Posted on 11/21/2013 11:02:12 AM PST by redleghunter
Paul calls for an examination in another passage and I want you to notice this. It's the last chapter of II Corinthians, Chapter 13, and verse 5, I want you to note what it says, Il Corinthians 13:5, just the first sentence, "'Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith; (prove it, is what he's saying) prove yourselves." You say to someone "are you a Christian?" 'Yes.' What do you base that on? 'Well so many years ago I made a decision.' That means nothing. The Bible never verifies anybodies salvation on the basis of the past, It's always on the basis of the present, And if you don't have the evident proof of real salvation in your life now, there's a very real possibility you're not a Christian at all, no matter what happened in the past. So examine yourself, to se whether you are in the faith prove yourself. You say John' how do do that? How do I know if I'm really a Christian? I believe! (Maybe you've even been baptized.) I go to church, I, think I'm a Christian.' Look with me Matthew Chapter 5 and let's find out. When Jesus had arrived on the scene, the Jews had already decided what right-living was all about. They had already built their own code. They had already developed their own system, and they had it pretty cu and dried and pretty well laid out that this is what it was to be holy, and it was all external, it was all self-righteousness and works, and Jesus came and shattered that thing and He said I want to give you a new standard for living.
(Excerpt) Read more at gty.org ...
Rather, as i pointed out, the Lord did not say only 12 apostles would occupy the 12 thrones, and in fact every overcomer will sit with Christ in His throne, (Rv. 3:21), and the Lord said all the faithful will sit in judgment.
The question is why do you think a speculative answer supports Peter preaching a different gospel? So far you have provided zero proof of this, while i have provided abundance of texts showing they both preached salvation by repentant faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus. In response you move on to "Why was Paul made an Apostle?" "why the need for Paul," as if that would establish your premise, but which i have answered as it does not.
?” Don’t you get it? THIS is exactly why rightly dividing God’s Word is imperative.
Rather, the premise that you are rightly dividing God’s Word is your argument, that despite the abundance of texts showing Peter preaching the same essential gospel, you reject all evidence to the contrary as not rightly dividing God’s Word but you see a division btwn gospels which is not really shown to be there.
Without that, we just speculate, ignore, sweep under the rug, or flat out deny what God has CLEARLY SAID.
Sorry to be harsh, but this is indeed much what i see you doing, while what the evidence shows is that Peter preached the same essential gospel as Paul, "Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:21)
And which, as said, was because Israel rejected Christ as their Messiah, and with it the theocratic kingdom on earth, thus the appeal by Peter to the house of Israel was to "save yourselves from this untoward generation," of which most of Israel consisted, but a message of grace preached not only to them by to them that are a far off, as many as fear God.
That is what Scripture most clearly reveals.
Well .. I believe the OT “deliverance” was totally different from the deliverance of the NT .. mainly because Jesus brought a TOTAL DELIVERANCE, instead of a yearly ceremony where they sprinkled the blood of animals on the altar in the Temple for “deliverance”, and forgiveness.
In the NT, the Savior (Jesus Christ) shed His own blood, for the whole package (redemption forever - no longer having to use the blood of animals); it was forever, and it was available to “who ever will”.
I think I like the NT best.
Indeed, presuming he forsook all to follow Christ and was an overcomer, as that is what Scripture says, as shown. (Matthew 19:27-30; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Rv. 3:21)
It is clear that having two gospels preached needs to be a fact to fit the eschatolgy you adhere to. Very much the same how those who see "church" must make NT fit their history and eschatology. That I am afraid is the danger of letting things future influence how things were actually in the past.
None of your references established two different gospels. I have presented many references and so have others on how the gospel is for Jew and Greek (Gentile). That is a hard fact to overcome because both Peter and Paul say the same thing (Acts 10 and Acts 15).
Since you do not want to explain the sources for the two gospel theory, I will have to assume it either comes from the Emergent Church or an ultra-dispensationialist or hyper-dispensationalist model.
