Examine Yourselves Whether You Be in the Faith, Part 1

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.

That's a first - someone concerned about getting more responses and predicting who is paying attention to a thread that has over 500 posts. Many read and don't respond - everyone knows that.

I have not posted since before Thanksgiving day, partly because i was busy or not feeling well, while i say the same assertions made, often with SHOUTING, that i had addressed before.

Rather than do so again, i worked on a compilation of responses to the arguments put forth, and so let the matter rest unless one really wants to engage in objective analysis, for what i see is an unreasonable attempt to insistently read into Scripture that which is not there, partly based upon a superficial understanding of what salvation by grace means, and which both Peter and Paul preached, and later expanded theologically upon in writing to believers.

This has not been all proof read, and can certainly be improved (i had not really encountered Hyperdispensationalism and its ultradispensationalism form which seems to be the case here, to which i respond) but it will have to suffice for now. Please pardon the length, as there are many arguments drawn from this thread to respond to, and there is much redundancy in my responses, as the hyperdip arguments often are based on the same premises as others, but thus each response is a somewhat complete answer on its own, or complimentary to each other.

Other (and more scholarly) examination and refutation of the hyper-dispensational position by opponents of it (especially insofar as it concurs with ultra-dispensationalism) includes Systematic Theology by Norman L. Geisler (cp. 2), and Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, by Harry A. Ironside (neither of which i have read).

It was argued that Peter John and James all preached a different gospel, a gospel of the kingdom versus grace with Paul preached, because,

1. Israel was set not aside as a nation until Acts 28:25-29, thus Peter was preaching a gospel of the (physical theocratic) kingdom, of salvation by faith and works, unlike Paul.

• Yet as shown, the same words of rejection are uttered in the gospels against Israel, (Mt 13:14,15; Mark 4:12; Lk 8:10; John 12:38-40) because already, "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” (John 12:39-40)

• And that Paul had likewise told them he was stamping the dust off his feet and going to the Gentiles in Acts 13:46 (“seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles), and in Acts 18:6 (“Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” (Acts 18:6) Yet Paul continued to preach to Jews after both statements of rejection, but never as if he expected Israel as a nation to to believe. For the words of rejection by Paul were in confirmation that Israel as a nation had been blinded already until the fullness of the Gentiles entered in. “And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers...” (Acts 28:24-25) Which is why they crucified their Christ in the first place, (1 Corinthians 2:8) but a remnant such as Paul could be saved in the meantime. (See ISRAEL: CHOSEN OR FORGOTTEN?)

The assertion that the rejection of Israel was not “official” despite it being a reiteration of what was said previously, is simply an assertion, and there is no reason to think Paul did not continue to witness to Jews and warn them as before, as part of attempting to rescue a remnant.

• And that Romans is understood to have been written before Acts 28:25-29, and in it he establishes Israel being set aside as a nation, and what this means. But that at no time did this mean God would not continue to outreach to the Jews at all, and the gospel preached was the same to both, as explained in Romans.

• As for what Peter did not preach, this was that Christ's death and resurrection had no other purpose than to sit on the throne of David so that Israel would accept Him and attain a national theocratic physical kingdom with a gospel of faith and works.

2. Peter stated in Acts 2:16-21 that Joel 's prophecy (Joel 2:28) was being fulfilled before their eyes so that they were in the last days, in which God would set up His kingdom on earth through the Jews.

The post-Acts 28 hyperdip eschatology sees Israel formally rejecting Christ therein, and with God revealing to Paul the gospel of grace with its body of Christ after Acts 9, and thus baptism and the Lord's supper were to be abrogated (according to some), versus Peter preaching acceptance of the Lord Jesus as Messiah, under a gospel of faith and works, thus baptism and so the Lord's supper are required, so that the physical theocratic kingdom is set up on earth with the national restoration of Israel.

However, while one day what's left of Israel after the flesh will turn to the Lord, (Rm. 11) Peter in Acts 2 invokes Joel 2:28-32 (which has correspondence to Mt. 24) as foretelling events which signified the beginning of the Last Days, “before that great and notable day of the Lord come,” (which itself is not a single day but a period.)

This will indeed culminate in God restoring again the kingdom to Israel in the millennium, if not exactly as they thought, but it is the gospel of grace which Peter and Paul both preached that precedes this.

