ECT How is Paul's message different?

[turbosixx]

Acts 10:47-48 KJV "various washings"...

The washings of the old law were a shadow. Just as other aspects of the Way. What we see there is not from the old law but the new.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

The gospel began with baptism.
Mk. 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’”
4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[turbosixx]

I believe what the Bible says too, but it says more than I thought it did for many years.

There were always some things I had to just "put up on a shelf" because they did not agree with some of what Paul had written in his letters. It didn't concern me that much, because I figured certain things had changed after Jesus' work on the cross, and it was a "mystery" that would be revealed when the Lord returned. Then I ran into MAD, and found myself exactly where you are...not wanting to believe I'd been missing something for almost forty years that had been right there for me to see all along. I argued and fought against it until I had to admit, they had those answers I thought I could "keep up on that shelf". There were many aha moments, and there still are. I don't think there will ever be a day when another nugget is not revealed from God's Holy Scripture.

Thanks for sharing. I am here to challenge what I believe and that of others. I don't not want to miss out on truth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I see your point but I don't think they were teaching "no circumcision" but reacting to "be circumcised". I suggest the 12, as far as scripture reveals, only ran into converting Gentiles once before and circumcision was not an issue. The old law and traditions were hard to shake, especially in Jerusalem. Heb. 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

I don't believe observing things that came before is sin or against the gospel for those who are infants in Christ but just shows immaturity, Rom. 14. I think one should quit those things as they move on to maturity.

When did the old law come to an end?

Here's the thing:

Circumcision is not inherently wrong, nor is it prohibited by Paul... Except for religious reasons.

Circumcising your child for cultural or medical reasons is not prohibited. However, Paul is warning against circumcising for religious reasons, ie, becoming a Jew, because when you circumcise for religious reasons, you are placing yourself under the law, and are then a debtor to keep the whole law, such as all the feasts, the Sabbath, etc.

Why?

Because circumcision is a symbol for the Jews to separate them from the rest of the world, and only the Jews would circumcise to indicate their status as "God's people". And God's people were required to follow certain laws which God himself put in place (not talking about the moral laws here), to remind them to trust in Him.

The twelve never stopped teaching "be circumcised" (aka keep the law) because they never went to anyone other than the Jews. Paul on the other hand taught don't be circumcised, because then you'll be required to keep the whole law, which conflicts with "you are not under law, but under grace."

 

[whitestone]

The washings of the old law were a shadow. Just as other aspects of the Way. What we see there is not from the old law but the new.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

The gospel began with baptism.
Mk. 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’”
4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

In Acts 21 The "purification" was Paul offering an offering for sin or being cleansed according to the law for uncleanliness? I'm sleepy, good night...

 

[turbosixx]

Here's the thing:

Circumcision is not inherently wrong, nor is it prohibited by Paul... Except for religious reasons.

Circumcising your child for cultural or medical reasons is not prohibited. However, Paul is warning against circumcising for religious reasons, ie, becoming a Jew, because when you circumcise for religious reasons, you are placing yourself under the law, and are then a debtor to keep the whole law, such as all the feasts, the Sabbath, etc.

Why?

Because circumcision is a symbol for the Jews to separate them from the rest of the world, and only the Jews would circumcise to indicate their status as "God's people". And God's people were required to follow certain laws which God himself put in place (not talking about the moral laws here), to remind them to trust in Him.

The twelve never stopped teaching "be circumcised" (aka keep the law) because they never went to anyone other than the Jews. Paul on the other hand taught don't be circumcised, because then you'll be required to keep the whole law, which conflicts with "you are not under law, but under grace."

I agree for the most part except for the 12 teaching "keep the law". We can assume and draw conclusions but I'm not aware of it. I don't see anywhere in scripture, after Pentecost, where they do.

I'm of the opinion that since they were in Jerusalem they continued in the traditions to win the Jews just as Paul circumcised Timothy to appease the Jews so that they would listening to the gospel.

When Peter did convert a Gentile, circumcision is not mentioned in scripture.

 

[turbosixx]

In Acts 21 The "purification" was Paul offering an offering for sin or being cleansed according to the law for uncleanliness? I'm sleepy, good night...

Good night. Here is a question for tomorrow.

Not in 21 but why did he do it in Acts 18:18? After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow.

In your understanding, when did the old law officially end?

 

[Cross Reference]

Why again wouldn't the Christian, if he so desires for religious reason[ing], circumcize his child? I don't understand.

