"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."
MIKE'S RESPONSE: Who said that I believe that that gospel put anybody into the heavenlies? Paul does not write about this till after Acts 28. We must not anticipate revelation. The heavenly places is not a hope till after Acts 28:28. You can't find the heavenly places prior to this. You will find a buillding not made with hands eternal in the heavens. This is the heavenly city. It will be made new and thus be the New Jerusalem after Rev. 20. But, as to these heavens...God renews his creation in the millenium (they get a renewed heaven) and then creates a brand new heaven altogether in Rev. 21. Thus, this house (the heavenly city) is eternal in the heavens (millineum, and post millenuim). NOTE: These are waiting in II.Cor. for it to COME, so that they may be CLOTHED UPON. And, just so you know that they are not in Lord's abode, it did NOT say that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Paul desired 2 things...to be absent from the body , (COMMA-seperate thought) AND to be present with the Lord. This is done corporately for this group. THEY ALL appear before God at the same time. They appear as a body which is why he says that they must all appear before the judment seat. "All appear" means "all appear", not ONE BY ONE...at least not in THIS context.
And again, if Acts is transitional, then Gal.2 does not mean what it says. It said that Peter would go to the circumcision with his crew.
Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
The circumcision in Gal. is not the spiritual circumcision. The book is about physical circumcision. You seem to have ignored and dismissed this point. Peter never acknowledged that his program was going to die because as far as he was concerned it was going to get worse, yes...but it would eventually turn out for the best for his program through Paul.
Acts 15:14-18 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
"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." "
Mike's older reply: Cornelias was a non proselyte...he perfectly fit into Paul's "my gospel". Gospel is not simply mean plan of salvation. It meant in this case good news that God would save non law abiding Gentiles.
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.
MIKES ANSWER: You said no believing in the Lord's name? Well, who's name do we believe in then if not Christ??? But they did call upon God and his name, didn't they??
Romans 10:9-13 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
And if Cornelias was supposed to be a proselyte fit, then we have real problems in Acts. God especially has a problem because he wasted his time in giving Peter a vision of unclean animals that could be partaken of. When a man was a proselyte he was identified with Israel, and would have to be regarded as a sheep. Unclean is unclean, and sheep are sheep. Sheep are not unclean. Cornelias is regarded as one of another nation, so he could not be a proselyte. That is why Peter felt uneasy going to him in the first place and that is why even though he baptized him, there is not only no mention of Cornelias proselyting-but Peter does not try to make him proselyte. The only thing that Peter said is "who can FORBID water that these should not be baptized"?
Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Paul did preach repentence for salvation and water baptism PRIMARILY. He was not sent primarliy to baptize because he was to deal with Gentiles, and they never were under the law, but...the fact that Paul is not seen baptizing after Acts 18 does not mean that God showed him that it was time to stop "since Paul had a different gospel". Quite to the contrary. Paul was IN BONDS for the better section of Acts 21-28. How could you expect him to baptize under THESE conditions??? Also, there are chapters in between chapters where Paul is not seen baptizing. Can we then say based upon traditional MidActs reasoning that in THESE places Paul "stopped baptizing"? No. But that is what any MidActs person would HAVE to do if they were consistent with their reasoning. Paul was baptized for salvation in Acts 22 and so were many of his converts. In fact, we both know quite well that Paul preaches repentence in Acts all the way through the latter end. To a Gentile, no baptism was required, but if he were an orthodox Jew, YES. Absolutely! Paul even went so far as to say that he only wished that he had not baptized the Corinthians because some might say that he had baptized in his own name. What does it mean to baptize "in the name of"? It means to baptize "by the authority of". That is why the baptismal formula of Matt. 28 is not a baptismal formula at all. They baptize in the name of the Lord...in other words, they baptize by HIS AUTHORITY. Well, Paul said that he DID NOT baptize in his own name. Obviously then, when he DID baptize it was clearly in keeping with the commands given to him for JEWS....orthodox JEWS. In verse 4 you will find Paul preaching repentence and in verse 16 you will find him tying it into what he calls "MY GOSPEL". Yet in the text below you find repentence being a change of DEEDS. It is like the pharisess, for these people works would NOT save because the faith that they had was sinful. BUT, what if a man had faith and works to go together? Like, lets just say that a man's works were the result of his God fearing faith? His works would count as faith. LAW WORKS of the flesh like a pharisee condemned, but repentence from the heart did not. It is all a matter of how the sinner looked at it. If he said "my works are good enough...God MUST LOVE ME!"...then he can just FORGET about being resurrected. BUT, if he wanted to know God and knew that he had sin that stopped this, then YES, he must repent from the heart. Back when I was MidActs I was all but taught to DENY the fact that repentence was a change of life in the book of Acts. I was told by others that in no place does he ever preach it in his epistles. Again, look below.
