"In fact, Peter never did accept Paul's gospel of grace, nor did the other 11 apostles ever receive Paul's "my gospel." "
How did you come to this conclusion? In fact, they even gave to Paul the right hands of fellowship. The gospel of the grace of God is nothing more than the fact that God would save non proselyted Gentiles. This was in accordance with prophecy according to Romans 10(see last 7 verses).
CLEMENS ANSWER: There are two significant and very obvious reasons why the apostles are not "in Christ" as those under Paul's gospel are "in Christ." The apostles will physically sit over the twelve tribes as individuals in the future, and, each of the twelve will be sitting with the Lord at the supper feast as individuals. Not a one of them is "in Christ" as "members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," whereas those in under Paul's gospel are even additionally seated "together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
"Cornelius into His body just because Paul got that gospel personally in Arabia, at the same time Peter was in Joppa, ignores the fact that Peter had nothing to do with Paul's "my gospel." "
Cornelias was a non proselyte...he perfectly fit into Paul's "my gospel".
CLEMENS ANSWER: Nowhere in scripture is it evident that Cornelius was presented with Paul's gospel. Cornelius heard what everyone hearing from Peter heard: repent, call or believe on the name of the Lord, get water baptized, and keep the laws Peter laid down, get sins remitted until the time of the second coming [Acts 3:19]. That protocol associated with Peter's gospel of the circumcision is completely different from that which was received by Paul: no repentance, no calling or believing on the Lord's name, no water baptism, no works, just absolute simple faith and trust in the fact that Jesus Christ died for one's sins, as explained in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, for complete, immediate forgiveness of sins. The record of Peter's interaction with Cornelius shows a "no fit" of Cornelius under Paul's gospel, but rather a perfect proselyte "fit" into becoming another believer along with those believing what Peter, James and John were preaching.
"He had no idea whatsoever what was going on with Paul in Arabia, and even Paul did not immediately understand all of what was presented or given to him by the Lord in Arabia. "
Again, this ASSUMES that Paul got his revelation in Arabia; that can not be proven. As far as Paul's progressive revelations are concerned, they were all directional in the book of Acts except when the brethren revealed to Paul in Acts 15 the problem with the Judiazers. I would challenge anyone to show me conclusively that Paul received a DOCTRINAL/THEOLOGICAL revelation once he BEGAN his missionary journeys.
CLEMENS ANSWER: There is no assumption regarding what Paul was given in Arabia. It is again very clear in scripture what and where Paul got his gospel, if one reads and believes Galatians 1:11-12, 15-17: "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. . . . But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia."
CLEMENS ANSWER: The most obvious example of Paul using "his gospel" first, and then reverting back to preaching the same gospel Peter preached, can be seen in Acts 18:6-9. First you see Paul preaching "his gospel" to Jews in a synagogue in verses 4-6. Then you see Paul going to stay with another Jew and his family, verse 7, and going to another synagogue again wherein he baptized Crispus in verse 8. We know from 1 Cor. 1:14, that Crispus was one of the individuals personally baptized by Paul. It is clear that after preaching "his gospel" to the first group of Jews and they blasphemed, Paul said he would go to the Gentiles with that message "henceforth." Well, the next place Paul went he was again in the presence of Jews, not Gentiles, so he, keeping his word, preached Peter's gospel of the circumcision instead of his "my gospel." This is why Paul baptized Crispus in verse 8. The protocol of Peter's gospel required a water baptism, whereas Paul did not baptize when he preached his gospel.
"Nothing Paul does takes anything away from Peter and vice versa. There is no contradiction present whatsoever. "
That is my point, they are on the same page at this point. They are NOT on the same page after Acts 28 because that is when God revealed the mystery that was "hid in God" to Paul. Paul just had, until Acts 28:28, a different side to the same prophetic program as Peter. Peter was NOT TRAINED to know what God would do with non proselyted Gentiles. He was STRICTLY a minister of the circumcision except for one small point-Cornelias. With the conversion of Cornelias, Paul was free to take the New Testament to the Gentiles.
CLEMENS ANSWER: Peter and Paul were only on the same page from the time Paul accepted the gospel preached by Peter as presented to him by Ananias in Acts 9, up through until the time Paul got "his gospel" in Arabia, which is simultaneous in time with Acts 10:10-15. Once Paul got his gospel directly from the Lord, he then progressively gained more and more understanding, realizing that his gospel provided believers with complete, instantaneous forgiveness of sins, as that which he openly preached first in Acts 13:38-39.
CLEMENS ANSWER: You seem completely perplexed as to the actual point in time where God revealed His change in program and to whom the change information was given. If you believe the bible, as written, without reading anything extraneous into it, common sense dictates that Paul was the instrument used by the Lord to effect the change in program. So where and when did the Lord actually cause this change to begin? Galatians 1 delineates clearly that Paul got another gospel directly from the Lord in Arabia. That actual point in time, chronologically speaking, was simultaneous with Paul being in Arabia and Peter being in Acts 10:10-15. That instant in time is where the dispensation of mystery was initially revealed to Paul, not Peter. Peter never fully understood what was going on as evidenced by 2 Peter 3:16. Acts 28:28 is the demarcation line where Peter's gospel was put on the shelf and Paul's took over, for approximately the last 2000 years.
