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

[Bright Raven]

James 1:1

James 1:1

King James Version (KJV)

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

So, does the Jew preach to the Jew that is abroad? Yes

I doubt very seriously that Muslims are going to preach the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. However, show me something to the contrary.

 

[godrulz]

I have asked both you and Pneuma to show where Peter preached the death burial and resurrection of Jesus which you have been unable to do.

Acts 2:doh:

 

[godrulz]

One of the better explanations I've seen.

The burden of proof is on MAD for denying that Peter preached Christ crucified, risen from the dead. He saw the risen Christ and knew He died. He declared that Jesus was the Christ, God, the only way. He knew about Jn. 3:16. Peter's letters also talk about salvation leaving no doubt that he knew the ONE true gospel that Paul preached. Just because he had moments of lack of understanding, hypocrisy, compromise, etc. does not mean he had a different gospel.

MAD is flimsy and wrong in its arguments.

Stick to your former AOG Acts 2 moderate view.

 

[godrulz]

Actually, he did. But not for the same reason. So they can not go to Acts 2 to proof text when he says he was raised up to sit on the throne of David, as per the prophets, when Israel is restored.

Peter contextualized things for a Jewish audience. There is one Christ, one cross, one gospel. Peter also talked about national, eschatological issues for this audience without denying the soteriological truths of Paul's gospel that were fleshed out in more detail in other contexts. Acts is selective, transitional history, not detailed didactic teaching.

Just because the 4 Gospel writers included, omitted, emphasized different things due to different purposes, target audiences, styles does not mean there are 4 Jesus's, 4 different lives of Christ, etc.

 

[godrulz]

His day of atonement was future, and was not given a dispensation of grace. If he was, why don't you show us.

Read the context and the Greek verb tenses missed at times by KJV. The future, eschatological issues related to national, corporate Israel (Rom. 9-11; Acts 3, etc.). The fundamentals of salvation (soteriology) are the same for Jew/Gentile one in Christ post-cross, pre-Paul.

I have given you a key to resolve the MAD confusion. Use it wisely and reject your view for better ones.

 

[Nick M]

The burden of proof is on MAD for denying that Peter preached Christ crucified, risen from the dead.

No, you show us Peter at Pentecost preaching Christ crucified, as it is a good thing, and for your sin. You won't do it, you can't do it. You constantly misdirect.

 

[Nick M]

Peter contextualized things for a Jewish audience.

Then show the context and what he means you pervert. You said absolutely nothing right here. Peter put blame on the death, and said he is raised up to sit on the throne.

[godrulz;3263991]The burden of proof is on MAD for denying that Peter preached Christ crucified, risen from the dead. [/QUOTE]

What are you talking about. Which is it? You double talking snake. Are you admitting above he didn't talk about when you say it was just contextualizing for the audiance by not saying he died for sin, or are you saying he claimed death as punishment for sin?

 

[godrulz]

No, you show us Peter at Pentecost preaching Christ crucified, as it is a good thing, and for your sin. You won't do it, you can't do it. You constantly misdirect.

I see these truths in Acts 2. It is not my fault you do not. Like any other sermon, not all truths are shared in the same detail or the same way. You guys were given some verses that contradict your theory on this thread, but you rationalize them away.

I could use your myopic technique to make Paul deny things he believed (quote a section where he does not mention something he does elsewhere).

Acts 2 is not the only truths. It is consistent with Acts 2 disp and not proof of MAD. There is a reason most disps disagree with your view (the evidence is not there). Peter also said and taught things elsewhere that must be factored in. Regardless, you are rejecting the verses in Acts 2, 3, etc. that show Peter preaching the crucified, risen Christ. Just because he does not go into doctrinal detail like Paul did later (and Paul did not do it in all contexts either), does not mean he has a different gospel.

Your argument is lame (just like the one about Paul not baptizing, being the first sinner/Christian, circ salvation being future despite the verses in Peter/John I have given you guys over and over, etc.).

 

[Nick M]

I see these truths in Acts 2. It is not my fault you do not.

Then show it! Pentecost to you should be the main event and start of the Body of Christ, (which it isn't). Then he would mention it.

I could use your myopic technique to make Paul deny things he believed

Deny what? Go ahead and give an example, and show where he doesn't mention something.

Acts 2 is not all truth.

I know you don't believe the Bible, but I am suprised you admited it. Wow.

 

[Pneuma]

Does not matter BR the fact that the Gospel of the kingdom is preached throughout the whole world unto all nations shows that the Gospel of the kingdom was NOT just for the Jews.

*BR for your consideration

1 Corinthians 1:10-13
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul tells these people to be of one mind and speak the same thing, because there was division among them, some saying I am of Paul and others I am of Peter. Paul says to those who would divide in this fashion is Christ divided? Now obviously some of these people were saved by Pauls preaching and some were saved by Peters preaching so if they are to be of the same mind and SPEAK the SAME THINGS how is it Paul and Peter preached a different Gospel?




*
*Something of interest that has come about from this MAD view is that this MAD view has been embraced by the followers of Islam who use it to support their view that Jesus was the Messiah for the Jews only. Thus opening the door of salvation for them by Muhammad.


In other word there is a Jewish Messiah and an Islam Messiah.

Take about opening a can of worms.*

James 1:1

James 1:1

King James Version (KJV)

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

So, does the Jew preach to the Jew that is abroad? Yes

I doubt very seriously that Muslims are going to preach the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. However, show me something to the contrary.

BR that was not the point I raised, read it again.

And you did not make a reply to the scriptures I gave about Peter and Paul and how Paul said the people were to be of the same mind and teach the same things.