I have to say it all does not add up. If there is also a kingdom gospel, where is it today? What church or assembly holds to that kingdom gospel? If it was superceded why did Peter and the 11 continue to preach a superceded gospel among the Jews after Paul received another gospel? Where are these kingdom gospel followers today?
We do have this from Hebrews 2:
Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
2 Tim. 2:15 is your friend.
So where will Paul be when the Kingdom is set up? Where in the Kingdom is his throne? It's not with Christ and the 12. Christ said there would be 12 thrones beside His.
In the Book of Acts you will find several two-somes: law and grace. A kingdom of believers and a Body of believers. The gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision. Peter's vision. Paul's vision. Peter's message. Paul's message. Earthly inheritances and heavenly inheritances. Physical and spiritual. "Time past", "But Now".
But I'll leave you with your own way of explaining the differences. You would be wise to follow 2 Tim. 2:15. So far you seem to be completely in the dark, but happy. I hope that remains enough.
I like the NT very much indeed:) As we find out in the NT the apostles draw from the OT to testify of Jesus as Messiah.
I will say that no one here is presenting a gospel where human works are any part of salvation. The NT is clear on that everywhere. All the epistles, all of them, have the apostles calling us to a holy life and obedience to our Master Jesus Christ. To somehow say that the 10 commandments were nailed to the Cross is absurd. Paul tells us the Law (the moral Law) is our tutor. What was nailed to the Cross was the ceremonial law. And it is that ceremonial that was nailed to the cross. Again the Law is our tutor. We must be dragged up the rocky cliffs of Mt Sinai and understand we fall short of God's Holiness to understand the grace of deliverance given to us as a gift on Mt Zion. So if that is seen as works based salvation, then the impression is incorrect.
Finally, which gospel is the angel in Revelation 14 bringing to earth? Peter's kingdom gospel or Paul's grace gospel as you have divided them?
6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”
"Everlasting" means something.
Yes they did .. and it was especially helpful for those they were witnessing to, who were still in the Jewish faith. And, over the years, I have been very blessed to meet and converse with several Messanic Jews.
That, which was addressed before but seemingly ignored, is the type of reasoning that must be resorted to defend this notion of two gospels, that of Peter and Paul. To reiterate and add,
Paul actually only uses the term "my gospel" thrice, (Rm. 2:16; 16:25; 2Tim. 2:8) but perhaps that counts as "several," yet he also thrice refers to it as "our gospel," (2Cor. 4:3; 1Ths. 1:5; 2Ths. 2:14)
Moreover, Paul never states there was another gospel except one that makes one accursed (Gal. 1:6-9) which means Peter was in Acts 2 if why you hold is true.
Moreover, where Paul uses "my gospel" there is nothing manifestly distinctive about it from that of Peter, who also preached Christ as judge and the gospel as reveled with the scriptures of the prophets supporting, and in fact the most specific thing "my gospel" includes is the "that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel." (2 Timothy 2:8)
Peter and Paul both preached the gospel was to not only the Jews but to those who were afar off, as the Lord commanded, even if yet ignorant of what all this would mean.
And they both preached receiving forgiveness and the Spirit by, by faith, and trying to make repentance a work indicts Paul as well, as that is how he describes His gospel, (Acts 20:21; cf. 26:20) for one cannot believe unless there is repentance, from unbelief to faith, and in essence what that basically will mean.
And when it was time to personally engage in that universal call, God did not send Peter to Paul to learn about grace, but he gave him a disturbing vision about what to eat. (Acts 10) Had Paul enlightened him as to the new status of Gentiles as full fellowheirs with them, then the vision would not have been needed.
And the gospel Peter then preached to Gentiles was still that of repentant faith, which was confessed in baptism.
But while Peter understood that God purified all such hearts by faith, to Paul however was revealed the theological fulness of the new covenant, and the mystery by which "the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." (Ephesians 3:6)
Please put on your thinking caps here.
