” got me to thinking. I'm not sure of your position so I have to aks, if nothing is required of us, are we under “any” law? Can a Christian sin?

I’m sure you know my point of view but I will go ahead and answer the questions. I believe we are under law and we can sin. Not the law of Moses but Christ’s law as Paul says.
1 Cor. 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

Coupled with being under the law of Christ I see far too many passages that tell us not to sin to believe otherwise. So does grace mean that nothing is required of us? Grace gives us instructions. Does grace give us a choice in following its instructions?
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

Since we can sin I believe we are covered by grace but only so far. Grace is not a license to sin so there must be a line somewhere. This passage is how I understand it.
Heb. 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

This is just an absolutely terrific question! It really goes straight to the heart of the real practical difference between A9D and basically every other doctrinal system.

Some people really make a huge issue out of the word "sin" and develop detailed doctrinal constructs around the meaning of that one word. I'm reminded of a guy who used to post here on TOL whose user name was Sozo. He's a really smart guy and wrote some of the most terrific posts about grace but holy crap was he caught up on the word "sin". He just flatly insisted that it was no possible for a Christian to sin and based STRICTLY on his very tight definition of the word, he was right. The problem he had though is that he was nearly the only person in the world that used the word sin in such way.
I make no effort to do such things. In fact, if anything, I attempt to use terms in the most common understanding possible so as to avoid the sort of confusion that Sozo was constantly fighting while he was here.

So, having said that, let me answer your question this way. If by 'sin' you mean committing an act that you know you shouldn't then the answer is an unqualified, "Yes, of course!". Christians do thing that hurt themselves and those around them, things that God does not like and does not want them to do.

BUT! He does not hold those sins against us because He has already held it against His Son who died in our place, receiving the just punishment for our sin.

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.​

Put another way, the wages of sin are death (note that this was so WAY before the Law of Moses - it goes all the way back to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - it is no mere coincidence by the way that both that Tree and the Law have a ministry of death.) and we are identified in Christ's death. What hold then does sin have over us? This is precisely the theme of the whole of Romans 6 and 7.

I hate being so short on time!

I will continue this later!

 

[Shasta]

If you knew what the gospel of Christ is, you would see the difference. Study and rightly divide the word of truth! 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV

And get it straight, those Gentiles weren't saved. They shall be.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

In other words if I defined "the gospel of Christ" the way you do - as a message different and separate from the "Jewish Gospel" - then I would see the difference. This is like saying "if I believed there were two gospels I would see there were two gospels." This points out the very interesting phenomenon that once people are believe that something is in scripture they will see it there even in the absence of textual evidence.

When I look for evidence of MAD the first thing I notice is that the scripture never unequivocally says "there are two gospels" or "[B]here are the similarities and differences between them[/B]" The lack of explicit teaching on such an important subject is glaring. Without it, the reader of the NT is left to surmise and deduce the differences, say between, the false gospel of the Judaeizers which cannot save and a legitimate "Jewish Gospel" which supposedly could.

It would have been crucial for both Jews and Gentiles to know the difference. Otherwise Christian Jews might be tricked into going back into a Judaeized Christianity. The same could be said for believing Gentiles. Yet when exposing the errors of the Judaizers in Galatians Paul never attempts to differentiate their doctrine from the legitimate "Jewish Gospel." By not providing clear teaching on the difference between the Jewish Gospel, the Gentile Gospel and the false teahing of the Judaeizers, Paul left the faith of Christian Jews open to attack by their Gentile brethren. By failing to present a balanced teaching Paul left open the door to conflict and division.

You have claimed that the Gentiles who Peter preached to were not saved but the scripture never says anything like that. Those who received only the Baptism of John the Baptist without knowing about Jesus had to be re-Baptised and receive the Holy Spirit. There is no corresponding example of a Gentile who, having been become a Christian through Peter's preaching, subsequently had to be converted through Paul's gospel. Your doctrine predicts that this should have happened at some point but if it ever did it cannot be established on anything that is written. Again the belief in the paradigm is posited despite the absence of written evidence.