Peter references Joel 2, but rather than Israel being restored as a physical theocracy ruling over the Gentiles, one of the signs given is not that of Israel being restored as a nation and the Gentiles left out, but that “ I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.” (Joel 2:32)

And besides only a remnant being the called, the scope of Peter's gospel of deliverance preached in Jerusalem is that “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved, and extends “to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Likewise Paul in Acts 13:26: “children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.” For thus Christ commanded His disciples to preach.

While the apostles were looking for national restoration of Israel, and thus their question in Acts 1:8, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?,” the Lord's answer was that this was yet hidden, but consistent with the Lord's words that “the kingdom of God” is where Christ reigns, (Lk. 17:21) — for as Paul states, “the kingdom of God is in power,” (1Cor. 4:20) — therefore the Lord goes on to reveal that “ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

This does not speak of presently restoring again the kingdom to Israel proper, but of a universal in gathering of souls via a gospel by which any soul could easily be forgiven and be in Christ in His church (which existed as the body of Christ before Paul's conversion, thus the Lord's words to Saul, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” Acts 9:4) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

While it is evident Peter and the NT church did not yet understand the full significance of salvation by faith preached to all nations, or much of the theology behind it, and which Paul was the main instrument and theologian for (though Peter first basically preached the body as being one new man, as the Lord revealed it to him first in Acts 10), yet the gospel of salvation by both Peter and Paul is essentially the same. Jesus is the Christ, the sinless Son of God, crucified and risen, thus forgiveness and the Spirit is received by faith, which signifies repentance (as to believe is to repent), and which Paul preached as part of his gospel, (Acts 20:21) and which faith is confessed, (Rm. 10:9.10) and which signified faith, (Acts 19:1-5; Rm. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) and thus Peter's words in Acts 2:38.

This was obviously salvation by grace, as there was no merit in their decision itself that would save them, nor did baptism itself make them born again, but as “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,” (Rm. 10:10) these 3k souls ( “Jews and proselytes:” Acts 2:10) confessed faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus as Lord and Savior in baptism (“body language”), trusting Him for forgiveness and the reception of the Spirit.

More on this further below.

Therefore what Peter is preaching is the gospel of grace in which both Jews and Gentiles can come to Christ, and which is preparatory to the restoration of the nation of Israel as a theocracy on earth, but which will happen in the millennium, with the temple Ezekiel speaks of, with NT believers reigning with Christ over the nations, whom the Lord rules with a rod of iron, as this is a test in a different dispensation (too much to cover here).

3. Paul's ministry went from doing many miracles for the Jews to doing no miracles, in. making the transition from the Jewish Age to the Church Age. For once Israel was set aside, miracles, signs and wonders, and legal ceremonies were no longer practiced (1 TIm. 5:23; 2 Tim. 4:20; Phil. 2:25-29)

Yet as shown, it was with mighty miracles that Paul converted the Gentiles by, (Rm. 15:19) and rather than working toward cessation, Paul is doing miracles for pagans in the very last chapter of Acts. The absence of any recorded miracles after Acts 20 until Acts 28 is due to the change in Paul's ministry, from public evangelism to captivity. Nor does the fact that men such as Timothy suffered from infirmities signify cessation of miracles, or through men, as nowhere is health or wealth for all promised.

Moreover, Phil. 3:8-23 does not teach legal ceremonies ceased, which would happen in 70 A.D. but that Paul forsook the life as a Pharisee and what the benefitted him, to gain Christ. Also, Philippians is dated about 51 A.D., before Paul is arrested in Jerusalem (Acts 21:27-36) in about 50 A.D. Around which he took a Jewish vow (per James direction).

4. The preaching of the apostles went from preaching to Israel and then to “anyone who will” for the former pertains to the Jewish church versus the body of Christ, the Pauline church.

No so, for as shown above, the preaching to Israel included to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” And what is alluded to is more of Joel 2 (v. 32): “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.” (Joel 2:32) Likewise Paul in Rm. 10:13 and in Acts 13:26: “children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.”

There was no real change towards “whosoever will,” but the address in preaching changed because the audience did. Beginning in Jerusalem there was deliverance for all, for the great commission specifies beginning at Jerusalem, (Lk. 24:46,47) and thus Paul, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16) Thus the gospel was for all, but as the mission itself became more universal, so the Gentiles were more addressed. Yet as also seen in Romans, there is only one gospel, and which both Peter and Paul preached, with no real difference.

