A verse that single-handedly destroys the dispensational delusion!

[BABerean2]

This nonsense is not even a part of dispensational doctrine.

What does a Messianic Jew think?

 

[clemenslee]

There is no biblical physical Israel anymore, the church represents spiritual Israel now.

The Chosen Seed And Circumcision Part 1​

At this juncture, we must take note of a vital issue that is virtually ignored in the modern discussions about Israel and God's promises to her, and that is the subject of circumcision. It is all but impossible for moderns to appreciate the passion that this topic generated in the New Testament times. To Christians, circumcision is about hygiene; to the Jews it was about God's covenant. It was about being a child of God, their election by Him. It was about the Land. It was about the Temple. It was everything.

What Paul taught about circumcision was considered "the offense of the Cross" (Galatians 5:11), by the Jews and Judaizers. The Jews wanted to kill Paul for what he taught about circumcision. And what did Paul teach? He taught that, "If you become circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing"; "I testify to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law"; "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love" (Galatians 5:2-6). So what is the big deal about this? As just noted, we today cannot easily grasped why Paul's doctrine about circumcision would incite such violent reactions. The reason why we have such a difficult time appreciating this is because we are unfamiliar with the true meaning of covenant.

For brevity, we will list just a few of the main themes associated with circumcision in the mind of the Jews.

1.) Genesis 17:7-14 -- Circumcision and the Identity Of God's People.

When Jehovah called Abraham, He made a covenant of circumcision with him. The Lord told Abraham that if anyone was born in his house or a slave purchased by any of descendants was not circumcised, "he shall be cut off from the people" (Genesis 17:14). This meant he was to die.

Simply stated, no circumcision meant you were not of the Abrahamic seed, and if you were not of the Abrahamic seed, you were "outside". For Paul, prior to Christ, there were only two classifications of mankind, the circumcised and the uncircumcised, and the uncircumcised were, "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in this world." (Ephesians 2:11f). To put it another way, no circumcision, no hope.

Now, if you had been taught, as a people, for 1,500+ years that circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with you, to identify you as His, and all of a sudden someone started saying that circumcision now meant nothing, how would you react? If this act identified you as a child of God, blessed above all people and now you were told that it no longer had any special significance in God's eyes, wouldn't you consider that man a heretic, a rabble-rouser and a revolutionary?

2.) Joshua 5 -- Circumcision and the Land.

As Joshua led the children of Israel to the borders of the promised land, it was realized that the men had not been circumcised. The generation that had come out of Egypt had died out, and failed to have their sons circumcised. As a result, Israel could not possess the land.. Joshua had all the men circumcised and God said: "This day have I rolled the approach of Egypt from you" (Joshua 5:9). Now if, even as a descendant of Abraham, you could not possess the land if you were not circumcised, how incredible was it for Paul to say, "Circumcision avails nothing." Covenantally, no circumcision meant no land. And now, Paul said circumcision avails nothing. The umbilical cord between circumcision and the Land was being cut by the gospel of the Messiah.

3.) Acts 21:27f -- Circumcision and the Temple.

In Acts, the Jews thought Paul had taken Trophimus, an uncircumcised Greek, into the Temple. A riot broke out, and Paul would literally have been killed on the spot had not the Roman commander rescued him. It will be remembered that although the Romans had removed the authority of capital punishment from Israel prior to this occasion, they had actually made exceptions in cases involving violation of the Temple. Thus, there were plaques placed all around the Temple complex, with inscriptions warning all Gentiles that to proceed past a certain point would result in their death.

The Temple was the most sacred place in the world. It was the center of the world for the Jews. The privilege of worshipping there was one of the greatest blessings in the world. Circumcision provided passage into those hallowed courts. Without circumcision, no one could enter its holy gates. No circumcision, no Temple privileges.

Considering these facets of Israel's identity, perhaps we can begin to have a basic grasp of the passion with which circumcision was viewed by the Jews of Paul's day. No circumcision placed one outside the covenants, outside the land, outside the city, outside of God's favor.