 

[Clete]

When James was being pastoral about this issue, he was not necessarily disagreeing with what Paul had said. After all, he used the word faith. If he did not meant that word, he would have used another. But obviously a faith that justifies is very grateful and does work for God.

James is not talking about sanctification (i.e. that which come as a result of being saved), that's your doctrine but it isn't what James was discussing.

Is a marriage a piece of paper? No, so there has to be a fire. That's all James is saying. A body without a spirit is dead, even though it is a body. He is not the apostle of 'spirit' while Paul is the apostle of 'body.'

You'd have made a great Jew.

There are not two gospels here, there are not two sets of letters, there are not two doctrines, and there are not two programs one for Israel and one for anyone else. Those things are plain as well.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You have your doctrine, I have the bible...

Galatians 2:12 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 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. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
​

Note two gospels. One committed to Paul, the other Peter.
And two groups: The gentile and the Circumcised.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I don't know any Baptists, so who did you insult?

I attend a Baptist church. It wasn't an insult, just an observation. I could have picked any one of at least half a dozen different groups. The point isn't the group, the point is that you pick one group of scriptures (problem texts) and interpret them in light of some other group of scriptures (proof texts). In this case, you do it the way the Baptists do. Another group has the same two groups of scriptures they just swap them around, your problem texts become their proof texts and your proof texts become their problem texts. It's just two sides of the same errant coin. The error being the failure to rightly divide the Word of Truth. The error isn't which group of texts you choose as proof texts, its that you have to choose at all.

Clete

 

[Clete]

but it is a loaded statement in the letter. don't get too confined, constricted, narrow. Don't lift out one line as though there was no framework before it. It means if you do what the Judaizers are saying to do, Christ is no value. If you do it to worship God after becoming a Christian for your own reasons, and definitely not as some kind of addition to Christ, go ahead. Hopefully insurance will cover the procedure.

The Judaizers, D'ists should hear this, preached the other gospel that was prohibited. there was another gospel out there and it was anathemaed by Paul. To show how obtuse D'ists are, all they do all day is find a 2nd 'Christian' one in Galatians instead of the conflict behind the letter!

IP here is really becoming a valuable example of everything I've said people do with the scriptures. He has here pulled out the context trump card that I had mentioned a few posts ago.

You're context objection doesn't work here IP because that single sentence pretty well sums up Paul's entire ministry. If you had to boil Paul's message down into one single sentence that communicated the difference between what he preached and what the Twelve (and Jesus) preached, that sentence would be it.

In fact, if one wanted to get a really good understanding of just how doctrinal debates are so easily resolved within the Mid-Acts Dispensational paradigm, just look at the issue of circumcision in the New Testament. If you understand how the first century Christians resolved the issue of circumcision, what you'll understand is Acts 9 Dispensationalism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Note two gospels. One committed to Paul, the other Peter.
And two groups: The gentile and the Circumcised.

Here is what Clete said at another place:

Both gospel preach that God became a Man, the He died in payment for our sins and that He rose from the dead.

No, both gospels did not preach that during the Acts period. The gospel which the Twelve preached at Luke 9:6 say nothing about the Lord Jesus dying in payment for our sins because at the time they were preaching that gospel they did not even know that he was going to die (Lk.18:33-34).

Clete has me on ignore and the reason is simple. He has no answer to the points I make that proves that he is in error.

He knows that he will look foolish if he even attempts to defend his idea that both gospels preach that the Lord Jesus died in payment for our sins since the Twelve did not even know he was going to die when they preached a gospel at Luke 9:6.

So he just tries his best to put me down in the hope that no one will see his many blunders. He has no interest in an intelligent discussion on this subject.

 

[Clete]

I suggest your last post was about Paul and not “his” gospel. He is just a messenger.

I've been sort of waiting for you to say something like this..

Romans 2:16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
2 Timothy 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel,
Ephesians 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
1 Corinthians 4:16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me.
1 Corinthians 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.​

There are other such passages but that'll be sufficient to establish the point.

You say they are similar but not the same. Can you prove, without the epistles, that the gospel Paul preached to make members of the body is any different than the gospel Peter preached?

Huh? Without the epistles?

Well, lets see, without the epistles...

That means Acts only.

In Acts you have:
The Twelve receiving the Holy Spirit in continued fulfillment of Jewish prophesy.
Peter preaching and converting 3000 people.
Stephen showing the Jews with "irresistible wisdom" (a sign of the end times) that Jesus was their Messiah.
The Jews officially rejecting Jesus as the Messiah with the execution of Stephen after which he saw Jesus standing in heaven (standing usually preceding the pronouncement of judgment)
The first person Divine conversion of Saul.
Peter all but physically forced by God to kill and eat unclean animals.
Paul preaching first to the Jews
The Jews rejecting the message.
Paul turning instead to the Gentiles.