As for the purported two churches, the Holy Spirit refers to the church 21 times in the book of Acts, and only knows one, which is the one that He baptizes souls into, (1Cor. 12:13), and thus the apostles were, and then the 3k+ Jews and proselytes who received the Spirit, (Acts 2:47) and then the Gentiles, with Peter testifying that the Spirit fell on the Gentiles as it did on them, thus signifying they were of the same body, and thus Peter could eat with them, which is what his kosher friends objected to. (Acts 11:1-15) And it is in this church that all were filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 4:31) and had the varied complimentary gifts of the Spirit, for the body is not one member but many, (1Cor. 12:19) and which showed the community and care for each other that this body is to example. (Acts 2:42-47; 4:32) And which is why the Lord said that Saul actually persecuted Him, (Acts 9:4) as he was attacking His body, the church. (Acts 8:1,3) and which church went everywhere preaching their word, (Acts 8:4) including to Gentiles, Acts 11:20) and whichn church were first called “Christians.” (Acts 11:26)

The idea that this was a different church than that of Paul's later epistles, a Jewish church versus a Pauline church, is contrived, and its attributes (removing most of the miracles according to some) actually leaves the latter church as inferior to the former.

5. Peter preached repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but not that Christ died for our sins so that salvation is by grace through faith, as that was unknown before Paul.

The fact is that neither Peter nor Paul explicitly stated in preaching to the lost in Acts that Christ died for our sins, unlike in their epistles, but both declared in Acts that Jesus was the righteous Christ whom the Jews slew, but whose death and resurrection was according to God's plan, and then and only then did they provide the offer of forgiveness/justification by believing (and which faith was to be confessed) to them and to all they Lord called, obviously connecting the cross and resurrection with redemption. For the devout Jews and proselytes he preach to understood the need for atonement for sins in order to be forgiven. And Peter's statement that God shewed by the mouth of all his prophets that Christ should suffer (Acts 4:18) primarily would include Is. 53.

Thus in their preaching in Acts, both Peter and Paul taught Christ died for our sins so that salvation is by grace through faith, (Acts 14:38; 13:16-39) explicitly stating this in their respective epistles. (Col. 1:14; Rm. 8:1-7ff; 1Pt. 1:9-21; 2:22-24; 3:18) and which is confessed. (Rm. 10:10) That Christ's dead and resurrection provided for this forgiveness is the answer to as what His death meant in Acts 2, 13, etc., and to offer forgiveness apart from it is simply untenable.

One need not know much to be saved, while it is in addressing believers in general that we see explicit statements that we have redemption through Christ's blood, (Col. 1:14) and Peter also explicitly teaches that they were redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,” (1 Peter 1:19) “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.” (1 Peter 2:24) “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 2:24; 3:18)

Moreover, as regards repentance, Paul's gospel was that of “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Acts 20:21) that Jews and Gentiles alike “should repent and turn to God,” (Acts 26:20) which is a reinforcement of simply “believe,” as repentance is implicit in believing. For one cannot turn “from darkness to light” which the Lord commissioned Paul to do for souls, (Acts 26:18) to truly believe on the Lord Jesus without a change of heart from unbelief — and essentially away what that entails — to faith — and essentially towards what that entails. And which will result in practical changes in one's life. Therefore Paul told lost souls to “turn from these vanities [idols] to serve the living God,” (Acts 14:15)

And as faith that saves is a faith that follows Christ, (Jn. 10:27,28) — and repents when convicted of not doing do — thus Paul stated such a convert as who walks in impenitent disobedience has “denied the faith,” (1Tim. 5:8; cf. Gal. 5:1-4) and excluded "Christian" fornicators from salvation. (Eph. 5:5)

• And as for baptism, Paul taught that “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,” (Romans 10:10) and treated baptism as synonymous with believing, “that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:4-5) For baptism is a confession of Christ in body language, just like moving your tongue is in words.