Romans:
2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou
art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another,
thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest
the same things.
2:2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according
to truth against them which commit such things.
2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them
which do such things, and doest the same, that thou
shalt escape the judgment of God?
2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and
forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the
goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart
treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of
wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of
God;
2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek
for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey
the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and
wrath,
2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that
doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the
Gentile;
2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that
worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the
Gentile:
2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also
perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the
law shall be judged by the law;
2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before
God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by
nature the things contained in the law, these, having
not the law, are a law unto themselves:
2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and
[their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else
excusing one another;)
2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by
Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
By the way, Peter DID preach the atonement in I.Cor.15 just a few verses down. When he preached to Cornelias that Christ gave remission of sins, and when as a temple blessing Gentile you heard that word remission. Remission comes through BLOOD. He preached that Christ had DIED for Cornelias's sins. Look at verse 11 and you will see plainly that Peter WAS preaching I.Cor.15:1-4 and nowhere did it state that the death of Christ for sins was a thing that Paul had to explain to Peter.
Heb. 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with
blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
I.Cor. 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel
which I preached unto you, which also ye have
received, and wherein ye stand;
15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what
I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I
also received, how that Christ died for our sins
according to the scriptures;
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the
third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain
unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the
apostles.
15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one
born out of due time.
15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet
to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the
church of God.
15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace
which [was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I
laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I,
but the grace of God which was with me.
15:11 Therefore whether [it were] I or they, so we preach,
and so ye believed.
The problem is that Paul preaches more than one gospel during the Acts period in the sense that the content of faith differs slightly, BUT it all DID FIT into prophecy. For instance, in Romans one you see that THIS gospel was based on prophecy. You can not make this the mystery of the New Man (spoken of after Acts 28).
ROMANS 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an
apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the
holy scriptures,)
1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was
made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power,
according to the spirit of holiness, by the
resurrection from the dead:
1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for
obedience to the faith among all nations, for his
name:
Paul calls this gospel MY GOSPEL in Rom. 16 and it was a mystery, like I said, that God would save Gentiles as GENTILES. It was not hidden in GOD, it was hidden in the OT scriptures.
Rom. 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according
to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery, which was
kept secret since the world began,
16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of
the prophets, according to the commandment of the
everlasting God, made known to all nations for the
obedience of faith:
And here is where Paul brings things concerning Christ's salvation IN PROPHECY being offered to Gentiles.
Rom. 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is
written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee
fell on me.
15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were
written for our learning, that we through patience
and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
15:5 Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to
be likeminded one toward another according to Christ
Jesus:
15:6 That ye may with one mind [and] one mouth glorify
God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15:7 Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also
received us to the glory of God.
15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the
promises [made] unto the fathers:
15:9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for [his]
mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will
confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy
name.
15:10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his
people.
15:11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud
him, all ye people.
15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of
Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the
Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
15:13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace
in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the
power of the Holy Ghost.
15:14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren,
that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all
knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
15:15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more
boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind,
because of the grace that is given to me of God,
15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the
Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the
offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable,
being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Again, all of this was exactly "AS IT IS WRITTEN". Had Paul simply said "wherefore he saith" you MIGHT have had some grounds to say that Paul was borrowing an idea, but not here. If it is AS IT IS WRITTEN then that sums it up. Here is a thought: If "as it is written" is NOT as it is written, then why IS it written-"AS IT IS WRITTEN"?
Rom. 15:21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of,
they shall see: and they that have not heard shall
understand.