You say the Gentiles Peter preached to were not saved but according to Jesus and the prophets, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was only possible in a heart that had been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb. This was played out again and again in the ceremonial law but first let's look first at what the prophets said:

The prophets had said that the Lord would:

1. Establish a New Covenant .
Covenants are formed by the shedding of blood.

2. As a part of the NC God said He would put inside them a new (human) spirit (or heart) that would be receptive to His word (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26).

The NT fulfillment of this is taught here: Romans 8:4, 2 Corinthians 3:6-8 and Hebrews 10:6

3. God said he would put HIS SPIRIT (i.e.,the Holy Spirit) inside those that participated in the NC (Ezekiel 36:27)

Jesus spoke about the future indwelling of the Spirit because He knew from scripture it would be part of the covenant he would make (John 3:3-5). Peter and Paul taught this as well (1 Corinthians 3:6, 1 Peter 1:23)

4. God promised He would Save the people from their uncleanness (Jeremiah 31:34, Ezekiel 36:29)

The Jews were shocked that the Gentiles Peter preached to received the Holy Spirit precisely because it showed that they had become beneficiaries of a NC promise that had been made to THEM (Acts 10:45).

Peter also points out the connection between the purification of the heart by the blood of Christ) and receiving the Holy Spirit

8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

That they had been cleansed inwardly by the blood of Christ (since there is no cleansing of sin except by the shedding of blood). and part of the NC was evidenced by the fact they had received the Holy Spirit.

That the Gentiles were fellow-partakers with the Jews of what was had been bought at the cross was symbolically re-enacted every time Jewish and Gentile believers drank of the common cup of the NC. This practice which Paul called the "Lord's Supper" reminded them that they were united in the blood (covenant brethren) and that they had experienced a common forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17). The blood of Christ was the basis for their partaking of a common Spirit.

 

[heir]

In other words if I defined "the gospel of Christ" the way you do - as a message different and separate from the "Jewish Gospel" - then I would see the difference. This is like saying "if I believed there were two gospels I would see there were two gospels." This points out the very interesting phenomenon that once people are believe that something is in scripture they will see it there even in the absence of textual evidence.

When I look for evidence of MAD the first thing I notice is that the scripture never unequivocally says "there are two gospels" or "[B]here are the similarities and differences between them[/B]" The lack of explicit teaching on such an important subject is glaring. Without it, the reader of the NT is left to surmise and deduce the differences, say between, the false gospel of the Judaeizers which cannot save and a legitimate "Jewish Gospel" which supposedly could.

It would have been crucial for both Jews and Gentiles to know the difference. Otherwise Christian Jews might be tricked into going back into a Judaeized Christianity. The same could be said for believing Gentiles. Yet when exposing the errors of the Judaizers in Galatians Paul never attempts to differentiate their doctrine from the legitimate "Jewish Gospel." By not providing clear teaching on the difference between the Jewish Gospel, the Gentile Gospel and the false teahing of the Judaeizers, Paul left the faith of Christian Jews open to attack by their Gentile brethren. By failing to present a balanced teaching Paul left open the door to conflict and division.

You have claimed that the Gentiles who Peter preached to were not saved but the scripture never says anything like that. Those who received only the Baptism of John the Baptist without knowing about Jesus had to be re-Baptised and receive the Holy Spirit. There is no corresponding example of a Gentile who, having been become a Christian through Peter's preaching, subsequently had to be converted through Paul's gospel. Your doctrine predicts that this should have happened at some point but if it ever did it cannot be established on anything that is written. Again the belief in the paradigm is posited despite the absence of written evidence.