And this was done as part of fulfilling the Great Commission which was for the whole world. (Matthew 28:19)

• As regards Christ dying for our sins being unknown before Paul, long before Paul the Lord had taught His apostles that He would give His life a ransom for souls. (Mk. 10:45) Thus, as said, both Peter as with Paul, places the death and resurrection of Christ as providing for the forgiveness of sins, and received by repentant faith, which is what the Lord commissioned: And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47)

In addition, it was not Paul who enlightened Peter to the practical implication of the Lord's command to preach remission of sins to all nations, but the Lord Himself did so. (Acts 10) And it was actually Peter who first explicitly states complete forgiveness is received by believing: “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43)

6. The texts showing Paul describing his gospel as requiring Gentiles to repentance in order to be saved (Acts 17”30; 20:21; 26:20) can only refer to Gentile converts to Judaism, as otherwise they have nothing to repent from, for only whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and Gentiles did not have any faith in God to be doing anything that was not of faith. They only had to believe.

That is an absurd argument.

First, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) in context refers to areas of personal liberty in areas in which one can do one thing or another (eat meat or not), and does not mean defined immorality is OK as long as one believes it is OK with God (Christian fornication, etc.), or because one has no faith in the one true God.

In fact, having no faith in the living God makes one an idolater, which is the mother of all sins, and thus rather than ignorant Gentiles having no culpability of sin and nothing to repent from, Paul spends half a chapter (Rm. 1) indicting the Gentiles as being guilty of idolatry and the multitudinous sins that proceed from it!

And further contrary to pagans having nothing to repent from, and that repentance (being implicit in believing) was not a condition for salvation, Paul explicitly tells 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 in Acts 17:30, those being told God “now commandeth all men every where to repent” were definitely not Jews or proselytes whom he encountered earlier, (Acts 17:17) but certain “philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks” (v. 18) which were idolaters, (vs. 22ff), and which is what they were told to repent from, and turn to Christ.

Thus Gentiles were indeed called to repentance, for repentance is implicit in believing, as it is turning in heart from unbelief in the Lord Jesus to faith in Him, and which means turning in heart from some form of idolatry to faith in the living and true God, and implicit in that is a change of heart-allegiance, resulting in a change of life. For to believe in Jesus Christ the righteous who died for our sins and rose again is to agree with Him that sin is evil and not to be obeyed, and that Christ is the only one worthy of faith and to be followed. Conversion is turning from darkness to light, (Acts 26: 18; cf. Jn. 3:19-21) so there is basic turning in heart to Christ for a new life which results in following Him (relative to the light one has).

However, while a repentant response is required of man to be saved, that of believing and which signifies a basic repentance of heart and (implicitly) change of allegiance, what is not required is to "stop sinning" and then come to Christ, which one is powerless to do so, but faith is counted for righteousness, but such is a faith that characteristically follows its Object.

Therefore "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" is indeed what Paul preached to both Jews and pagans, and is the same thing as calling souls to "believe," as repentance is implicit in believing, and thus repentance and believe is simply a reinforcement of the call to "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ."

And as "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation," (Rm. 10:10) confessing the justifying faith in the heart, so Peter called souls to be baptized, while Paul makes baptism synonymous with believing as it confesses Christ. (Acts 19:4,5)

As explained elsewhere, conversion calls one to believe, which is enabled by God who both opens hearts and grants repent faith, (Acts 11:18; 16:14) but which is a volitional response, as is the act of calling upon Christ in faith to save and otherwise confessing the Lord, but none do these volitional responses constitutes salvation by works because the response is not what makes one justified, but the faith behind is counted for righteous: “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness...” (Rm. 10:10a) Which God sees before there is an outward expression.

Yet to call one to make the response that confesses faith is to call one to believe. Thus the promise can be made that those who call upon the name of the Lord or confess Christ in baptism shall be saved, as by so calling/confessing then they are believing, and to believe is to confess it, as heart-faith that justifies will confess it (if able). And God blesses all confession of Christ.

7. The dispute during the ecumenical council at Jerusalem was between Paul versus Peter and the other apostles. There would have been no dispute if all the apostles had been teaching the same thing as Paul.