Let's just say hypothetically that God DID want you to believe that these people in Romans were prophecy. How else would he say it than "as it is written"? Had he said "therefore he saith" you might be able to say that a principle, but not a dispensational truth, was being taught.
Basically, Peter preached Paul's gospel ONE TIME that we find in Act, to Cornelias. I say he preaches it, but he preaches it in ACTION more than word. The gospel "of the grace of God" is that God would save non law abiding Gentiles. Again, Cornelias is just that. He identifies BOTH what Paul is saying and what he is saying IN PROPHECY in Acts 15. Think about it. If they are NOT preaching prophecy, then why even use Cornelias to vindicate Paul's Gentiles if they were in a totally seperate dispensation? Not only would it be illogical, it would prove unscriptural based upon Romans. And it would have been very confusing to those following Peter.
"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. God did not send out Paul with his gun only half cocked! Paul was no upstart when God started him up.
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."
MIKES ANSWER: John, you are proving my point. It did not SAY what he got in Arabia or that he got anything. The text simply says that he went there. That is it. Anything else is trying to force the text to say something that it did not. For all we know, he might have been making tents. LOL We just do not know. Again, I was looking for where Paul gets anything other than directional types of revelations after Acts 13 and you did not supply one because there aren't any. By the way, just to show you that everyone accepted what Paul was preaching in Acts as a part of prophecy, look at the rest of that text you are quoting.
1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in
the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I
persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my
equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly
zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my
mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him
among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with
flesh and blood:
1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were
apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and
returned again unto Damascus.
1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see
Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the
Lord's brother.
1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before
God, I lie not.
1:21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and
Cilicia;
1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea
which were in Christ:
1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us
in times past now preacheth the faith which once he
destroyed.
1:24 And they glorified God in me.
You see, Paul preached a couple of gospels in Acts, but they all fit into prophecy. Gospel is just a generic term for good new. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no way that on the surface that people would say that Paul was preaching things outside of prophecy but that the Jews only focused on the fact that he simply "preached Christ" and that was good enough for them. The only way a person could ever come to that conclusion is IF they wanted to teach that Paul was a part of a nonprophetic ministry.
I gave you the gospel of God earlier, it is all about how Christ is raised from the dead. BUT, he later gives you, in contrast (things that differ are never equal, and they are not used interchangeably) the gospel of Christ...this is the fact that Christ is the creator. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, they DO overlap a bit, but they are not the same.
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.
MIKES REPLY: Again, that proves my point. Paul DID preach water baptism and repentence. When he was with those of Acts 17 we see him preach repentence again. Paul is not putting some into the ETERNAL PURPOSE, while others into the Purpose that is SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN. All are in a program that is identified with SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN.
Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according
to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery, which was
kept secret since the world began,
Kept secret since the world began, and where???
16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of
the prophets, according to the commandment of the
everlasting God, made known to all nations for the
obedience of faith:
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an
apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the
holy scriptures,)
"Nothing Paul does takes anything away from Peter and vice versa. There is no contradiction present whatsoever. "
I will rest on this. 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.
MIKES ANSWER: Again, you fail to point out even ONE new revelation that Paul got after Acts 13 that was doctrinal. You seem to accuse me of not believing the scriptures, yet it is okay for you to just go right on accusing me in spite of the fact that I have made a valid point with the word of God. PLEASE, show us ONE new DOCTRINAL revelation that Paul got after Acts 13. I mean, if there were MANY surely you can supply JUST ONE, right? Please?
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.
MIKES ANSWER: No, it said that his gospel was not "of man"...ie, human wisdom. That was the whole point. Ofcourse, you can say that of Peter's gospel too, can't you? Surely, that is why Paul says to Peter in this same epistle that there is only one gospel...Christ's death for sins. Gal. 2 which seems to be 2 totally different gospels to you, are not. They are overlapping. BOTH are the subject of prophecy and fit under the umbrella of Christ dying for sins. That is the point of the meeting. Peter was learning just how far God was going to go with saving Gentiles IN PROPHECY thanks to the New Covenant. The New Covenant is also made with Gentiles in as much as it deals with Christ's death for sins. Other aspects of that covenant, no...but that much, yes. You will find that the New Testament and the New Covenant are used interchangeably in the book of Hebrews. That is why it is called the blood of the everlasting covenant in the last chapter of Heb.
