I am not ashamed of the gospel...

DerSchweik · May 25, 2020

Guojing said:
True, but remember, Jesus was only sent to the circumcised during his earthly ministry. Paul said that in Romans 15:8, and Jesus himself confirmed it in Matthew 15:24.

The same Paul whose ministry WAS to the Gentiles - of whom Jesus said to Ananias “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel?" (Acts 9:14f)

Guojing said:
He did not allow the gospel of the kingdom to be preached to the Gentiles in Matthew 10:5

He didn't allow His disciples, when He first sent them out to preach, to go to the Gentiles; true.

And yet in John 4 He preached the gospel to a Samaritan woman; He revealed Himself to her as the Messiah. And "from that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all the things that I have done.” So when the Samaritans came to Jesus, they were asking Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. Many more believed because of His word; and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.”"

“Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen;
My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased;
I will put My Spirit upon Him,
And He shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
“He will not quarrel, nor cry out;
Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.

Go figure, huh?

DerSchweik · May 25, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
Lord Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. Everything in the OT looks forward to the cross. The old testament saints were just as saved as any believer after the resurrection. They were not baptised.

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

They were not explicitly commanded by the resurrected Lord to be baptized either.

Brian Mcnamee · May 25, 2020

Hi if Paul really thought that about baptism he would certainly have emphasized it in his ministry yet he only baptized a small handful of people so that is a living contradiction to your analysis that Paul saw baptism in the way you suggest.

DerSchweik · May 25, 2020

Brian Mcnamee said:
Hi if Paul really thought that about baptism he would certainly have emphasized it in his ministry yet he only baptized a small handful of people so that is a living contradiction to your analysis that Paul saw baptism in the way you suggest.

With all due respect Brian, this objection to Christian baptism is perhaps one of the oldest in all Christendom.

While the objection [to Christian baptism] is usually argued thus: "If Paul had been sent to baptize, then baptism would be part of the gospel message. Paul asserted Christ did not send him to baptize, therefore baptism cannot be part of the gospel message," your version seems to have anticipated the obvious rebuttal and rephrased itself slightly - though the gist of the objection hasn't changed - it remains a common logical fallacy (see "denying the antecedent"):

Interestingly, Tertullian addressed this as early as the 2nd century:
140-230 AD TERTULLIAN "But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, 'For Christ sent me not to baptize;' as if by this argument baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos. For which reason the 'peacemaking' apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent 'not to baptize, but to preach.' For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was." (Tertullian, "On Baptism," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 676)

Let me summarize Tertullian's arguments for they are no different than for any who've actually given I Cor 1:10ff an honest read.

First, the context. Schisms and dissensions in the body of the Corinthian church - verses 10, 11, 12.
Second, the facts. Paul (as you acknowledged) actually DID baptize - Gaius, Crispus, Stephanus, et. al.
Third, appending the above, that Paul wasn't sent to baptize but to preach does not negate his views on baptism an iota; nor does it diminish what Paul DID preach about baptism in most of his letters (most already cited herein).

Lastly, Tertullian didn't include this in his rebuttal to the objection, but it definitely warrants mentioning:

On what basis did Paul argue for UNITY in the Corinthian church? See I Cor 1:13:

"Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he?"

Do you see the basis of Paul's argument there? He's arguing on the basis of their IDENTITY IN CHRIST.
Do you read what he wrote next?

"Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

According to Paul, the basis of our IDENTITY IN CHRIST is Christian baptism.

Aussie Pete · May 25, 2020

DerSchweik said:
“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

They were not explicitly commanded by the resurrected Lord to be baptized either.

Baptisimal regeneration is not supported by the Bible. Lord Jesus saves. Believe and receive Him. For sure baptism is important. But it is not the requirement for receiving eternal life.

Guojing · May 25, 2020

DerSchweik said:
The same Paul whose ministry WAS to the Gentiles - of whom Jesus said to Ananias “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel?" (Acts 9:14f)

He didn't allow His disciples, when He first sent them out to preach, to go to the Gentiles; true.