Is it any wonder why Paul considered such a heretic? Is it any wonder why the Jews sought to kill him? Is it any wonder why his gospel was such an offense to them? For Paul to argue that true circumcision is of the heart (Colossians 2:11-12), and belongs to those of faith, not of the flesh (Philippians 3:1-3), meant that God's election of national Israel was coming to a close. It meant that Israel was being re-defined along spiritual lines, as hinted at by the prophets, but never grasped by those focused on earthly things. It meant, positively, that the time of fulfillment had come, the time anticipated in Genesis 28 and 49 when the scepter would pass from Judah. This was truly good news, except to those who were mindful of the flesh and who trusted in the flesh (Philippians 3).

What is the implications of Paul's doctrine of circumcision for the belief that national Israel remains God's chosen people? It is devastating. For Paul, the Abrahamic seed was now being determined by faith, not by circumcision, "Only those who are of faith are of Abraham" (Galatians 3:6f). This means that physical circumcision no longer determined if a person was of the Abrahamic line. How incredibly important.

Paul taught that in God's eyes the Abrahamic seed is no longer determined by the flesh and circumcision. How then can one speak of the restoration of national Israel as God's chosen people without rejecting Paul's gospel? Talk about a replacement theology!

Jesus said his word, his New Covenant wherein physical circumcision means nothing, would never pass away (Matthew 24:35). Well, if the gospel of Jesus will never pass away, and if the gospel message is that physical circumcision avails nothing with God, how can one teach that national Israel, identified by circumcision, will be restored? You cannot restore national Israel-identified by obedience to the Abrahamic Covenant of circumcision--to God's favor without annulling the Gospel of Jesus Christ that says, "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything." The choice is clear. Circumcision means no Christ, but Christ means no circumcision. No circumcision means that all emphasis on ethnic identity, all claims to the Land and all emphasis on the City and Temple is nullified.

Thus, religiously, Israel is no longer Biblical Israel, because Jehovah removed the Old Covenant, along with circumcision, the sacrifices, the temple, the priesthood, in AD 70. And ethnically, Israel is no longer Biblical Israel, because Jehovah destroyed the genealogical records in AD 70, and, the majority of those calling themselves Jews today, are atheists, or are of Gentile descent.

To make 1948, or any other modern time, the restoration of national Israel to God's favored position one must be willing to affirm the rejection and replacement of the blood bought gospel of Jesus Christ with the obsolete doctrine of circumcision. It is imperative that the modern evangelical world come to grips with these vital truths. The events of 1948 have nothing to do with Old Covenant Biblical Israel.

Israel 1948: Countdown To No Where pgs 45-48.

I think maybe you might be missing something. Did God divorce Judah? Did God divorce Israel (the northern tribes not Judah)? Are there 2 houses of Israel in which both are the of the same house? The point I'm trying to make, which maybe I'm wrong is that you seem to lump all Israel together. Yes Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews. You can look throughout the scriptures and see clearly who is being referenced, either its the 10 tribes (Israel), or Judah, or the whole house of Israel (both tribes).

Yes, its only through Christ and his blood that we are his. Indeed even for the Jews who rejected Christ will come to that realization. You have to understand that the 10 tribes no longer were Gods chosen people, thats what Hosea was all about, it had nothing to do with Judah (Jews), the Jews were never lost to history. The 10 tribes were lose there identity and forget their heritage.

That's why it is said through their fall we are saved, God turned to a people of nothing (those outside of his chosen people, all of Israel both houses) cause them (The whole house, but more specifically the 10 tribes lost sheep) in Jelousy to turn back to God. Its the same as if a girl that you loved broke up with you, and you go out and show off another girl to make the one you truly loved be jelous in hopes she would come back to you. Its the same thing that God did through Christ. Israel both houses but more specifically the 10 tribes, did not give God their full love and trust. They went screwing around basically on God, when they were his true love. So through Christ God turned to a people not of his oracle (The Church) not only to save a dying world, but also in hopes to turn them (Israel) back. For it is said, in the very place were you will be scattered and known as not my people and forgetting their heritage, they shall be known as the sons of the living God.