Gal. 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that
called you into the grace of Christ unto another
gospel:
1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble
you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any
other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed.
1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man]
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed.
1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to
please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be
the servant of Christ.
1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which
was preached of me is not after man.
1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I
taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Verses 11-12 could be said of Peter as well. Again, all of this fitting into prophecy.
Gal. 1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us
in times past now preacheth the faith which once he
destroyed.
1:24 And they glorified God in me.
Peter and Paul were justified by the same gospel...CHRIST DYING IN PROPHECY. The "we" in the text below is Peter and Paul. By the way, this is why After Acts 28:28 when the salvation is SENT unto the Gentiles that you no longer read that the blessing of Abraham is come upon ANY Gentile. They entered a dispensation where Christ is no longer identified as the seed of Abraham because this program takes you back before the foundation of the world, before there ever was an Abraham.
Gal. 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we
have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be
justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the
works of the law: for by the works of the law shall
no flesh be justified.
Gal. 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and
worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the
works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to
him for righteousness.
3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the
same are the children of Abraham.
3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel
unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be
blessed.
3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with
faithful Abraham.
432
3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel
unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be
blessed.
3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with
faithful Abraham.
This was done so that a blessing that LOOKED like prophecy, but was really the unsearchable riches of Christ, could come on Gentiles? No, but what saith the scriptures?
Gal. 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the
Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive
the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Peter acknowledged that before concerning Paul and his Gentiles because Cornelias was a Gentile. Peter said that they would be saved even as the Gentiles.
As far as II.Pet is concerned...
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
You give this verse showing that the circumcision had some question about Paul's ministry. But you never gave the context. Here it is...
2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
Paul had been writing TO THE CIRCUMCISION. Okay, now, where is this letter if we do not have it today? I know that it is Hebrews which is why Paul's salutation appears on the end of it. Paul's salutation appears at the END of his epistles to validate it. He does put a salutation on the beginning (except for Hebrews) but the token salutation came at the end.
2 Thessalonians 3:17-18 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
All of Paul's letters end with some wording of "grace be with you". You find that on Hebrews.
Hebrews 13:24-25 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you. Grace be with you all. Amen.
They were not confused because Paul was preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ. They are confused because they did not fully grasp that the provoking of the Jews by Paul's Gentiles would lead them to salvation.
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Now, if this is our dispensation TODAY, then we have real problems.
1. There is no Israel to be blinded today, in GOD's eyes they are GONE. There is no blindness in part because Israel is completely shelfed.
Romans 11:26-27 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
2. If the fullness is US. And IF this is a picture of God saving the last Gentile in this dispensation after Acts 28 THEN it would mean that by doing so Israel would get saved. BUT, we can't say that this is true for they have 7 years of prophecy afterwards! The time of Jacob's trouble! But, once you understand that Paul and his crowd expected to 1. go through the time of Jacob's trouble 2. See the day of Christ 3. See the day of the Lord ...then it fits! When it says "and so all Israel shall be saved" it tells you HOW they will be saved...through the provoking of them to jealousy.
"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,"
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.
MIKES ANSWER: 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.
So Paul is not identified with his nation anymore? Then why does he call it his nation no less than 3 times during acts?
Acts. 24:17 Now after many years I came to bring alms to my
nation, and offerings.
It is kinda like "my gospel", it was "my nation".
Acts. 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the
first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all
the Jews;
Acts. 28:19 But when the Jews spake against [it], I was
constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had
ought to accuse my nation of.
As far as Acts 26 goes, what DID God show Paul, if you kept reading it would give you the answer:
It was clearly directional as I have always stated:
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;
26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and [from] the
Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from
darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto
God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and
inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith
that is in me.
BUT here is what that entire commission was based on:
26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto
the heavenly vision:
26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at
Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea,
and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent
and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
26:21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple,
and went about to kill [me].