And yet in John 4 He preached the gospel to a Samaritan woman; He revealed Himself to her as the Messiah. And "from that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all the things that I have done.” So when the Samaritans came to Jesus, they were asking Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. Many more believed because of His word; and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.”"

“Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen;
My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased;
I will put My Spirit upon Him,
And He shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
“He will not quarrel, nor cry out;
Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.

Go figure, huh?

Easy if you are willing to read the bible literally.

He saved Paul to reach out to us Gentiles with a new gospel, the gospel of grace, which the ascended Christ personally taught Paul

Galatians 1
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Guojing · May 25, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
Lord Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. Everything in the OT looks forward to the cross. The old testament saints were just as saved as any believer after the resurrection. They were not baptised.

This is the classic doctrine of covenant theology. Do you know what that is?

Aussie Pete · May 25, 2020

Guojing said:
This is the classic doctrine of covenant theology. Do you know what that is?

I'm not a theologian and I've somehow survived. I know when I got born again. I was led to the Lord by a Methodist. He did not mention baptism. I was on my own as a Christian for a long time (long story) and I stumbled around a bit. I ended up at a Baptist church. The best thing about it was that it was not Anglican. They preached about baptism one Sunday and I realised that I should get baptised. No one can convince me that I was not born again before I got dunked.

DerSchweik · May 25, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
Baptisimal regeneration is not supported by the Bible. Lord Jesus saves. Believe and receive Him. For sure baptism is important. But it is not the requirement for receiving eternal life.

"Baptismal regeneration" is a straw man - concocted by opponents of Christian baptism to assert something the bible doesn't say, nor which proponents of Christian baptism believe, in an effort to bolster their own faulty logic about what the bible DOES say (but they refuse to obey).

In other words, you probably haven't even read any of my posts - actually read them - nor have you actually even studied the topic of Christian baptism for yourself.

And to be totally honest Pete, I'm sad to say that it really shows.

Salvation isn't some esoteric, mystically ecstatic spiritual experience where someone feels some sort of warm glow come upon them that makes them all tingly inside and thus somehow "saved." It's down-to-earth simple, and real, understanding just how sinful we really are, how irretrievable sinful we are, realizing who Jesus really is, what Jesus actually did for us, paying the penalty for our sins, bearing our wounds on the cross, with a degree of love it's virtually impossible for us to truly grasp. All we need do is believe, trust in Him in faith - faith expressed in obedience to His command that we repent, confessing our sins, and humbly submitting our bodies to baptism as He humbly submitted His to being struck, spat upon, scourged, and finally nailed to a cross. That's it. There's no uber spiritual theology degree to grasp the gist of the gospel. It's simple, simple enough even the lowliest, least educated person can grasp.

There is no such thing in the bible as a "personal Lord and Savior." No teaching that suggests or even hints at making Jesus that. What an abominable heresy that is - near infinite hubris to think we can somehow make Jesus our own little idol to carry around with us. The Old Testament version of that are the baals. Did you know that?

Nor do we somehow "receive" Him - and so somehow get saved thereby. What we receive is His word - and to receive His word is to accept and obey it. John 1 says that as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God. The right. But the becoming only follows if we obey Him. Not before.

You say "for sure, baptism is important." But you have no idea what it is, what it represents, or truthfully, how important it really is. Tell me something - WHY is "baptism important?" You think you can compartmentalize the gospel, obeying only those aspects of it that suit you but relegate the others to some ambiguous level of "important?" That's a true cop out Pete. Pure and simple.

DerSchweik · May 25, 2020

Guojing said:
Easy if you are willing to read the bible literally.

Well, in this context anyway, how ought we to read it?

Guojing said:
He saved Paul to reach out to us Gentiles with a new gospel, the gospel of grace, which the ascended Christ personally taught Paul

Galatians 1
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Ok....?

Guojing · May 25, 2020

DerSchweik said:
Well, in this context anyway, how ought we to read it?

Ok....?