So indeed the Church and Israel are seperate and God is not done with his chosen people.

 

[BABerean2]

I think maybe you might be missing something. Did God divorce Judah? Did God divorce Israel (the northern tribes not Judah)? Are there 2 houses of Israel in which both are the of the same house? The point I'm trying to make, which maybe I'm wrong is that you seem to lump all Israel together. Yes Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews. You can look throughout the scriptures and see clearly who is being referenced, either its the 10 tribes (Israel), or Judah, or the whole house of Israel (both tribes).

Yes, its only through Christ and his blood that we are his. Indeed even for the Jews who rejected Christ will come to that realization. You have to understand that the 10 tribes no longer were Gods chosen people, thats what Hosea was all about, it had nothing to do with Judah (Jews), the Jews were never lost to history. The 10 tribes were lose there identity and forget their heritage.

That's why it is said through their fall we are saved, God turned to a people of nothing (those outside of his chosen people, all of Israel both houses) cause them (The whole house, but more specifically the 10 tribes lost sheep) in Jelousy to turn back to God. Its the same as if a girl that you loved broke up with you, and you go out and show off another girl to make the one you truly loved be jelous in hopes she would come back to you. Its the same thing that God did through Christ. Israel both houses but more specifically the 10 tribes, did not give God their full love and trust. They went screwing around basically on God, when they were his true love. So through Christ God turned to a people not of his oracle (The Church) not only to save a dying world, but also in hopes to turn them (Israel) back. For it is said, in the very place were you will be scattered and known as not my people and forgetting their heritage, they shall be known as the sons of the living God.

So indeed the Church and Israel are seperate and God is not done with his chosen people.

God is not done with His chosen people, who accept His Son.
All of the first Christians were from His chosen people.
At the present time, thousands of Jews are accepting Christ as their Messiah.
Therefore God is not through with His chosen people.
They were chosen before the foundation of the world to be the bloodline through which the Messiah would come.
All of the nations of the world have been and continue to be blessed, through the Blood of Christ.
He is the Seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15, the Messiah in John 3:16, and in Gal. 3:16 Paul makes it clear that the promises were only made to the One Seed, not the many seeds.

In Romans chapter 11, the Apostle Paul starts with two groups of Israelites, those 7,000 would not bow to Baal, and those who did.
Later in the chapter he continues with two groups of Israelites, those who were the cultivated branches who remained in the Olive Tree, and the branches that were broken off due to unbelief. They can only be grafted back in through faith in Christ.
The Gentiles were grafted in among the believing Israelites.

Salvation does not come through circumcision on the 8th day, nor the sprinkling of water on babies.
It only comes through personal faith in Christ.

Anyone who rejects Christ is lost, whether Jew or Gentile.
Only a remnant will be saved. It is happening now as it did in the first century.

Sadly, many of the Jews of the modern world are atheists, agnostics, and those who practice a perversion of the Old Testament, known as Talmudic Judaism.
The Talmud contains derogatory statements about Jesus.

If you believe that all of the Jews will come to faith in Christ in the future, you need to read the book of Revelation.
We find only 144,000 who believe in Christ, and a city of Jerusalem compared to the city of Sodom.

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
Does this sound like a place where all of the Jews in the nation have come to faith in Christ?



All of the Old Testament promises are fulfilled in Christ.


Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. The promises were not made to all of Abraham's descendants, but only to the One.


Rom_2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God. God does not now judge by bloodline.


Rom_9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Only a remnant

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Those in-Christ are Abraham's seed and heirs to the promise.


Exo_19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Deu_14:2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

Deu_26:18 And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments;

Tit_2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1Pe_2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: These are the same promises made to Israel in the Old Testament.

.

 

[Job8]

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Acts 17:30

This verse actually supports Dispensationalism. We have two dispensations here (1) the times of igorance and (2) the time for repentance. Dispensations, by defintion, are periods of time during which God deals with humans in different ways.

 

[random person]

Incorrect, here is a Preterist FAQ by David Green


Do you believe in "replacement theology?" Was Israel replaced by the Church? Since the Jews are no longer God's chosen people, does that indicate that Jews are an accursed race because of what they did to Christ?