26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue
unto this day, witnessing both to small and great,
saying none other things than those which the
prophets and Moses did say should come:
26:23 That Christ should suffer, [and] that he should be
the first that should rise from the dead, and should
shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a
loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much
learning doth make thee mad.
26:25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but
speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
26:26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom
also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of
these things are hidden from him; for this thing was
not done in a corner.
26:27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know
that thou believest.
Not only did it state in this text that God would appear to Paul, but it shows to what end...to identify people with prophecy. I mean, if Paul said "none other things than Moses" than what else could that mean? It means, as stated, that God was saving Gentiles in prophecy and it is to that end that the gospel of God is preached by Paul with repentence as a key feature.
And the fact that God would appear to him was important. What DID God tell Paul when he Appeared to him? He told him WHERE TO GO. That was it. There is not one exception found anywhere during Paul's missionary journey. If I am wrong, then show me ONE revelation that was DOCTRINAL, not directional. I mean, besides what I would say about Acts 28:28.
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.
MIKES ANSWER: I disagree. Again, you are using "bone of his bone" etc. But, that is not fair. You have to use the books written prior to Acts 28 to prove your point. You know this. Why? It is NOT THERE prior to Acts 28. You are anticipating revelation and forcing them into Paul's early ministry. It is like the Acts 2 dispy's that try to put Eph. 2 into Acts 2. You can't anticipate revelation. The Acts believers had to use the books that were given to THEM at THAT TIME.
Jesus was the lamb that took away sins and the world HAS been reconcilled to God. Unfortunately, many are not trusting in this. SO, they will not be resurrected. BUT that does not change the fact that it is finished.
"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.
MIKES RESPONSE: You have yet to prove what Paul did while in Arabia. In your mind, this works, but not in the text. You said that there is not a difference between the Jew and the Gentile. That is TRUE as far as salvation goes in Romans, but NOT TRUE dispensationally. The middle wall of partition was still up. That wall stopped Jews and Gentiles from being reconcilled TO EACHOTHER, not to Christ. The very fact that there were 4 ordinances going on throughout Acts for the Gentiles proves that they were still slightly divided. You could see differences in dispensationalism, but not personal differences for they have been saved.
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.
MIKES RESPONSE: Paul was saved according to Acts 2:38 in Acts 9...but what I am saying is that God pulled this over to "my gospel" in as much as it showed that God was reconcilling men to him according to the scriptures. They are related. Who knows when he got the latter part nailed down? We know that he was SEPERATED to the gospel of God in Acts 13 for Gentiles. Honestly, he could not have been preaching it earlier. He never went to the non proselytes prior to this.
ROMANS 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an
apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the
holy scriptures,)
with:
Acts 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.
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.
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.
MIKES ANSWER: Well, to you it is a big deal because you have Paul putting people into 2 entirely different groups during the Acts period. The key to the problem is in the fact that your program is NOT in the book of Acts till Acts 28:28. Remission and forgiveness are used interchangeably in the bible.
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew
and hanged on a tree.
5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a
Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to
Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is]
also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that
obey him.
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I
spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all
things must be fulfilled, which were written in the
law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the
psalms, concerning me.
24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might
understand the scriptures,
24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it
behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead
the third day:
24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem.
24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
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.
MIKES ANSWER: John, I feel that you can not see the truth of what I have been saying for one reason. You have been a part of MidActs for so long that to you, this is all foreign. You now see what you want to see. But let me leave you with one final question:
When Jesus said "as it is written", you understood it to mean just that. That is was in fulfillment with PROPHECY.
Luke. 18:31 Then he took [unto him] the twelve, and said unto
them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things
that are written by the prophets concerning the Son
of man shall be accomplished.
Luke 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the
mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it
depart out; and let not them that are in the
countries enter thereinto.
21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things
which are written may be fulfilled.
LUKE 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the
prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he
found the place where it was written,
4:18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath
sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach
deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight
to the blind, to set at liberty them that are
bruised,
4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Why is it that when Christ states what "is written"it is the fulfillment of prophecy for a kingdom program on earth, but when Paul constantly uses that phrase prior to Acts 28 (and never after) then why is it not also a part of that same prophetic program? Why try to make "as it is written" NOT as it is written?? |