The books of Acts is all about the transition from the Peter and the Twelve (i.e. Israel) to Paul and the Gentiles. And I'd say that Peter's being made to eat unclean foods is a really good indication that something had changed. Something that wasn't intuitively understood by Peter, don't you agree?

Further, Peter and the Twelve were believers and Paul explicitly stated that God had not cut them when He cut off Israel as a nation, so where is the need for Paul? Where is the need to give Paul the gospel by revelation and send him (a Jew just like Peter and the Twelve) to the Gentiles if it was the same gospel?

Do you see my point?

There is no need for Acts if Paul's message was the same. There's no need for Paul at all for that matter. He could just as easily (perhaps more easily) have been converted in a normal way and been a convert like all the other converts and still been a leader and an evangelist. There just no need for all the fireworks and drama.

How can they preach the same thing and make different “Christians”?

That cannot and did not preach the same thing!

Why do you keep asking me this? You don't get to just ignore the epistles.

I will be glad to go on to the epistles but I first want to establish what they heard and believed to become Christians.

I don't think it is possible to establish such a thing without the epistles beyond what I just got through explaining.
Why would you want to do so? What possible motive could you have to want to avoid the epistles in asking such a question as "What is the gospel?"

The book of Acts is not about the gospel, at least not directly. It's purpose is not to present the gospel but to present a history of the transition away from the Twelve and Israel and to Paul and the gentiles. A history that is critical to the acceptance of Paul as a legitimate Apostle which only makes sense if Paul's message was substantially different than that of Peter and the Twelve.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Interplanner]

Those who were believers during the old covenant knew that Christ would die. That's the typology of the sacrifice system, Dan 9, Isaiah 53, and others. So when John B arrived saying 'See! The lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world' it shows that everyone there knew his death was essential.

What Lk 18's denial scene is about is the same thing as Peter individually. They did not want to know about it. We underestimate the force of the zealots here. They earnestly sought the conquering Messiah, and harassed those who spoke of a sacrificial death and a reign that was already in motion. Then watch the crowd at the trial of Christ vote verbally in favor of a zealot and against the sacrifice of Christ. What does that tell you?

 

[Clete]

What is Paul's point in Romans 4? Why does he bring up Abraham?

You are asking me to explain Paul?

There is no need to explain, just read it. It means PRECISELY what the words say.

 

[Interplanner]

Why again wouldn't the Christian, if he so desires for religious reason[ing], circumcize his child? I don't understand.

"Religious reasons" is getting ambiguous. Do you mean 'to be justified' or 'to honor God?' But either way, we know that even as far back as Deuteronomy the concept of 'uncircumcised in heart' was more important than the physical ritual.

 

[Interplanner]

IP here is really becoming a valuable example of everything I've said people do with the scriptures. He has here pulled out the context trump card that I had mentioned a few posts ago.

You're context objection doesn't work here IP because that single sentence pretty well sums up Paul's entire ministry. If you had to boil Paul's message down into one single sentence that communicated the difference between what he preached and what the Twelve (and Jesus) preached, that sentence would be it.

In fact, if one wanted to get a really good understanding of just how doctrinal debates are so easily resolved within the Mid-Acts Dispensational paradigm, just look at the issue of circumcision in the New Testament. If you understand how the first century Christians resolved the issue of circumcision, what you'll understand is Acts 9 Dispensationalism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Dont' see how you can single out Paul here. When Peter wrote I Peter 1:18 it was the same message: they had a futile tradition from the forefathers. The same is found in Hebrews 10:3: the annual reminder of sins.

The narratives of Acts is not official apostolic doctrine. It is the account of making the transition to Christian faith. If you want official apostolic doctrine, you have to go with the sermons and the letters.

That's why some 'location' within Acts' narrative as definitive of a theology is a mistaken pursuit.

 

[Interplanner]

You are asking me to explain Paul?

There is no need to explain, just read it. It means PRECISELY what the words say.

It would help to know what James thought of Abraham's mistakes, wouldn't it? (Calling Sarah his sister).

 

[Interplanner]

I've been sort of waiting for you to say something like this..

Romans 2:16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
2 Timothy 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel,
Ephesians 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
1 Corinthians 4:16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me.
1 Corinthians 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.​

There are other such passages but that'll be sufficient to establish the point.


Huh? Without the epistles?

Well, lets see, without the epistles...