This is more reading into the text in order to support the hyperdip theory. What the texts says is that “certain men which came down from Judæa taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (Acts 15:1,2)

And in response, Peter is not shown being a contender for Judaizers but as supporting Paul, (and as one enlightened by the Lord before Paul provided his fuller revelation of the One New Man) by providing his testimony and affirming the one gospel both Peter and Paul preached:

“And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” (Acts 15:7-11)

And which council is understood as occurring after Paul had visited James, Cephas, and John in Gal. 2, and in which no conflict was manifest between what Peter et al preached and Paul, lest there be two gospels as per the hyperdip theory, one for Jews and another for Gentiles, contrary to what Peter and Paul both preached, the gospel which was for both Jews and “all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39) — even if Peter had not initially realized the full import of that universal offer. And which Paul later reproved Peter for not acting consistent with. (Gal. 2:11-16fff)

8. The gospel of grace was “hid in God” until revealed to Paul, to whom was revealed the “mystery of the gospel” which was not made known “from the beginning of the world..hid in GOD (Eph. 3:5,9; cf. 6:19,20; Rom 16:25) nor revealed to the 12 apostles, and was different from the gospel Peter etc. preached.

The text Eph. 3:9) simply does not say the gospel of grace was “hid in God” until revealed to Paul, and this “mystery”contextually refers to “That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” (Ephesians 3:6) and which was basically revealed to Peter first in Acts 10 and explained in Acts 15:7-9, that God purified the hearts of the Gentiles by faith, and gave to them the same Spirit as He did to the apostles, thus “we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” (Acts 15:11)

Paul described “my gospel” as being that “which was kept secret since the world began, 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.” (Rm. 16:25,26) And which commandment was “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Lk. 24:47)

Objective comparison shows that the same essential gospel of salvation was preached by both Peter and Paul in Acts, with both expanding on the theology behind it in their writings to Christians, with both Jews and Gentiles being forgiven, born again, redeemed by faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus.

Moreover, the “mystery” as referring to the gospel is twofold, the gospel which was preached by all the apostles, not one that was unknown to them, except that Paul received it directly, and secondly, aspects which were revealed more fully to Paul, including the theology of the New Covenant and abolishment of the ceremonial law and the church as “one new man,” but which did not essentially change the gospel message of salvation that the apostles preached.

What Scripture shows is that the gospel is first a mystery because what both Peter and Paul preached was hidden it from men. And which mystery Peter himself refers to:

“Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.” (1 Peter 1:10-12)

And which hidden nature requires God opening minds to understand, and which is what the Lord did to the disciples in Lk. 24:44,46. But those whose heard was hardened were blinded, which is why Israel did not believe, as blindness in part was upon national Israel, which is why Is. 6:9,10 is the most, or about the most referenced OT text in the gospels and NT. (Mt 13:14,15; Mr 4:12; Lk 8:10; Jn 12:40 Acts 28:26,27; Rom 11:8)

And which overall blindness occurred before Paul was converted, but which was later manifested and reaffirmed through Paul in seeking to persuade Jews, while warning both Jews and Gentiles of the danger of being blinded like the rest. (Acts 13:40,41; Rm. 11:21)

For as shown above, judicial blindness and rejection of Israel had already occurred (“Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again...” (John 12:39-41), but this blindness was never total, but partial, and a remnant could be saved. And therefore, and for purposes of judgment, it was necessary that the gospel be first preached to the Jews. Thus Peter appeals to the Jews and proselytes in Acts 2, to not be like the rest but “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40) that had rejected Christ.

For as Paul explain in Rm. 11 (written before Acts 28) he himself was among the remnant that were not judicially blinded. For this “casting away” of Israel is not an utter casting away, so that no seed of Abraham could be saved, but it is an overall rejection until the fullness of the Gentiles be entered in, with just a remnant of Jews such as Paul being saved in the interim.

Therefore, even after telling the Jews “lo, we turn to the Gentiles,” “from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles,” (Acts 13:46; 18:6) Paul is still found preaching to Jews, and telling them the same thing, “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)

The idea that the formal rejection of Israel as a whole took place in Acts 28 is contrary to what is stated and shown, and is a erroneous conclusion.

Secondly, besides the gospel being hidden to men, as said and expanded upon here, "the mystery of the gospel" pertains to the body of Christ being the one new man consisting of Jews and Gentiles.

“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ. Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” (Ephesians 3:4-6)

This aspect as well as the abolishment of ceremonial law related to it, and the theology of salvation by grace, was what was revealed most fully by Paul. However, the aspect of the Jews and Gentiles being of the same body was alluded to by the Lord it in John 10:16, and salvation by grace through faith was taught by the Lord Himself while on earth, as also seen especially in John, (Jn. 3:16; 5:24; 10:27-29; 11:25,26) and typified in healings in all the gospels.