Indeed, prayerfully. Another gospel would be a false one, but Peter and Paul preached the same essential gospel, and thus affirmed each other.
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners: of whom I am chief. HOWBEIT FOR THIS CAUSE I obtained mercy (WHAT CAUSE?), that IN ME FIRST Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, FOR A PATTERN
Yes, as the foremost or chief (prōtos) sinner then Paul gets foremost, chief place (prōtos) as an example of the longsuffering of Christ. Not as one with a new gospel.
Hereafter WHAT? indeed. With so much depending on one word you would think those doing so would look it up and see how it is used. Go find where else "mellō" (G3195) is rendered "hereafter" in the KJV you are using (which is all i myself use, if not uncritically) out of the 82 times it is used.
In reality there is only one word listed, "mellō," which is the word for "should" (25 times), or "could" (17), "would" (9), "will" (6), etc. Nor is here even any word for "to them which," while "mellō" " is a strengthened form of G3199 (through the idea of expectation); to intend, that is, be about to be, do, or suffer something." (Strongs) .
Yet I do not say it should not be rendered "should hereafter" but even then it is in the sense of that God's ad hoc grace to Paul serves as encouragement to those who came after Paul, not because a new different gospel was preached other than that of repentance and faith, which is confessed, which both Peter and Paul preached.
.it is impossible to understand how anyone can read this portion of Scripture without seeing that God began a new program/dispensation with the conversion of Saul.
Rather, Paul's ministry is part of the expansion that began with the rejection of Christ and thus Him being a "ransom for many" (Mk. 10:45) by His death, including the Gentiles, even if you (i think it was you) think Peter was ignorant of that before Paul came along. And which expansion formally began with Peter preaching salvation by grace after the Lord revealed to him the new status of Gentiles, even if you think Paul had to do that.
The important question here though is: Did Paul consider HIMSELF as separate and distinct from the 12 or the same? The question is answered in I Cor. 15:5. When Paul says that the resurrected Christ was "seen...of the twelve". He considered them a separate and distinct group than himself.
Only in time, as the context provides, "as of one born out of due time." (v. 8) Making this to signify Paul preaching a different gospel, that of grace versus the "Kingdom Gospel," is another example of reading into the text.
they perceived THE GRACE THAT WAS GIVEN to Paul and gave him the right hands of fellowship, agreeing to confine their ministry(The Gospel of the Circumcision, the Kingdom Gospel)to the circumcision
Despite your frequent shouting caps the contextual reality is that the grace given to Paul was that "he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles." (Galatians 2:8) Besides that, there is nothing said of a "Gospel of the Circumcision" versus "the Kingdom Gospel," which is read into the text, but only that they understood their respective mission fields, to which they preached the same gospel in fellowship with each other.
And which gospel of redemption by faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus was preached in Acts 2, and which Peter theologically affirms in writing "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," (1Pt. 1:1) rather than agreeing to confine their ministry to Jews, though that was their basic mission field, while Paul also preached to Jews even after he warned them of overall judgment, for as he himself exampled, this was not inclusive of all.
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18)
Repentant faith in the Christ who did so, by contrite sinners is the gospel message both preached, included John who knew it from the Lord before Paul. And showing this has become redundant, and taking much time.
But 1 Cor. 6:2 states we, which must include Paul, shall judge angels, thus establishing judgment is not left to simply the 12, while Matt. 19:27-30 says "ye which have followed me," forsaking all, shall also sit upon twelve thrones, and it is clear more than one person can occupy a throne, which represents judgment as regards the 12.
However, i do see this as most likely referring to 12 thrones for the 12 foundational apostles, but nothing more is said of this except that "I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them." (Revelation 20:4)
And this is for the final judgment, just as believers will judge angels, though in the millennium all the elect shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (Revelation 20:6)
This can be seen as inferring the apostles will sit in rule over Israel in the millennium reign of Christ (and which reality is one of the many things we concur on), but once again you are resorting making what can be inferred into something definite, including that Paul cannot be one of the judges, in order to make Peter and co. preach a different gospel than Paul's, but which is simply not what the totality of the NT reveals. And the former premise (which i can allow) does not equate to the latter conclusion.