As I have already explained to you, the gospel of the kingdom required water baptism.

The gospel of grace does not.

I am not ashamed of the gospel...

DerSchweik · May 26, 2020

Guojing said:
As I have already explained to you, the gospel of the kingdom required water baptism.

The gospel of grace does not.

I am not ashamed of the gospel...

This is the "two gospels" objection to Christian baptism as propounded by the Grace Churches and perhaps most notably, Les Feldick and his followers.

From the grace churches website, doctrine.org/baptism:

article at: doctrine.org/baptism said:
"Why do churches practice water baptism?The short answer to that question is that churches practice water baptism because theologians have failed to recognize and distinguish between Paul’s ministry and the revelation God gave to him and the ministry of John the Baptizer, Jesus, and the Twelve." < snip > ....Failure to understand the differences between these two ministries and messages and failure to distinguish between Israel (God’s earthly people) and the Church (God’s heavenly people) has led to most of the hermeneutical problems that exist in Christianity.

This is classic gnosticism - the notion that with their special knowledge they have somehow solved all the hermeneutical problems that exist in Christianity - problems theologians have simply "failed to recognize..."

From the same article:

article at: doctrine.org/baptism said:
Paul did not regard water baptism to be of great importance. He wrote the Corinthians, “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel”

This statement pretty much gives their primary emphasis away. Basically, their special knowledge revolves around the "Christ didn't sent me to baptize" objection to Christian baptism - admittedly however on steroids.

This particular heresy has been dealt with from the early Christian fathers (e.g. Tertullian et. al.) on, which I've already addressed in this thread - sufficiently I think, so I won't do so again here.

That said, the "two gospels" belief isn't new but it's also not a teaching that's often seen.
Again, from that same article:

article at: doctrine.org/baptism said:
John, Jesus, and the Twelve proclaimed the “gospel of the kingdom of God” (Matthew 4.17; 9.35). Their message was to Israel. Its focus was on repentance, water baptism, belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and the earthly kingdom of God. Paul proclaimed a different message. He proclaimed the “gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20.24) which focused upon Christ dying for our sins and rising from the dead. It was a message of grace and faith alone (1 Corinthians 15.1-4). Paul’s gospel was primarily to Gentiles since he was the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11.13).

Do you see the issue? They claim Paul proclaimed a different [gospel] message than did John, Jesus, and the Apostles preached.

Now, if they'd stopped at John (the baptist), I think we'd all have to agree his message WAS different than Jesus', the apostles, and Paul - if only because his PURPOSE was different. But they don't - they actually assert that Jesus' gospel was different than Paul's gospel. The supposed "kingdom gospel" vs. the supposed "grace gospel."

One obvious (among too many to hit all here) response to that is Acts 13 - Paul's first missionary journey; leaving Antioch, they end up in Salamis (v 5) - "When they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews..."
After that they made their way to Perga and then to Psidian Antioch (vs 14f) - "But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.”"

The next day, they returned to the synagogue but were met by unbelieving Jews who were blaspheming and inciting the crowds (vs 46f) - Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us,
‘I have placed You as a light for the Gentiles,
That You may bring salvation to the end of the earth.’”

The simple truth is that Paul's gospel was no different than Jesus' or the apostles or Philip or...

The only difference was their audience.

The grace churches have - in their gnostic hubris - taken great pains to attempt to repudiate Christian baptism on almost every point proponents of Christian baptism put forth by way of reasoning from Scripture. Their efforts have produced, not surprisingly, a very painful rendition of God's Word that misses the mark on practically every key point.

Guojing · May 26, 2020

DerSchweik said:
This is the "two gospels" objection to Christian baptism as propounded by the Grace Churches and perhaps most notably, Les Feldick and his followers.

From the grace churches website, doctrine.org/baptism:
This is classic gnosticism - the notion that with their they have somehow solved all the hermeneutical problems that exist in Christianity - problems theologians have simply "failed to recognize..."