And it was Peter to whom this universal inclusion was first basically revealed in Acts 10, and affirmed in Acts 15:7-9, that of the Gentiles receiving forgiveness and the Spirit by faith. . While prior to Actc10 this was not yet understood by kosher Peter, who distanced himself from Gentiles as ceremonially unclean, yet neither this revelation to Peter nor Paul's theological teaching resulted in an essential change in the gospel, as both Peter and Paul both preached the sinless Son of God, who died and rose again, and forgiveness and the reception of the Spirit by repentant faith in Him, and which is confessed.

9 Peter did not mean to include the Gentiles in his gospel as his aversion to the the Gentiles in Acts 10 makes it evident that he did not understand the Great Commission as including the Gentiles.

Rather, the dream Peter received was not needed for Peter to simply preach the gospel to the Gentiles, as the kosher Jews traveled “sea and land to make one proselyte,” (Matthew 23:15) but in so doing they would have observed the ritual purity laws in so doing. And in which, as Peter said, “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 10:28) Thus the charge against Peter by his kosher friends was not that he preached the gospel to them, but “Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” (Acts 11:3)

What Paul did not understand was the ramifications of the command to preach the gospel to all nations, that of the Gentiles being one body with the Jews, and the abolishment of the ceremonial laws that were behind the separation. This did not essentially change the content of the gospel message of salvation as preached by Peter before, for Jews and Gentile were both saved by repentant faith, not on the basis of law-keeping, but it changed the understanding of what the obedience of faith consisted of, as regarding ceremonial law, and its outworking by making both groups one body. For which Paul was the main revelator and theologian of.

10. Peter preached “confessing Him in baptism” (Acts 2:38) but Paul said “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,” (Rm. 10:10) which is different. If salvation is “by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” (Rm. 11:6)

“With the mouth confession is made unto salvation” is essentially no different from confessing Christ in baptism as both are a volitional faith response of man, one requiring moving one's tongue (and neurons before that) and the other requiring moving one's legs. Both are confessing Christ in faith, but neither the decision to believe nor the confession of that faith earns them a right standing with God and eternal life, but faith is what is counted for righteousness, justifying the unGodly. (Rm. 4:1-8ff)

(In contrast, Rome does not emphasize the damned and destitute nature of man and need for a day of salvation by personal repentance and faith to save one from what he really deserves, but supposes even sprinkling morally incognizant infants in recognition of proxy faith makes such formally just before God due to their interior goodness, and goes on to emphasize personal merit as salvific and the power of the Church®, thus fostering confidence in one's own goodness and in Rome, with Purgatory making most of the RC multitudes good enough to enter glory.)

Salvation is indeed by faith and not of works. Though Rm. 11:6 actually refers to election and excludes making a response before one is born, Rm. 4 affirms justification is not on the basis of any works actually earning a right standing with God and morally deserving eternal life, as in reality what all believers have earned is eternal damnation.

Man cannot do anything to save himself in the sense of deserving to escape Hell or gain eternal life, as this is on Christ's expense and righteousness, yet man does not become a believer without making any volitional response, as if one could choose to believe while comatose, and which an absolute exclusion of any volitional response in accepting Christ (such as repentance and or baptism) requires. For salvation does require a response, that of believing, which is granted by God, and which faith appropriates justification, but which choice is itself is an act of repentance, and which faith is confessed if it is real.

But as said, the response one makes in placing faith in the Lord Jesus to save them does not earn them justification, nor does the response one makes in confessing Christ, but faith is counted for righteousness, though again, salvific faith is the kind that confesses the Lord Jesus.

And thus the alleged difference is a contrived one, as there is no essential difference between what Peter and Paul taught, with Paul also testifying “both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21) “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:10) — which is that of justifying repentant faith being in the heart, and which is confessed with the mouth — and that of Peter's commands in Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized, as both call for faith and a confessional response.

However, to reiterate, the response of believing does not constitute salvation by works, as the response does not earn them salvation, but God counts faith/confidence in Christ as righteousness, and in conversion one is abasing himself as utterly unworthy and exalting God as holy, just and merciful.