ANSWER:

Abraham's descendants were not cut off and "replaced" by a gentile church. The Jews never became an accursed race.

Yes, there was a wicked and perverse generation of accursed Jews in the Last Days. (Matt. 25:41; Mk. 11:21; Gal. 3:10) And yes, after A.D. 70 Abraham's descendants were no longer in any sense uniquely God's chosen people. But those facts in no way indicate that the Abrahamic blood-line became accursed.

Israel was hardened "in part" in the Last Days. (Rom. 11:25) It was through the world-changing, Last-Days work of the Holy Spirit that the "firstfruit" remnant of Israel was saved, (Rom. 11:5,16) and that "the fulness of the gentiles" was brought into Israel, (Rom. 11:25) and that the pre-Cross saints ("the dead" / "all Israel") were resurrected. (Rom. 11:15,26,28) All were gathered together at the Parousia of Christ and united into one eternal, spiritual, resurrected Body. (Rom. 11:26)

In the ages before the Advent of the Son, God's people were not only separated from Him (as the animal sacrifices testified) and separated from each other (the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah) and separated from the unclean, gentile world, but wars with each other and wars with gentiles, and ultimately Death itself, separated every son of the kingdom from the worship of the Father.

Through the power of the Cross of Christ, those "old things" of "tears," "death," "sorrow," "outcry" and "pain" passed away in the end of the age. (Rev. 21:4) In His Parousia, the historic kingdom was transformed. It was changed from having been a worldly, hand-made kingdom that embodied Condemnation (separation), Sin and Death (Heb. 9:1,11,24), to being the God-made Kingdom "from out of Heaven" (II Cor. 5:2; Rev. 21:2,10) in which all the elect, the living and the dead, Jew and gentile, were united and made alive in Christ, never again to be separated from God or from each other.

Now all the saints are granted free and equal access to the throne of grace, through faith in the Son. (Heb. 7:12) Now all the saints are "priests of God." (I Peter 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10) Now all the saints worship Him "face to Face." (I Cor. 13:12; Rev. 22:4) Now all the saints are One in Christ. (Jn. 17:11-23; I Thess. 5:10)

The Church, which Israel's Messiah bought with His own blood, was not the replacement or condemnation of biblical Israel. (Jn. 3:17) It was its fulfillment. Christ's Kingdom today is the full and perfect realization of the hope and goal of Old-Testament Israel.

http://www.biblicalpreteristarchive.com/start/fulfilled/green-david_70wks-03.htm

 

[LastSeven]

So random person, like most anti-dispensationalists, believes that the God that cannot lie will break His very many explicitly stated promises that He will bring all Israel back to their ancient homeland, and bless them there.

If He could legitimately tell them that He was not really speaking of them, he was speaking of another people who would come into the world at a later time, what would keep Him from telling us the same thing?

This false doctrine attacks the very central essence of Christianity, which is the reliability and faithfulness of God.

Not accepting dispensationalism does not require that you believe God has broken any promises. Rather it requires that you understand the promises in a different light.

Personally I find it incredible that you would label "false doctrine" anything that random person posted, because it's all clearly scriptural. Take this part for example:

"According to Deuteronomy 30:1-8, a necessary condition for the re-gathering of Israel to Palestine was returning to the Lord (verses 2-3). Based on this clear passage of Scripture, it can be definitely concluded that the State of Israel, which now exists, was not formed as a result of the blessings of this covenant."

How can you possibly disagree with that? This is a serious question. Explain to me how you can believe that the re-creation of the nation of Israel in 1948 can possibly be a fulfillment of prophecy when the people did not return to the Lord.

And furthermore, if you are going to label something as false doctrine, you owe it to the one you're accusing, to at least provide scripture and a sound argument to back up your accusation. You say that he accuses God of breaking a promise but you fail to explain why that's a requirement, and you fail to acknowledge that he has already explained that the difference is in understanding God's promises, not ignoring them.

