Thanks for waiting. I was off-line trying to make some sense out of the incoherent conglomeration you provided in the incomprehensible "tome."
I've pulled out the majority of instances where you make statements concerning Paul's gospel and prophecy. So, let's get going on the topic. It seems to be the most important one to you.
Start of material from Mike Holt's posts:
WHAT PAUL REPRESENTS IS AN ADVANCED STAGE IN THE KINGDOM PROGRAM. FURTHERMORE WHAT MADE PAUL'S GOSPEL A MYSTERY AND "PAUL'S" GOSPEL IS THE FACT THAT GOD FIRST REVEALED TO PAUL THAT GENTILES WERE GOING TO BE SAVED "DESPITE" ISRAEL. BUT THIS IS ACCORDING TO PROPHECY!...AGAIN, THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN JUST AN ADVANCED STAGE IN THE EARTHLY KINGDOM PROGRAM.
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).
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).
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.
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.
. 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.
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.
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.
End of material from Mike Holt's posts.
It is hard from the above to clearly identify and separate the exact points you are trying to make with regard to Paul's gospel. So I will list what I think you are saying so as not to put anything down that is inaccurate. In other words, you can correct where I am not understanding you correctly.
1.) Paul's gospel was a futuristic part of the kingdom program for Israel, and that its function was to bring Gentiles that were not proselytes or Jews into the new covenant relationship God now has with Israel.
2.) Peter preached Paul's gospel only in action to Cornelius in Acts 10 and not in word. [Is this kind of like getting the meaning even though the words to convey such are non-existent or just the opposite?]
3.) Paul did not get "his gospel" in Arabia but got it sometime after Acts 28, according to Romans 16.
4.) Paul was part of the prophetic ministry to the Jews as evidenced by his gospel bringing Gentiles into the new covenant with God.
5.) The gospel Paul preached in Acts 13:38-39 was the same one Peter was preaching at that same time.
6.) What Peter preached in Acts 2 is the same gospel preached by Paul, Paul's is just a different flavor with the same effect.
7.) There is only one gospel protocol being preached in Galatians 2.
The only one above that makes any Biblical sense to me is #7. In Galatians 2, Peter and Paul met because of the fact Paul was sent down to Jerusalem with Barnabas to deliver relief to the brethren. Paul had already received "his gospel" in Arabia, chronologically speaking, but still had not openly preached its fullness at this time. He didn't do that until Acts 13:38-39, after his name in scripture very obviously changed from Saul to Paul in Acts 13:9.
So, in fact, as you state, the gospel of the circumcision and uncircumcision talked about in Galatians 2 was one and the same, in effect. The only resulting difference at that meeting I can see is that Paul was supposed to go to Gentiles with it, and Peter, James, and John to the Jews with it. Peter was still compelling Gentiles to live as the Jews during that time [see Galatians 2:14] whereas Paul was not.
Since your posts are not very cogent with respect to the lack of information available to paint a clear picture of the points attempted to be made for your overall argument, I am at a loss to easily identify the issues you are complaining about. It's again kind of like trying to read your mind without a clear explanation of what it is you are trying to say.
I say Paul got the revelation of "his gospel" directly from the Lord in Arabia there in Galatians 1:17. Apparently you are saying that Paul did not get "his gospel" from the Lord until sometime after Acts 28. If this is the case, how was Paul able to preach forgiveness of sins in Acts 13:38-39? Was that just some kind of a prophetic utterance by Paul, where those hearing got the meaning without the actions?
You seem to indicate Gentiles that are not proselytes become part of the new covenant with God, which new covenant now exists. Gentiles were never partakers of any covenants and promises with God, and never will be, unless they become proselytes to Judaism. The new covenant with Israel has not yet begun. When it does, it will be with the Jews, not Gentiles, unless again, Gentiles come in as proselyte partakers. That is the only way a Gentile becomes a partaker in any covenant God has with Israel.
The revelation that Gentiles would get saved as part of a program was a simultaneous event with Paul and Peter, not just Paul as you state. Peter found out during his trance, while Paul was getting it directly from the Lord in Arabia [see also 2 Cor. 12:1-4]. Paul was the "chosen vessel," the "certain vessel" Peter saw while in his trance there in Joppa.
Your sarcasm is noted. What is funny to me is that you are still struggling to find some kind of justification or reason to change the definition of a word in order to support your previous error. That's enough for a genuine laugh!
|