From the same article:
This statement pretty gives their emphasis away. Basically, their special knowledge revolves around the "Christ didn't sent me to baptize" objection to Christian baptism - admittedly however on steroids.

This particular heresy has been dealt with from the early Christian fathers (e.g. Tertullian et. al.) on, which I've already addressed in this thread - sufficiently I think, so I won't do so again here.

That said, the "two gospels" belief isn't new but it's also not a teaching that's often seen.
Again, from that same article:
Do you see the issue? They claim Paul proclaimed a different [gospel] message than did John, Jesus, and the Apostles preached.

Now, if they'd stopped at John (the baptist), I think we'd all have to agree his message WAS different than Jesus', the apostles, and Paul - if only because his PURPOSE was different. But they don't - they actually assert that Jesus' gospel was different than Paul's gospel. The supposed "kingdom gospel" vs. the supposed "grace gospel."

One obvious response to that is Acts 13 - Paul's first missionary journey; leaving Antioch, they end up in Salamis (v 5) - "When they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews..."
After that they made their way to Perga and then to Psidian Antioch (vs 14f) - "But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.”"

The next day, they returned to the synagogue but were met by unbelieving Jews who were blaspheming and inciting the crowds (vs 46f) - Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us,
‘I have placed You as a light for the Gentiles,
That You may bring salvation to the end of the earth.’”

The simple truth is that Paul's gospel was no different than Jesus' or the apostles or Philip or...

. The only difference was their audience.

The grace churches have - in their gnostic hubris - taken great pains to attempt to repudiate Christian baptism on almost every point proponents of Christian baptism put forth by way of reasoning from Scripture. Their efforts have produced, not surprisingly, a very painful rendition of God's Word that misses the mark on practically every key point.

One question which will clarify what you are saying, did Jesus ever preached to the Jews or to the 12, whether before or after he resurrected, that they are dead to the Law of Moses?

Did he not instead preached to them Matthew 5:17-19?

DerSchweik · May 26, 2020

Guojing said:
One question which will clarify what you are saying, did Jesus ever preached to the Jews or to the 12, whether before or after he resurrected, that they are dead to the Law of Moses?

Did he not instead preached to them Matthew 5:17-19?

No, it won't.

My wife and I have a small tv in our master bath which we like to turn on while getting ready in the morning. Most mornings we're able to listen to Les Feldick - mainly because there's little else of value on at that hour and Les quotes a lot of Scripture.

Interestingly, in his programs he's never quite able to articulate his point - though his talks always discuss the subject of the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace and the supposed differences between them. That's all he talks about - every show, different messages all trying to articulate the same point.

Unfortunately, he's never able get to his point, often lost in his own scriptures, or bouncing back and forth as new thoughts pop into his head interrupting another point he's having trouble making.

Bottom line is this "doctrine" is so agonizingly convoluted and so painfully twisted that 1) not even Les could sort it all out and 2) I simply don't have the energy or desire to put my brain through the contortions of illogic and bastardization of scripture to respond further right now.

Guojing · May 26, 2020

DerSchweik said:
No, it won't.

My wife and I have a small tv in our master bath which we like to turn on while getting ready in the morning. Most mornings we're able to listen to Les Feldick - mainly because there's little else of value on at that hour and Les quotes a lot of Scripture.

Interestingly, in his programs he's never quite able to articulate his point - though his talks always discuss the subject of the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace and the supposed differences between them. That's all he talks about - every show, different messages all trying to articulate the same point.

Unfortunately, he's never able get to his point, often lost in his own scriptures, or bouncing back and forth as new thoughts pop into his head interrupting another point he's having trouble making.

Bottom line is this "doctrine" is so agonizingly convoluted and so painfully twisted that 1) not even Les could sort it all out and 2) I simply don't have the energy or desire to put my brain through the contortions of illogic and bastardization of scripture to respond further right now.

You don't want to answer the question?

DerSchweik · May 27, 2020

Guojing said:
One question which will clarify what you are saying, did Jesus ever preached to the Jews or to the 12, whether before or after he resurrected, that they are dead to the Law of Moses?