 

[BABerean2]

Not accepting dispensationalism does not require that you believe God has broken any promises. Rather it requires that you understand the promises in a different light.

Personally I find it incredible that you would label "false doctrine" anything that random person posted, because it's all clearly scriptural. Take this part for example:

"According to Deuteronomy 30:1-8, a necessary condition for the re-gathering of Israel to Palestine was returning to the Lord (verses 2-3). Based on this clear passage of Scripture, it can be definitely concluded that the State of Israel, which now exists, was not formed as a result of the blessings of this covenant."

How can you possibly disagree with that? This is a serious question. Explain to me how you can believe that the re-creation of the nation of Israel in 1948 can possibly be a fulfillment of prophecy when the people did not return to the Lord.

And furthermore, if you are going to label something as false doctrine, you owe it to the one you're accusing, to at least provide scripture and a sound argument to back up your accusation. You say that he accuses God of breaking a promise but you fail to explain why that's a requirement, and you fail to acknowledge that he has already explained that the difference is in understanding God's promises, not ignoring them.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.



Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

.

 

[TheSeabass]

Gal 1:23 "But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."

Paul is now preaching the faith he once destroyed.

Paul> Saul once destroyed the faith that was beginning to be preached by Peter in Acts 2 at Pentecost, destroying the faith that was being preached up until his conversion in Acts 9. But Paul now is preaching the faith (preached in Acts chapters 2-8) that he once destroyed. Paul taught the exact same thing as Peter..he once destroyed the faith Peter preached but now is preaching it himself.

 

[MWood]

Gal 1:23 "But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."

Paul is now preaching the faith he once destroyed.

Paul> Saul once destroyed the faith that was beginning to be preached by Peter in Acts 2 at Pentecost, destroying the faith that was being preached up until his conversion in Acts 9. But Paul now is preaching the faith (preached in Acts chapters 2-8) that he once destroyed. Paul taught the exact same thing as Peter..he once destroyed the faith Peter preached but now is preaching it himself.

I can see that you haven't read and studied the four Gospels, and compared them to the letters that Paul wrote.

 

[BABerean2]

I can see that you haven't read and studied the four Gospels, and compared them to the letters that Paul wrote.

The 2 Peoples/ 2 Purposes/ 2 Kingdoms/ 2 or more Gospels/ 2 ways of Salvation (Grace and later Law Keeping)/ Scripture "Rightly Divided" into 2 Parts/ 2 Second Comings of Christ doctrine of Dispensational Futurism is not found in God's Word.

There is One Flock and One Shepherd.


Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf


Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) read pages 10-26

http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


Genesis of Dispensational Theology (on YouTube)

.

 

[TheSeabass]

I can see that you haven't read and studied the four Gospels, and compared them to the letters that Paul wrote.

I read from the bible that Paul preached the same one gospel faith that Peter preached.

There is one gospel with four accounts and Paul preached that "one faith" (Eph 4:4,5) that he once destroyed as Saul.


Peter and Paul taught the one same gospel not a contradiction of ideas.

In Acts 15:1,2, the apostles met in Jerusalem to discuss the issue of circumcision. It was during this meeting Peter stood up and said "But we believe that we (Jews) shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they (Gentiles)." Peter said Jews and Gentiles are saved in like manner not saved in contradicting manners. The Jews in Acts 2 are saved in the "like manner way" as Gentiles that Paul went to. Paul was present and did not disagree with Peter's words.

 

[MWood]

I read from the bible that Paul preached the same one gospel faith that Peter preached.

There is one gospel with four accounts and Paul preached that "one faith" (Eph 4:4,5) that he once destroyed as Saul.


Peter and Paul taught the one same gospel not a contradiction of ideas.

In Acts 15:1,2, the apostles met in Jerusalem to discuss the issue of circumcision. It was during this meeting Peter stood up and said "But we believe that we (Jews) shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they (Gentiles)." Peter said Jews and Gentiles are saved in like manner not saved in contradicting manners. The Jews in Acts 2 are saved in the "like manner way" as Gentiles that Paul went to. Paul was present and did not disagree with Peter's words.