"Obviously if Paul was given a gospel, "my gospel," and that gospel differed from Peter's gospel of the circumcision, putting believers of Paul's gospel into the position of being "bones" and "flesh" of the Lord,"
A gospel is one thing, a calling is another. Nobody was said to be bone of Christ's bone till after Acts 28. You were referring to Ephesians. Paul preached a few different "gospels" during the Acts period. All gospel means is just good news. The plan of salvation would be the same, but the content of faith differs. If you study out Romans 1 you will see that the gospel of Christ is the creation work of God. But the gospel of God is the fact that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was God.
CLEMENS ANSWER: Paul and Peter each had different callings. Paul is not in with the nation of believers after the Galatians One Arabian dispensation of the gospel given him. The gospel Peter preached in Acts 2 was the same one Paul personally accepted in Acts 9. The gospel Paul got in Galatians 1 was never preached by Peter, James or John, etc. Paul, however, knew and preached both gospels, as required under the circumstances he found himself in at different times [for example, as explained above for Acts 18:6-9]. This fact is something that is further reinforced by Acts 26:16: "But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee." Both is another way of saying "two." Paul was a minister and witness of TWO gospels throughout Acts from Acts 9 through Acts 28 that either got people "in Christ" with the believing part of the nation of Israel, or "in Christ" as bones and flesh and seated in heavenly places.
CLEMENS ANSWER: Anyone, be he a Jew or Gentile, anywhere between the chronological points in time of Acts 10:10-15 and Acts 28, that believed the gospel Paul called "my gospel," got instantaneous, complete forgiveness of his sins, was sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of his redemption, could not lose his salvation as dispensed under Paul's gospel, and was immediately placed "in Christ" as bones of His bones and flesh of His flesh, seated in heavenly places. Paul was the absolute first person to receive it directly from the Lord himself in Arabia, and those next able to receive that same gospel were present within the Acts 13:38-39 chronological point in time. The plans of salvation are not the same for both gospels. Acts 3:19 is very clear about when those believing Peter's gospel get forgiveness of their sins. Those under Paul's gospel get such immediately when they believe. The differences are distinct and many between both gospels present throughout Acts.
"1 Timothy 1:16 explains the fact of what is going on with Paul's "my gospel" and why Paul was the "first" as the pattern to those believing the new gospel hereinafter it was given to Paul. Peter was never, and forever will never be, a part of what was given to Paul in Arabia. "
Nobody can conclusively prove what was given to Paul in Arabia. Paul MIGHT have gotten all of the doctrine for his Acts ministry at once for all we know. What God did with Paul is to show that if Paul could be saved, then any non law abiding GENTILE could be saved...in other words Paul is saying "If God can save ME, then God can save ANYBODY!"
CLEMENS ANSWER: Conclusive proof is God's Word. Paul got "his gospel" from the Lord right there in Arabia as the text clearly says he did. That is as conclusive as it gets as far as words are concerned in the English language. What the Lord gave to Paul was good for anyone, as there was now no difference between Jew or Gentile as far as gospels were concerned.
As an x-midacts dispy I understand your delima. I was taught that the mystery given was basically GRACE and that Peter did not preach the cross. But, look at this...
I.Pet. 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he
suffered, he threatened not; but committed [himself]
to him that judgeth righteously:
2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the
tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto
righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now
returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
I.Pet. 4:10 As every man hath received the gift, [even so]
minister the same one to another, as good stewards of
the manifold grace of God.
5:12 By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I
suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and
testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein
ye stand.
CLEMENS ANSWER: If I believed what I was "taught," I'd still be lost. Believing what the Bible says is what one has to believe no matter what one is taught that may be contrary to the Book. What appears to you as being a dilemma for me is actually a clear statement of your lack of understanding concerning the chronological history of events as played out in Acts. Without a thorough, precise placement of each event as it unfolded, those that are "unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures," like the content of Paul's epistles and how they relate back to what is going on in Acts. If one cannot even identify in scripture when and where Paul got "his gospel," how could one correctly place the context of what is written in Paul's epistles as that applies to individuals throughout Acts and beyond? Such would be impossible, or at the very least rife with misunderstanding and doctrinal errors galore.
So, they had a standing in grace and the work of the cross.
Peter knew this before Paul was saved. In Luke 24 Jesus Christ explains the cross. Cornelias hears about Christ's death and remission of sins. According to Hebrews, remission is through the blood. Therefore, as a Jew, Peter HAD to have understood this.
CLEMENS ANSWER: Remission is not forgiveness. Study the chronological history of events. That is the key to understanding scripture. Time and location are the only two variables you can "hang your hat on" as being exactly the same then as now with respect to events in Acts. History is history by definition, and scripture has the events recorded precisely as they happened throughout Acts.
CLEMENS ANSWER: If you are going to place your faith in "what you have been taught" more so than what is recorded in scripture, you do so at your own peril. The Holy Spirit is not a party to that kind of an approach to scripture. I'm sure you know that, unless you have been fooling yourself all these years. I don't know if this is the case, and it doesn't matter. What does matter is what fits that Book. And, from what you have been telling me, I don't see a fit that even comes close to what the words in the text clearly describe.
|