 

[Pneuma]

Peter contextualized things for a Jewish audience. There is one Christ, one cross, one gospel. Peter also talked about national, eschatological issues for this audience without denying the soteriological truths of Paul's gospel that were fleshed out in more detail in other contexts. Acts is selective, transitional history, not detailed didactic teaching.

Just because the 4 Gospel writers included, omitted, emphasized different things due to different purposes, target audiences, styles does not mean there are 4 Jesus's, 4 different lives of Christ, etc.

Which would explain why Peter and the boys spoke more on repentance then Paul did.

The Jews believed that their own righteousness by way of works to the law.

What Peter was telling the Jews was to repent (CHANGE THEIR MINDS), that works after the law was not what saved them but salvation was only found in Jesus Christ.

 

[Bright Raven]

The burden of proof is on MAD for denying that Peter preached Christ crucified, risen from the dead. He saw the risen Christ and knew He died. He declared that Jesus was the Christ, God, the only way. He knew about Jn. 3:16. Peter's letters also talk about salvation leaving no doubt that he knew the ONE true gospel that Paul preached. Just because he had moments of lack of understanding, hypocrisy, compromise, etc. does not mean he had a different gospel.

MAD is flimsy and wrong in its arguments.

Stick to your former AOG Acts 2 moderate view.

Is it? MAD has been proposed. It is now your job to prove it untrue. If wrong and flimsy in its argument, it should be easy to refute.

 

[Bright Raven]

Paul tells these people to be of one mind and speak the same thing, because there was division among them, some saying I am of Paul and others I am of Peter. Paul says to those who would divide in this fashion is Christ divided? Now obviously some of these people were saved by Pauls preaching and some were saved by Peters preaching so if they are to be of the same mind and SPEAK the SAME THINGS how is it Paul and Peter preached a different Gospel?

I'm not saying that salvation was not possible under either of the two Gospels presented. But it still must be understood that Peter's Gospel was to the Jew and Paul's to the Gentile. Otherwise why was the difference even brought forth in the scripture? If one Gospel, it should have been addressed as the Gospel to avoid any confusion, not as the Gospel of Peter or Paul.

 

[Pneuma]

I'm not saying that salvation was not possible under either of the two Gospels presented. But it still must be understood that Peter's Gospel was to the Jew and Paul's to the Gentile. Otherwise why was the difference even brought forth in the scripture? If one Gospel, it should have been addressed as the Gospel to avoid any confusion, not as the Gospel of Peter or Paul.

There is NO difference BR. Are you a KJV only person?

If not here are a few other translations that tell a different stroy.


New International Version (©1984)
On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.


New Living Translation (©2007)
Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews.


New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised



GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
In fact, they saw that I had been entrusted with telling the Good News to people who are not circumcised as Peter had been entrusted to tell it to those who are circumcised.


Douay-Rheims Bible
But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.


Darby Bible Translation
but, on the contrary, seeing that the glad tidings of the uncircumcision were confided to me, even as to Peter that of the circumcision,


Weymouth New Testament
Indeed, when they saw that I was entrusted with the preaching of the Good News to the Gentiles as Peter had been with that to the Jews--


World English Bible
but to the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the Good News for the circumcision


Young's Literal Translation
but, on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the good news of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision,

 

[godrulz]

Then show it! Pentecost to you should be the main event and start of the Body of Christ, (which it isn't). Then he would mention it.



Deny what? Go ahead and give an example, and show where he doesn't mention something.



I know you don't believe the Bible, but I am suprised you admited it. Wow.

I said Acts 2 does not contain all biblical truth that there is, not that it is not all true (it is). Either you changed things (like you have done in the past) or you failed to read properly what I wrote.

 

[godrulz]

Is it? MAD has been proposed. It is now your job to prove it untrue. If wrong and flimsy in its argument, it should be easy to refute.

I have needled it for years. It relies on KJV proof texts out of context, wrong assumptions, a faulty hermeneutic, etc. It is not a serious player in dispensational circles.

 

[godrulz]

I'm not saying that salvation was not possible under either of the two Gospels presented. But it still must be understood that Peter's Gospel was to the Jew and Paul's to the Gentile. Otherwise why was the difference even brought forth in the scripture? If one Gospel, it should have been addressed as the Gospel to avoid any confusion, not as the Gospel of Peter or Paul.

It is the same gospel to two different target audiences. Gal. 2:7 is a demarcation of ministry, not two true post-cross gospels (one would be a denial of His finished work: there is one cross, one Christ, one gospel).

I will keep saying this because it is true. The best translators of the original languages bring this out clearly. You are confused because you do not speak archaic English in KJV and are spouting a wrong interpretation of the verse by modern MAD proponents (your view contradicts major principles and other verses).

 

[Nick M]

I said Acts 2 does not contain all biblical truth that there is.

Why did the Holy Spirit leave out such big details? Different gospel (good news) for different people.

 

[godrulz]

Why did the Holy Spirit leave out such big details? Different gospel (good news) for different people.

This is your wrong assumption/conclusion. The gospel is about the person and work of Christ. Peter preached it and Paul preached it. Paul gave more details doctrinally (Paul was educated; Pete was a fisherdude) and had a different missionary ministry (expanded gospel beyond Jewish target audience).

One Christ, one Church, One Gospel, One cross, One resurrection, one death.

 

[Bright Raven]

One Christ, one Church, One Gospel, One cross, One resurrection, one death.

Let's just say this; The Gospel according to Matthew, Mark Luke, John, Peter and Paul. I'm sure there are others.