That means Acts only.

In Acts you have:
The Twelve receiving the Holy Spirit in continued fulfillment of Jewish prophesy.
Peter preaching and converting 3000 people.
Stephen showing the Jews with "irresistible wisdom" (a sign of the end times) that Jesus was their Messiah.
The Jews officially rejecting Jesus as the Messiah with the execution of Stephen after which he saw Jesus standing in heaven (standing usually preceding the pronouncement of judgment)
The first person Divine conversion of Saul.
Peter all but physically forced by God to kill and eat unclean animals.
Paul preaching first to the Jews
The Jews rejecting the message.
Paul turning instead to the Gentiles.

The books of Acts is all about the transition from the Peter and the Twelve (i.e. Israel) to Paul and the Gentiles. And I'd say that Peter's being made to eat unclean foods is a really good indication that something had changed. Something that wasn't intuitively understood by Peter, don't you agree?

Further, Peter and the Twelve were believers and Paul explicitly stated that God had not cut them when He cut off Israel as a nation, so where is the need for Paul? Where is the need to give Paul the gospel by revelation and send him (a Jew just like Peter and the Twelve) to the Gentiles if it was the same gospel?

Do you see my point?

There is no need for Acts if Paul's message was the same. There's no need for Paul at all for that matter. He could just as easily (perhaps more easily) have been converted in a normal way and been a convert like all the other converts and still been a leader and an evangelist. There just no need for all the fireworks and drama.


That cannot and did not preach the same thing!

Why do you keep asking me this? You don't get to just ignore the epistles.


I don't think it is possible to establish such a thing without the epistles beyond what I just got through explaining.
Why would you want to do so? What possible motive could you have to want to avoid the epistles in asking such a question as "What is the gospel?"

The book of Acts is not about the gospel, at least not directly. It's purpose is not to present the gospel but to present a history of the transition away from the Twelve and Israel and to Paul and the gentiles. A history that is critical to the acceptance of Paul as a legitimate Apostle which only makes sense if Paul's message was substantially different than that of Peter and the Twelve.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The last paragraph started well, but there was no substantial difference; Acts 2-3 and 13 match very well, except to those with the bizarre concepts of D'ism. The reason for the document Acts was part of demonstration for Paul's attorney in hearings that he was not out to see the Roman government crumble.

There is also no substantial difference in the message of Hebrews and Paul (if it is not by him) due to the 'being made perfect' expression. The perfection that is meant there was another way (kind of a priestly way) of indicating acceptability to fellowship, which justification meant in other circles. 'Perfection' is used by Paul, as you know, in Phil 3:12+ and disclaimed as far as being an actual accomplishment. It is once again a 'reckoned' or 'credited' or 'applied' status, by faith.

Back to your theory of a substantial difference to be overcome, isn't the supposed or perceived difference between them substantially closed at the end of ch 15; so then what is the rest of the document (nearly half of it) for? And since Paul is not even on the scene until ch 8, you are down to 25% of the material.

 

[Interplanner]

Where is the need to give Paul the gospel by revelation and send him (a Jew just like Peter and the Twelve) to the Gentiles if it was the same gospel?




Where is the need? The need is in the incident in Gal 2. Peter was in the wrong. I think the fact that you are saying this means once again that the stupidity of the D'ist handling of Gal 2 has got you thinking that there was a separate gospel for Jews and two gospels at the end of the day, instead of realizing that Peter was doing the wrong one after a while. (The affirmation of Peter in v7 about the one Gospel must change to condemnation of Peter later--later in the incident and later in Gal 2).

To add to the mistaken nature of the question, we have the declaration of Peter in Acts 15:7 that God chose him to speak to the Gentiles. I hardly ever hear about this from the two-gospel two-timers, as though there was some mistake in the text (that view of the text always lingers over many texts as used by D'ists, I find, because they are suddenly realizing that their in-doctrine is not in the passages.)

 

[Interplanner]

I agree for the most part except for the 12 teaching "keep the law". We can assume and draw conclusions but I'm not aware of it. I don't see anywhere in scripture, after Pentecost, where they do.

I'm of the opinion that since they were in Jerusalem they continued in the traditions to win the Jews just as Paul circumcised Timothy to appease the Jews so that they would listening to the gospel.

When Peter did convert a Gentile, circumcision is not mentioned in scripture.

the approach of the apostles is given in Acts 15:19: it was a matter of not making it difficult for Gentiles by reducing things to four lines. Jews were still welcome to practice what they wanted, but they couldn't help but realize it was fading away.