You say the Gentiles Peter preached to were not saved but according to Jesus and the prophets, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was only possible in a heart that had been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb. This was played out again and again in the ceremonial law but first let's look first at what the prophets said:

The prophets had said that the Lord would:

1. Establish a New Covenant .
Covenants are formed by the shedding of blood.

2. As a part of the NC God said He would put inside them a new (human) spirit (or heart) that would be receptive to His word (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26).

The NT fulfillment of this is taught here: Romans 8:4, 2 Corinthians 3:6-8 and Hebrews 10:6

3. God said he would put HIS SPIRIT (i.e.,the Holy Spirit) inside those that participated in the NC (Ezekiel 36:27)

Jesus spoke about the future indwelling of the Spirit because He knew from scripture it would be part of the covenant he would make (John 3:3-5). Peter and Paul taught this as well (1 Corinthians 3:6, 1 Peter 1:23)

4. God promised He would Save the people from their uncleanness (Jeremiah 31:34, Ezekiel 36:29)

The Jews were shocked that the Gentiles Peter preached to received the Holy Spirit precisely because it showed that they had become beneficiaries of a NC promise that had been made to THEM (Acts 10:45).

Peter also points out the connection between the purification of the heart by the blood of Christ) and receiving the Holy Spirit

8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

That they had been cleansed inwardly by the blood of Christ (since there is no cleansing of sin except by the shedding of blood). and part of the NC was evidenced by the fact they had received the Holy Spirit.

That the Gentiles were fellow-partakers with the Jews of what was had been bought at the cross was symbolically re-enacted every time Jewish and Gentile believers drank of the common cup of the NC. This practice which Paul called the "Lord's Supper" reminded them that they were united in the blood (covenant brethren) and that they had experienced a common forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17). The blood of Christ was the basis for their partaking of a common Spirit.

Look at how the entire post above is void of Paul's gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest,...(Romans 16:25-26 KJV, 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 KJV). And the verses that were cited from Paul are taken out of context. What a shocker from the religious, but lost!


You had no hope unless God had a mystery concerning you (Ephesians 3:1-12 KJV). Get saved and get with the program of 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV!

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

I have no time....


Basically, you pick a doctrinal stance and make an argument. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism effectively predicts that there is a high likelihood that your arguments will be either from Paul or from the non-Pauline portions of the New Testament. Look at your post! Any argument that is anti-law and pro-grace has to come from Paul.


By the way, you're almost right! Law does negate grace but grace does not negate law. I'll try to briefly explain...

If you are under a dispensation of law where works are required, an addition of grace does not negate the requirements of the law, otherwise everyone prior to the Paul would have gone straight to Hell when they died because no one is able to follow the law perfectly. It does not work the other way around though. If you have a dispensation of grace where works are not required, the addition of law destroys the grace - destroys it.

For example, when you go get your hair cut, the price is $20. The barber cuts your hair and instead of $20, you give him $30. Not because you're required too and not because the barber needs it but because you want to, its a gift! The $20 you owe him for the work he's done is law and the extra $10 is grace. It works!

Now lets say you suffer a great disaster, a tornado knocks your house over and you lose everything. A friend of yours owns a home building business and because he's a close friend he offers to rebuild your house for you free of charge, he just asks that you stay out of it and let him and his crew do the work. You accept and he gets started. One afternoon you stop by and because you feel like you owe them something, you surprise the whole crew with lunch from McDonald's. Months later, you and your friend are sitting in your band new sun room drinking a cold beer and you say to your friend, "Wow, what a great job you did on this house! And to think, all it cost me was $40 worth of Chicken McNuggets!" Then you glance at your friend and see the pain in his eyes. What you did with good intentions had the effect of cheapening the gift. It doesn't work! Law DESTROYS grace!

Thus a doctrine that teaches that works are required cheapens the gift God has given us. Its as though we are saying that the price God paid is great and all but please let me chip in a little. It's an insult to the gift and the gift giver. But that is only so for those in a dispensation of grace! If the relationship was already based on law then it is natural to expect for works to be required regardless of whatever grace is added on top.