What you have highlighted in red is not found in my bible.
Acts15
1. And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2. 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.

Where in these scriptures does Peter say anything?

 

[BABerean2]

What you have highlighted in red is not found in my bible.
Acts15
1. And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2. 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.

Where in these scriptures does Peter say anything?

He said something here...


2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.


2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;


2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.


2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Peter and Paul taught the same Gospel.

.

 

[TheSeabass]

What you have highlighted in red is not found in my bible.
Acts15
1. And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2. 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.

Where in these scriptures does Peter say anything?

Acts 15:11 "But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they."

 

[MWood]

Acts 15:11 "But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they."

That's better. But it doesn't show that Peter and Paul were preaching the same gospel. If you will read the four gospels and the letters of Paul you will see they are not the same gospel.

 

[TheSeabass]

That's better. But it doesn't show that Peter and Paul were preaching the same gospel. If you will read the four gospels and the letters of Paul you will see they are not the same gospel.

Gal 1:23 shows that Paul preached the faith same as Peter.

Acts 15:11 shows that Jew and Gentile are saved in the same "like manner" way. Jews and Gentiles are saved by the one faith, the one gospel in a like manner way. Therefore Jews are not saved any differently than the Gentiles or saved by any different gospel than the Gentiles...save the same way by the same gospel.

 

[BABerean2]

That's better. But it doesn't show that Peter and Paul were preaching the same gospel. If you will read the four gospels and the letters of Paul you will see they are not the same gospel.

You seem to be promoting the multiple Gospels in Scofield's Reference Notes found below.


Revelation 14:6




gospel

Gospel. This great theme may be summarized as follows:

I. In itself, the word Gospel means good news.



II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished:

(1) The Gospel of the kingdom. This is the good news that God purposes to set up on the earth, in fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant: (2Sa_7:16): a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God's Son, David's heir, shall be King, and which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs.

(See Scofield) - (Mat_3:2).

Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples, and ending with the Jewish rejection of the King. The other is yet future (Mat_24:14) during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the coming of the King in glory.

(2) The Gospel of the grace of God. This is the good news that Jesus Christ, the rejected King, has died on the cross for the sins of the world, that He was raised from the dead for our justification, and that, by Him, all that believe are justified from all things. This form of the Gospel is described in many ways. It is the Gospel...

"of God" (Rom_1:1) because it originates in His love;

"of Christ" (2Co_10:14) because it flows from His sacrifice, and because He is the alone Object of Gospel faith;

of the "grace of God" (Act_20:24) because it saves those whom the law curses;

of "the glory"; (1Ti_1:11); (2Co_4:4) because it concerns Him who is in the glory, and who is bringing the many sons to glory; (Heb_2:10);

of "our salvation" (Eph_1:13) because it is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"; (Rom_1:16);

of "the uncircumcision" (Gal_2:7) because it saves wholly apart from forms and ordinances of "peace" (Eph_6:15) because through Christ it makes peace between the sinner and God, and imparts inward peace.

(3) The everlasting Gospel. (Rev_14:6). This is to be preached to the earth-dwellers at the very end of the great tribulation and immediately preceding the judgment of the nations (Mat_15:31). It is neither the Gospel of the kingdom, nor of grace. Though its burden is judgment, not salvation, it is good news to Israel and to those who, during the tribulation, have been saved; (Rev_7:9-14); (Luk_21:28); (Psa_96:11-13); (Isa_35:4-10).

(4) That which Paul calls, "my Gospel" (Rom_2:16). This is the Gospel of the grace of God in its fullest development, but includes the revelation of the result of that Gospel in the outcalling of the church, her relationships, position, privileges, and responsibility. It is the distinctive truth of Ephesians and Colossians, but interpenetrates all of Paul's writings.



III. There is "another Gospel" (Gal_1:6); (2Co_11:4) "which is not another," but a perversion of the Gospel of the grace of God, against which we are warned. It has many seductive forms, but the test is one -- it invariably denies the sufficiency of grace alone to save, keep, and perfect, and mingles with grace some kind of human merit. In Galatia it was law, in Colosse fanaticism (Col_2:18); etc. In any form, its teachers lie under the awful anathema of God.



angel

(See Scofield) - (Heb_1:4).