Moreover, it is God who draws the lost, opens the heart, and grants repentance and faith, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) and works to chastises wayward converts back to faith so they will not be condemned with the rest of the world. (1Cor. 11:32) Thus a convert has done what he could not and would not otherwise normally do. To the glory of God, not man.

Yet it is in the light of the evidence of faith (works) that a believer is judged to have true saving faith, and which God rewards as He chose to promise to do so in grace. “Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.” (Hebrews 10:35-36)

11. The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto Paul, while the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter, (Gal. 2:7) which signifies two different gospels.

There actually is no phrase “gospel of the circumcision,” for “the gospel” is not in the Greek in the latter part of that verse, but it is rightly supplied, yet what it denotes is not two different gospels, but the preaching of the gospel to two different groups.

As Robertson's Word Pictures states,

That I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision (hoti pepisteumai to euaggelion tēs akrobustias). Perfect passive indicative of pisteuō, to intrust, which retains the accusative of the thing (to euaggelion) in the passive voice. This clear-cut agreement between the leaders “denotes a distinction of sphere, and not a difference of type” (Lightfoot). Both divisions in the work preach the same “gospel” (not like Gal_1:6., the Judaizers).

The idea that two different gospel was being sanctioned is simply untenable, as this is actually what was being resolved, with any other gospel (i.e. the Judaizers) being condemned, and to have two different gospels being sanctioned would be confusing to say the least. Peter himself later testified in Acts 15:7-9 that God put no difference between the Jews and Gentiles in salvation, giving them both the Holy Spirit by faith. (Yet Paul did not teach the moral law was abrogated, though excluding it as a means of salvation as well as abrogating the perpetuation its typological shadows: Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:6; Heb. 9:9,10. And instead Paul disciplined those who disobeyed the moral laws, and required repentance from such if one was to considered a believer: 1Cor. 5; 2 2Cor. 6:13-18; 12:21; 13:8)

12. There would have been no need for God to have raised up Paul and made him an apostles unless there was a need for one to preach a different gospel than the one given in the Great Commission as the 12 to all nations.

That is begging the question, for as explained, there is no essential difference but only a contrived one based on preaching in Acts versus the expanded theology to believers found in later epistles.

As for the reason for raising up Paul, this was twofold.

1. His work was that of mainly being the apostle to the Gentiles, carrying on the work Peter began in Acts 10, and preaching the same gospel as Peter, who was mainly the apostle to the Jews.

2. Paul was the fullest revelator of the New Covenant and the ecclesiology of the church, and the main theologian of it, and for the gospel which Peter etc. and Paul both preached. And which preaching of the gospel of salvation was essentially the same, while it was in their epistles that more theological depth is provided, with Paul's teaching being complimentary to Peter's and vice versa with no real contradiction.

13. Paul will not be next to Christ on His throne when the Kingdom is set up, while Peter and the 11 are seated on twelve thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Mt. 19:28).

That presumes that only those whom the Lord was speaking to (“ye which have followed me”) will sit in those seats of judgment, which must exclude Judas, or that it includes all the foundational apostles (Rv. 21:14) upon which the church was built, (Eph. 2:20) which certainly includes Paul. And who is even more fitting to sit in judgment over Israel, as it was he who most often experienced rejection by Israel, and pronounced judgment upon them, and provided the theology behind it.

For while the seats are numbered, it is clear that more than one person can occupy a throne, for as the Lord said, “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3:21)

In addition, 1 Cor. 6:2 states we believers, which must include Paul, shall judge angels, (cf. Rv. 20:4) thus establishing judgment is not left to simply the 12.

14. Paul calls his gospel “my gospel,” which was according to the grace given him, which was “not after man, for i neither received it of man, neither was i taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ,” (Gal. 1:11,12) which means it was different from that of Peter's, "etc., the gospel of the uncircumcision versus the gospel of the circumcision, which Peter and John agreed to confine their ministry to in Gal. 2 .