Resting in Him,
Clete

What is the gift? Is it just the forgiveness of sins and Christ's death on the cross? That is an enourmous gift!!! Unfathomable practically. But the gift Is even bigger even more. Himself!!!! Reconcilation with Him. His Holy Spirit inside of us. Truly amazing!

Is the gift forced upon us? No!
What is the full gift intended to do? Empower us to live and love like Him! It has nothing to do with the law, although His love demonstrated in and through us moves us to not harm our neighbors.

We don't work to keep the gift, or get the gift, we submit to the gift. He does the work through us! He shines through us, the body of Christ.

 

[Cross Reference]

Most all of traditional thinking tries to bring understanding of the gospel using the fall of man as the beginning point of reference. Paul goes all the way back to the Father heart of God before He ever did anything, in an attempt to reveal what was of God will be imparted to man by Christ Jesus and in that day all will be imputed to him as the final wrap up of all "Father God" has purposed...

 

[HisServant]

Paul's message wasn't different. The Jews had become so ethnocentric that they despised all no-Jews and basically treated them as dogs. The Jews would not eat and/or fellowship with non-Jews... some Rabbi's said it was a grave sin and it would render the Jew unclean.

All God did was remind Paul that salvation was always open to every human, if they had faith and believed. The Jews were only given a task that was to remind the world of a need for a messiah and blood sacrifice.

The Jews were turned so inward that the fact that the gentiles were always on an even footing was a mystery to them.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Paul's message wasn't different. The Jews had become so ethnocentric that they despised all no-Jews and basically treated them as dogs. The Jews would not eat and/or fellowship with non-Jews... some Rabbi's said it was a grave sin and it would render the Jew unclean.

All God did was remind Paul that salvation was always open to every human, if they had faith and believed. The Jews were only given a task that was to remind the world of a need for a messiah and blood sacrifice.

The Jews were turned so inward that the fact that the gentiles were always on an even footing was a mystery to them.

True.

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

In other words if I defined "the gospel of Christ" the way you do - as a message different and separate from the "Jewish Gospel" - then I would see the difference. This is like saying "if I believed there were two gospels I would see there were two gospels." This points out the very interesting phenomenon that once people are believe that something is in scripture they will see it there even in the absence of textual evidence.

When I look for evidence of MAD the first thing I notice is that the scripture never unequivocally says "there are two gospels" or "[B]here are the similarities and differences between them[/B]" The lack of explicit teaching on such an important subject is glaring. Without it, the reader of the NT is left to surmise and deduce the differences, say between, the false gospel of the Judaeizers which cannot save and a legitimate "Jewish Gospel" which supposedly could.

It would have been crucial for both Jews and Gentiles to know the difference. Otherwise Christian Jews might be tricked into going back into a Judaeized Christianity. The same could be said for believing Gentiles. Yet when exposing the errors of the Judaizers in Galatians Paul never attempts to differentiate their doctrine from the legitimate "Jewish Gospel." By not providing clear teaching on the difference between the Jewish Gospel, the Gentile Gospel and the false teahing of the Judaeizers, Paul left the faith of Christian Jews open to attack by their Gentile brethren. By failing to present a balanced teaching Paul left open the door to conflict and division.

You have claimed that the Gentiles who Peter preached to were not saved but the scripture never says anything like that. Those who received only the Baptism of John the Baptist without knowing about Jesus had to be re-Baptised and receive the Holy Spirit. There is no corresponding example of a Gentile who, having been become a Christian through Peter's preaching, subsequently had to be converted through Paul's gospel. Your doctrine predicts that this should have happened at some point but if it ever did it cannot be established on anything that is written. Again the belief in the paradigm is posited despite the absence of written evidence.