................................................................................................

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:


Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.


Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.


Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

There is only One Gospel.

.

 

[MWood]

You seem to be promoting the multiple Gospels in Scofield's Reference Notes found below.


Revelation 14:6




gospel

Gospel. This great theme may be summarized as follows:

I. In itself, the word Gospel means good news.



II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished:

(1) The Gospel of the kingdom. This is the good news that God purposes to set up on the earth, in fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant: (2Sa_7:16): a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God's Son, David's heir, shall be King, and which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs.

(See Scofield) - (Mat_3:2).

Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples, and ending with the Jewish rejection of the King. The other is yet future (Mat_24:14) during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the coming of the King in glory.

(2) The Gospel of the grace of God. This is the good news that Jesus Christ, the rejected King, has died on the cross for the sins of the world, that He was raised from the dead for our justification, and that, by Him, all that believe are justified from all things. This form of the Gospel is described in many ways. It is the Gospel...

"of God" (Rom_1:1) because it originates in His love;

"of Christ" (2Co_10:14) because it flows from His sacrifice, and because He is the alone Object of Gospel faith;

of the "grace of God" (Act_20:24) because it saves those whom the law curses;

of "the glory"; (1Ti_1:11); (2Co_4:4) because it concerns Him who is in the glory, and who is bringing the many sons to glory; (Heb_2:10);

of "our salvation" (Eph_1:13) because it is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"; (Rom_1:16);

of "the uncircumcision" (Gal_2:7) because it saves wholly apart from forms and ordinances of "peace" (Eph_6:15) because through Christ it makes peace between the sinner and God, and imparts inward peace.

(3) The everlasting Gospel. (Rev_14:6). This is to be preached to the earth-dwellers at the very end of the great tribulation and immediately preceding the judgment of the nations (Mat_15:31). It is neither the Gospel of the kingdom, nor of grace. Though its burden is judgment, not salvation, it is good news to Israel and to those who, during the tribulation, have been saved; (Rev_7:9-14); (Luk_21:28); (Psa_96:11-13); (Isa_35:4-10).

(4) That which Paul calls, "my Gospel" (Rom_2:16). This is the Gospel of the grace of God in its fullest development, but includes the revelation of the result of that Gospel in the outcalling of the church, her relationships, position, privileges, and responsibility. It is the distinctive truth of Ephesians and Colossians, but interpenetrates all of Paul's writings.



III. There is "another Gospel" (Gal_1:6); (2Co_11:4) "which is not another," but a perversion of the Gospel of the grace of God, against which we are warned. It has many seductive forms, but the test is one -- it invariably denies the sufficiency of grace alone to save, keep, and perfect, and mingles with grace some kind of human merit. In Galatia it was law, in Colosse fanaticism (Col_2:18); etc. In any form, its teachers lie under the awful anathema of God.



angel

(See Scofield) - (Heb_1:4).

................................................................................................

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:


Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.


Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.


Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

There is only One Gospel.

.

The four gospels that I'm referring to are, Matt, Mark, Luke, and John.
I don't know Scofield. I haven't studied his commentaries.
Still, none of what you have posted shows that they preached the same "Good News."

 

[MWood]

Gal 1:23 shows that Paul preached the faith same as Peter.

Acts 15:11 shows that Jew and Gentile are saved in the same "like manner" way. Jews and Gentiles are saved by the one faith, the one gospel in a like manner way. Therefore Jews are not saved any differently than the Gentiles or saved by any different gospel than the Gentiles...save the same way by the same gospel.

These verses don't show that they preached the same gospel.

 

[BABerean2]

The four gospels that I'm referring to are, Matt, Mark, Luke, and John.
I don't know Scofield. I haven't studied his commentaries.
Still, none of what you have posted shows that they preached the same "Good News."

Well, if you do not find Galatians 1:6-9 to clear up the issue, nothing I could ever say could do any better.