To my knowledge, no. But that "clarifies" nothing. In fact, it doesn't even support your own stance.

Consider how the Jews at large received (or refused to receive) the gospel - Acts 6 for example, Stephen was [falsely] accused of speaking against the temple and Law - “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” (Acts 6:13f). To whom did Stephen preach? His audience was JEWS.

Consider Paul back in the passage I already cited in Acts 13 - "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." (Acts 13:38f). To whom was Paul preaching? His audience was JEWS.

Consider again Paul in Acts 21, speaking to the JEWS in Jerusalem - “Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place..." (Acts 21:28f)

The average Jew of the day did not receive the gospel favorably, often misinterpreting the gospel as a message that preached against the Law and their traditions rather than fulfilling the very thing to which they were supposedly so faithful.

Guojing said:
Did he not instead preached to them Matthew 5:17-19?

First off, phrasing your question with the word "instead" is a major factor in the convoluted twisting of scripture Les and the grace churches promote.

There is no "instead." The Law is fulfilled in Christ. Per Paul, the Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal 5:14) Jesus fulfilled it by His death, burial, and resurrection.

Paul didn't preach a different gospel than Jesus. The very notion is absurd - and taken to the extreme that Les and the grace churches have, it's heretical. Jesus' audience was, by and large, JEWS; why? Because as has already been quoted, it was proper He come to them first (Acts 13) - but as Paul also acknowledged and the verses above show - they repudiated it - just as they repudiated Jesus Himself - even to the point of crucifying Him.

This gnostic heresy that there are somehow two different gospels should also be repudiated - which I pray friend, you will.

Guojing · May 27, 2020

DerSchweik said:
To my knowledge, no. But that "clarifies" nothing. In fact, it doesn't even support your own stance.

Consider how the Jews at large received (or refused to receive) the gospel - Acts 6 for example, Stephen was [falsely] accused of speaking against the temple and Law - “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” (Acts 6:13f). To whom did Stephen preach? His audience was JEWS.

Consider Paul back in the passage I already cited in Acts 13 - "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." (Acts 13:38f). To whom was Paul preaching? His audience was JEWS.

Consider again Paul in Acts 21, speaking to the JEWS in Jerusalem - “Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place..." (Acts 21:28f)

The average Jew of the day did not receive the gospel favorably, often misinterpreting the gospel as a message that preached against the Law and their traditions rather than fulfilling the very thing to which they were supposedly so faithful.

First off, phrasing your question with the word "instead" is a major factor in the convoluted twisting of scripture Les and the grace churches promote.

There is no "instead." The Law is fulfilled in Christ. Per Paul, the Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal 5:14) Jesus fulfilled it by His death, burial, and resurrection.

Paul didn't preach a different gospel than Jesus. The very notion is absurd - and taken to the extreme that Les and the grace churches have, it's heretical. Jesus' audience was, by and large, JEWS; why? Because as has already been quoted, it was proper He come to them first (Acts 13) - but as Paul also acknowledged and the verses above show - they repudiated it - just as they repudiated Jesus Himself - even to the point of crucifying Him.

This gnostic heresy that there are somehow two different gospels should also be repudiated - which I pray friend, you will.

Okay, so in contrast to Jesus, Paul preached in many different places that circumcision is of no value, we are dead to the Law etc etc. I trust you know the references.

The Law of Moses is so important to the Jews. Put yourself in the shoes of the 12 and James in the period of Acts.

They see Saul as a persecutor of them. Out of the blue, he claimed that the ascended Christ revealed mysteries to him that none of them are aware of, and no one else could verify.

If you are one of them then, would you put weight in whatever he says?

You still claim both preached the same gospel?

DerSchweik · May 28, 2020

Guojing said:
Okay, so in contrast to Jesus, Paul preached in many different places that circumcision is of no value, we are dead to the Law etc etc. I trust you know the references.

The Law of Moses is so important to the Jews. Put yourself in the shoes of the 12 and James in the period of Acts.