You say the Gentiles Peter preached to were not saved but according to Jesus and the prophets, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was only possible in a heart that had been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb. This was played out again and again in the ceremonial law but first let's look first at what the prophets said:

The prophets had said that the Lord would:

1. Establish a New Covenant .
Covenants are formed by the shedding of blood.

2. As a part of the NC God said He would put inside them a new (human) spirit (or heart) that would be receptive to His word (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26).

The NT fulfillment of this is taught here: Romans 8:4, 2 Corinthians 3:6-8 and Hebrews 10:6

3. God said he would put HIS SPIRIT (i.e.,the Holy Spirit) inside those that participated in the NC (Ezekiel 36:27)

Jesus spoke about the future indwelling of the Spirit because He knew from scripture it would be part of the covenant he would make (John 3:3-5). Peter and Paul taught this as well (1 Corinthians 3:6, 1 Peter 1:23)

4. God promised He would Save the people from their uncleanness (Jeremiah 31:34, Ezekiel 36:29)

The Jews were shocked that the Gentiles Peter preached to received the Holy Spirit precisely because it showed that they had become beneficiaries of a NC promise that had been made to THEM (Acts 10:45).

Peter also points out the connection between the purification of the heart by the blood of Christ) and receiving the Holy Spirit

8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

That they had been cleansed inwardly by the blood of Christ (since there is no cleansing of sin except by the shedding of blood). and part of the NC was evidenced by the fact they had received the Holy Spirit.

That the Gentiles were fellow-partakers with the Jews of what was had been bought at the cross was symbolically re-enacted every time Jewish and Gentile believers drank of the common cup of the NC. This practice which Paul called the "Lord's Supper" reminded them that they were united in the blood (covenant brethren) and that they had experienced a common forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17). The blood of Christ was the basis for their partaking of a common Spirit.

Exactly.

The reason why Madists claim Pauls gospel is different to Peters is that MAD has invented for themselves a position that even Paul did not have.
For Paul began under the same gospel as did Peter.

and Paul grew up before he was sent, in an assembly which contained several prophets, including Barnabas who carried the same gospel as the whole assembly had from the beginning of the church in Acts ch 2.

Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Act 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.


LA

 

[Cross Reference]

Paul's message wasn't different. The Jews had become so ethnocentric that they despised all no-Jews and basically treated them as dogs. The Jews would not eat and/or fellowship with non-Jews... some Rabbi's said it was a grave sin and it would render the Jew unclean.

All God did was remind Paul that salvation was always open to every human, if they had faith and believed. The Jews were only given a task that was to remind the world of a need for a messiah and blood sacrifice.

The Jews were turned so inward that the fact that the gentiles were always on an even footing was a mystery to them.

Paul was to the gentiles.

 

[Nick M]

I'm not sure of your position so I have to aks, if nothing is required of us, are we under “any” law? Can a Christian sin?

No. This is why we beg and plead people to study what Paul said. Instead of scouring his letters looking for condemnation. Sin is a state of being. We are born in sin. And death is the result.

Those of us who are baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ are baptized into his death, not our own. And who are in his death will also be in his resurrection. Reckon yourself dead to sin and alive to Christ.

 

[Nick M]

Paul was to the gentiles.

No, he went to the Jew first, then the gentile. Peter went to the Jew first, then the gentile. This is why Acts 15 and Galatians 2 can't both be true if it is proclamation of just where Paul is going.

 

[Nick M]

I'm reminded of a guy who used to post here on TOL whose user name was Sozo. He's a really smart guy and wrote some of the most terrific posts about grace but holy crap was he caught up on the word "sin". He just flatly insisted that it was no possible for a Christian to sin and based STRICTLY on his very tight definition of the word, he was right. The problem he had though is that he was nearly the only person in the world that used the word sin in such way.

For good reason. And that is found in Paul's letters where he talks about those that boast in the flesh. That isn't just circumcision. They compared and envied one another and made impossible standards to live up to. You should show no matter how "bad" one is, he can still inherit eternal life. Death comes from one person, and life is a gift, from one person.