Now may you have another God night! Now
"Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5)
Being secure in Christ IS overcoming.
Great discussion FRiends.May His Spirit reign in it!
We need to be very careful when discussing issues like this. I always step back and pray and study when something just doesn’t seem to match. That is exactly what I did after reading your paragraph above. You have used those verses to attempt to contradict what smvoice has said. But let’s look at those verses more closely to make sure that we have diligently “searched the scripture” to find truth.
You claim that Paul uses “my gospel” in the first three verses but then uses “our” gospel in the other three verses you cite. That does seem to be a contradiction doesn’t it. So I went to the original Greek text in an attempt to “search the scripture” to see what the truth of the matter might be.
In your first three examples the Greek word is the first-person pronoun meaning my or mine. In the next three examples you cited the Greek word use is the first-person pronoun meaning my or mine exactly as it was in the first three examples you cited. In the original Greek text there is no differentiation between the first three verses you cited or the second three verses you cited.
Paul, in all three verses is saying the same thing. He is using the first person pronoun of my or mine.
It’s very dangerous to become haughty or attempt to project an attitude of superiority in discussions like this. Especially if it leads to attempts to “put down” or “denigrate” the persons views we are having a difference of opinion with.
I believe we are all brothers and sisters in Christ here so let’s have respect and “search the scriptures” diligently in an attempt to understand “if what they teach” is true.
In the above example we can see that using the English translation alone may not be in and of itself the best way to “search the scriptures” and using an attitude of superiority or haughtiness from that perspective does not foster oneness in Christ.
Thank you for your measured response.
Regardless of “mine” “my” or “our” the scriptural evidence is there are not two gospels preached but one.
Be careful when using the words “two gospels”. As I indicated in my previous post words mean something. None of us here would argue that the “rules” changed if you will from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Is that to be considered “two Gospels”? Of course not. Because of Adams sin God had to “buy back” or “redeem” the world if you will. God changed the way He dealt with not only Israel but the Gentiles as well.
In a similar way there is a difference after Christ ascended and the Holy Spirit was sent to indwell all believers. The nation of Israel rejected the Messiah which caused God to set them aside and through grace give the Gentiles a “joint heir” status to them. The “rules” changed once more. I believe that no one can argue that Paul was given a special role to play in dealing with the Gentiles. In that change faith without the works of the law became the “rule”. Add anything to that “faith” and you risk adding “works” which Paul said would be making “grace no longer grace”.
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
He also said that if we add anything to saving faith through grace we “nullify the grace of God”.
Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
There was definitely a change with the teachings of Paul
That is frankly inaccurate and the difference btwn what Paul preached is imaginary, as shown before. To reiterate and add:
The Lord's death and resurrection go together because the former provided for the later. Under the law forgiveness was given before the atonement was made because it was done under the rubric of the atonement that would be made, and which ultimately the "the Lamb of which which taketh away the sin of the world" provided and is received by faith - as known and stated by John whom you have preaching a "kingdom gospel" (Jn. 1:29; 3:16; 5:24)
You can hold that before His death the Lord had offered Himself to Israel as their Messiah in the way that would have resulted in the kind of physical theocratic kingdom on earth that you think Peter is preaching, with its salvation, but the fact is that in foreknowledge of God Christ knew this acceptance would not happen, but instead He was to give his life a ransom for many, and which he plainly stated to the to the apostles:
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28)
This is why the death and resurrection of Christ precedes the forgiveness of sins, as it provides for it, consistent wit the substitutionary atonement under the Law, in which the scapegoat and sacrifice for sins was made once a year. (Lv. 16; 17:11)
Thus Peter like Paul, places the promise of forgiveness and the atonement together. As regards the alleged difference btwn the Lord Jesus and Peter versus Paul, because the former preached repentance as a condition for salvation, this is what Paul said he preached as well.
Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:21)
But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. (Acts 26:20)
In fact Paul is recorded as preaching repentance more, including to pagans:
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: (Acts 14:15)
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Acts 17:30-31)
And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee. (Acts 24:25)
And yet both Peter and Paul also preached salvation by believing (Acts 10:43; 16:31) But which is not a contradiction with themselves of btwn themselves, for as said, one cannot believe without repenting, and to be believe on the Lord Jesus is to repent - "repent and believe" being a reinforcement of "believe" - from unbelief to belief, and which has moral ramifications. Which is why souls reject Christ, as they intuitively know He is a threat to their lifestyle.
One comes to Christ as a contrite damned sinner who is morally destitute of any merit whereby he may escape Hell and gain eternal life with God, which is provided on God/Christ's expense and credit, and received by faith.
But to believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation from sin is to repent from unbelief to faith, and which entails changes in life. If one does not want that change, even though they are helpless of themselves to effect it, they will not come to Christ, as evil hates the Light. (cf. Jn. 3:19-21)
Moreover, in alleging the different gospels btwn what Peter preached and Paul, you are only referencing what is recorded of Peter's preaching, while going to Paul's epistles for the doctrine of the atonement, such as that we have redemption thru His blood, the forgiveness of sins. (Col. 1:14) And which you have educating Peter on.
Yet as has been shown, Peter not only preached forgiveness and the Spirit as a consequence of Christ's death and resurrection, but he was enlightened by the Lord on the new status of the Gentiles, and stated their hearts were purified by faith, (Acts 10; 15:7-9) and in writing to all (1Pt. 1:1) Peter plainly stated we are redeemed by the blood of Christ, versus the abrogated Law,
"with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot...(1 Peter 1:19) as
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18) Meanwhile, the only recorded sermons by Paul also do not have him explicitly stating Christ died for our sins, so that we have redemption thru His blood, which is what is explicitly seen in both Peter and Paul's writing to Christians, but as seen above, he also calls souls to repent and turn to God for salvation, (Acts 14, 17) as this constitutes believing, while also promising justification/salvation by believing, like Peter says, on the crucified and risen Christ (not explicitly stating Christ died for our sins), as repentance is implicit in believing. (Acts 16:31; 13:39)
Thus both Peter and Paul preach Christ as Lord and Savior, and put together the death and resurrection and receiving forgiveness and acceptance with God, that "being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," "Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead," , "that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins," while in writing to believers explicitly stating Christ died for our sins so that we have redemption thru His sinless blood (as does John). And both Peter's and Paul's main sermon to Jews are very similar, (Acts 2, 13) but extends to beyond just Jews.
Thus they preached the same essential gospel of salvation, and gave each other the right hand of fellowship.
2 Tim. 2:15: "STUDY to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Indeed, which is not done by making a division btwn the gospel of salvation preached by Peter versus Paul as being "another gospel: Which is not another." (Galatians 1:6-7) Unlike that of Rome, etc.
You must have different MSS than the KJV
G3450, mou moo; The simpler from of G1700; of me: - I, me, mine (own), my. (Strongs)
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to myG3450 gospel. (Romans 2:16)
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to myG3450 gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, (Romans 16:25)
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to myG3450 gospel: (2 Timothy 2:8)
G2257 hēmōn - hēmōn hay-mone' Genitive plural of G1473; of (or from) us: - our (company), us, we. (Strongs)
But if ourG2257 gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: (2 Corinthians 4:3)
For ourG2257 gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. (1 Thessalonians 1:5)
Whereunto he called you by ourG2257 gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
The KJV translates Strongs G2257 in the following manner: our (313x), us (82x), we (12x), not tr (1x), misc (2x).