Paul actually only uses the term "my[G3450] 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[G2257] gospel," (2Cor. 4:3; 1Ths. 1:5; 2Ths. 2:14)

And as shown, where Paul uses "my gospel" there is nothing manifestly distinctive about it from that of Peter, who like Paul (Acts 13) also presented Christ as the promised Messiah and preached the death and resurrection of Christ as providing for the forgiveness and sins and reception of the Spirit, even to as many as the Lord shall call. And in fact the most specific thing Paul; described about "my gospel" is "that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel." (2 Timothy 2:8)

Like in Peter's preaching, Paul also described “my gospel” as being that “which was kept secret since the world began, 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.” (Rm. 16:25,26)

Thus Peter and Paul both preached the gospel to both the Jews and those who were afar, the Gentles, whom the Lord called, as the Lord commanded, even though the apostles were yet ignorant of what all this would mean. And when it was time to personally and pratically 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 thus it is unlikely Peter's message to the Gentiles was because of interaction with Paul.

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.

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 salvifically different from Paul.

And rather Peter and John agreeing confine their ministry to the Jews in Gal, 2, though that was their basic mission field, the agreement there was that there was no conflict between what they were all preaching, giving each other the right hand of fellowship.

And while Paul still outreached to the uncircumcision, preaching, as Peter, did the gospel of redemption by faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus, Peter theologically affirms the same in writing "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," that of redemption through the blood of Christ, the substitutionary atonement for man. (1Pt. 1:1ff; 2:24; 3:18)

15. Peter indicates a new dispensation in stating that “ that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.” (1 Timothy 1:16)

What the text conveys is that Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering in Paul as first, or formost (en emoi prōtōi) among sinners (v. 15) not as the first one of a new dispensation. Paul consderes himself the chief sinner since he persecuted their church (but which hyperdip theology disallows as being the body of Christ), and thus Paul gets foremost place as an example of the longsuffering of Christ, whose conversion provides hope for those who come after him. Not as one with a new gospel.

As for “hereafter,” there is actually only one word out of which “to them which should hereafter” is derived, the word being "mellō," (G3195), which is nowhere else rendered "hereafter" in the KJV, and most usually is rendered “should” or “come.”

I do not say “hereafter” is wrong here, but that rather than indicating a new dispensation gospel, Paul is saying the mercy shown him serves as an encouragement for others to come, as does every such testimony.

The fact is that the subject is not belief in a new gospel, and in fact the record of Paul's conversion shows an absence of the very things that hyperdip disciples say marks Paul's gospel as being different from Peter's. And instead the subject is Paul being saved by placing his faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus, with Paul confessing him in baptism, which is what Peter preached in Acts 2:28, and which is the only gospel Paul would have heard.

Therefore, rather than this text providing encouragement for those who believe the distinctive gospel of Paul, it provides encouragement for those who would be converted as he was, which Paul certainly sees as being by grace.

Paul's conversion thus serves as an encouragement to all who believe what Paul believed, which what Peter et al preached as well, while Paul provided most of the theology behind it, besides the nature of the church which was a result of it.

16. Paul was made an Apostle by the risen Christ after the 12 had been chosen, in order to begins salvation under a new dispensation, that of the gospel of grace, with only believing being required, versus that of the kingdom, in which repentance and baptism is preached.

Rather, Paul described the “gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24) as being that of “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21) Paul also taught “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, “ which corresponds to confessing faith in the Lord Jesus by baptism, which Paul treated as believing on the Lord Jesus, (Acts 19:1-5) and as representing having believed. (Rm. 3:25,26)

Paul's mission was not to preach a new gospel, but to preach the one Peter was preaching, as there is not essential difference between the two, and in addition Paul would provide most of the theology behind it, and the fullness of the New Covenant.

Souls do not need to understand that the church is the one new man, or understand much of the theology behind redemption, but that God is almighty holy and just, and thus they are sinners in desperate need of salvation, and that the very Son of God died and rose and thus they may have forgiveness and the Spirit of God by faith in this Lord Jesus, with that choice being repentance, and which faith is confessed in word and deed.

Which is what both Peter and Paul preached in Acts, while as said, it is writing to believers that both explicitly state that we have redemption through the blood of the sinless Christ, who died for us and rose again. (1Pt. 1:18-21; 2:24; 3:18)

17. In the Old Testament the Israelites did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as NT believers do.

To the contrary, the Holy Spirit states that prophets of old were “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” (1 Peter 1:11) However, the Spirit was not poured out upon all flesh that believed, which signified the New Covenant, and which began at the Lord's death and manifested at Pentecost, fulfilling what Joel 2 said, in which whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Including Gentiles the Lord would call.

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.