They see Saul as a persecutor of them. Out of the blue, he claimed that the ascended Christ revealed mysteries to him that none of them are aware of, and no one else could verify.

If you are one of them then, would you put weight in whatever he says?

You still claim both preached the same gospel?

Absolutely! They both preached the SAME GOSPEL!

How can anyone possibly think God would condone two different gospels??? "...and there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..." (I Tim 2:5)

One Savior. One Mediator. One way to God.... therefore One gospel.

Did they (the 12) all get it? Did they get it right away? NO! These yahoos, after seeing Jesus feed 5,000 people with nothing more than a few loaves of bread and a couple fish, then shortly thereafter feed another 4,000 people with seven loaves and some fish, then turn right around and wonder what they're going to do, not having brought any bread with them (c.f. Mt. 15, 16). They were constantly in the dark about what Jesus was telling them!

Moreover, as you rightly point out - they were coming from completely different, even polar backgrounds from the Gentiles - religiously, culturally, politically, ideologially...

So - HOW one explains something to one group of people can be totally different than HOW one explains it to another group - but that doesn't mean the MESSAGE is different.

In fact, PETER had to explain himself to the church in Jerusalem after preaching the gospel to Cornelius and his household - "had to" because the Jewish Christians still didn't quite get that Gentiles were part of God's plan of salvation too. And what was their response?

"Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:17f)

Up to this point, they were CLUELESS that God's plan included the Gentiles too!

One Savior. One Mediator. One way to God.... therefore One gospel.

Guojing · May 28, 2020

DerSchweik said:
Absolutely! They both preached the SAME GOSPEL!

How can anyone possibly think God would condone two different gospels??? "...and there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..." (I Tim 2:5)

One Savior. One Mediator. One way to God.... therefore One gospel.

Did they (the 12) all get it? Did they get it right away? NO! These yahoos, after seeing Jesus feed 5,000 people with nothing more than a few loaves of bread and a couple fish, then shortly thereafter feed another 4,000 people with seven loaves and some fish, then turn right around and wonder what they're going to do, not having brought any bread with them (c.f. Mt. 15, 16). They were constantly in the dark about what Jesus was telling them!

Moreover, as you rightly point out - they were coming from completely different, even polar backgrounds from the Gentiles - religiously, culturally, politically, ideologially...

So - HOW one explains something to one group of people can be totally different than HOW one explains it to another group - but that doesn't mean the MESSAGE is different.

In fact, PETER had to explain himself to the church in Jerusalem after preaching the gospel to Cornelius and his household - "had to" because the Jewish Christians still didn't quite get that Gentiles were part of God's plan of salvation too. And what was their response?

"Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:17f)

Up to this point, they were CLUELESS that God's plan included the Gentiles too!

One Savior. One Mediator. One way to God.... therefore One gospel.

One gospel had those who believed also needing to keep the Law of Moses, eg circumcising their children. (Acts 21:20-24)

Another gospel had Galatians 5:2, Christ will profit you nothing if you were to be circumcised.

Doesn't look like the same to me.

DerSchweik · May 29, 2020

Guojing said:
One gospel had those who believed also needing to keep the Law of Moses, eg circumcising their children. (Acts 21:20-24)

Another gospel had Galatians 5:2, Christ will profit you nothing if you were to be circumcised.

Doesn't look like the same to me.

Nor does it look like two different gospels to me.

What you're preaching friend, in this two gospels "gospel" is mystical gnosticism - a heresy from as early as the 2nd century.

I am not ashamed of the gospel...

Spend time in His Word - every day

Spend time in His Word - every day

Well-Known Member

Spend time in His Word - every day

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Spend time in His Word - every day

Spend time in His Word - every day

Well-Known Member

Spend time in His Word - every day

Well-Known Member

Spend time in His Word - every day

Well-Known Member

Spend time in His Word - every day

Well-Known Member

Spend time in His Word - every day

Well-Known Member

Spend time in His Word - every day

Similar threads