Mat_1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.G2257 Mat_6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: OurG2257 Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Mat_6:11 Give us this day ourG2257 daily bread. Mat_6:12 And forgive us ourG2257 debts, as we forgive ourG2257 debtors. Mat_8:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took ourG2257 infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. Mat_15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.G2257 Mat_20:33 They say unto him, Lord, that ourG2257 eyes may be opened. Mat_21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in ourG2257 eyes? Mat_23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of ourG2257 fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Mat_25:8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for ourG2257 lamps are gone out. Mat_27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on ourG2257 children. Mat_28:13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while weG2257 slept. Mar_11:10 Blessed be the kingdom of ourG2257 father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest. Mar_12:7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.G2257 Mar_12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord ourG2257 God is one Lord: Luk_1:55 As he spake to ourG2257 fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever. Luk_1:71 That we should be saved from ourG2257 enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; Luk_1:72 To perform the mercy promised to ourG2257 fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; Luk_1:73 The oath which he sware to ourG2257 father Abraham, Luk_1:74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of ourG2257 enemies might serve him without fear, Luk_1:75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of ourG2257 life. Etc.
I believe we are all brothers and sisters in Christ here
"We" as evangelicals trusting the Lord Jesus to save us by His blood, and so follow Him, and repent when we know we are not.
so let’s have respect and “search the scriptures” diligently in an attempt to understand “if what they teach” is true.
Indeed, that should be our goal by both sides.
1 Corinthians 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;
Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Peter, the 11 and Paul all preach the same gospel as clearly outlined in I Corinthians 15. Jesus Christ crucified, Blood shed, died, buried and Resurrected on the third day and now at the Right Hand of the Father. Where Paul is the master theologian and communicator via the 'pen', what we have mostly in Acts for Peter are sermons calling sinners to repentance and receiving Christ Jesus. Peter's epistles match Paul's although styles, understandably, are different. The message is the same. We even see Philip use Isaiah 53 to witness to the Ethiopian Eunuch.
We all quote Paul a lot more than the others because he obviously wrote more and mostly to predominately Gentile churches.
It seems you take this to mean license where the rest of the law is concerned... How do you justify that against this:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
People seem to always forget that the Christian has the Spirit of God living in them...A teacher, a guide...And there is a constant battle going on with the flesh...
But wouldn't the first evidence of having obtained that Spirit be a tendency to keep the laws of YHWH? After all, He has said the law is 'written on our hearts'... The natural tendency (what is in the heart overfloweth) would be to keep the law... to WANT to keep the law...
The law has become spiritual instead of legal...
Right - But if one studies what that means, it is a more strict application of the law (the mere thought of lust is the same thing as the act of adultery).
As I see it, the Torah was our schoolmaster...
Right - How then is it a schoolmaster to those who have never read it (not to mention understand it)? How can the Holy Days teach those who have never kept them? And as an example, even if one does learn, say... math, in school... Once one has learned math, and no longer needs schooling,, do the laws and dynamics of math fail to be important?
[...] While we are encouraged to follow the Torah in our heart/spirit by Christ who lives in us, the Torah is no longer our judge and executioner...
TRUE. But John says we know we love the Father (and our brothers) when we are walking in His commandments... So one can determine the quality of one's walk according to how closely one is following the Torah, no? How then does one disregard the Torah completely and claim to love the Father? It cannot be so.
The catlicks have a point in that there IS law - where they go wrong is in following the laws of their church rather than the Law of YHWH... But Protestants, having rightly discarded the law of the catlicks (as it is false), have failed to recognize any law at all - The dichotomy in that position is in that without law, there is no more a definition of sin, nor is there a measurement of righteousness (right living).
Folks are quick to haul out 2Tim 3:16 when they are verse-slinging, while failing to understand that the scripture defined therein was only the Tanakh, as the NT had not yet been written. Folks are quick to point out sin, without understanding that it must be the Torah that defines sin. Folks are quick to say they want to please YHWH, without admitting that it is the Torah that teaches one HOW to please YHWH.
All y'all are spending way too much time in Paul, and discounting John... and ignoring Moses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.