Did Peter, Paul, James and John all preach the same Gospel?

[Frogster]

I never said it wasn't applicable. The direct literal law keeping they were doing is not particularly relevant, but when it is understood that the law is not just ceremonial law (the laws they were focusing on particularly) but the whole law then it has great significance for every believer.

Why not?
SDA"s,and Messianics don't eat pork .Paul explained the law was one,in 5;3.
Why isn't it the same today?

 

[Frogster]

No, no, no Twiggy, I'm serious. We could become bois, I'll take you under my wing for awhile, show you the ropes, it'll be gooooood, come on man.

Ok, maybe I'll ask Frogster?

shoot!

 

[nephilimiyr]

shoot!

You know I love the heck out of you don't you? We're bois no matter what.

 

[imperfectchristian]

Ok,but it could have been interesting.Thanks!

It would take a while to put it together.

Off hand there are certain verses that disturb me depending on how they are translated.

One was the Scripture in Hebrews 12:14 that I made an OP about recently where it says for example in the NIV (the version I of this verse I do not like) "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord."

It seems directly contrary to the concept of faith alone, grace alone. That our salvation is dependent on us.


Another one that troubles me even more than that one is in the second to last chapter of Revelations.

"To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Revelation 21:6b-8

It uses the word "overcomes"...that implies my effort that gets me there, then it lists cowards, sexually immoral, liars...murderers and magic arts I can kind of see, but to someone struggling with sexual immorality for instance, this definitely seems to suggest that your salvation is in your own hands.

Now granted it mentions the Lamb's book of life just a couple of verses down, but the book of revelation particularly more so than any other New Testament book shows very little emphasis on redemption by grace through faith in Jesus.

I love the book and I understand its importance of outlining that God will not tolerate evil forever, but will one day cleanse the world of it and arguably doing away with it forever.

I just have trouble taking it and taking letters like Romans and trying to put them together into the same way of thinking.

To me they are two very different ways of thinking.

 

[ARBITER01]

The "once saved always saved" argument has been done to death on here already.

 

[Faulty]

I don't think anyone would argue that they all preached Christ, but were there differences in their understandings of the Gospel that are clearly present and identifiable in their writings?

Obviously their audiences were different and the intent of each of their writings were different. However, particularly when we look at Paul's writings (but not just Paul) as contrasted with the other writings in the New Testament I am increasingly finding it more and more difficult not to conclude that there are some variations between the writers in what Jesus' death and ressurection meant for believers.

If I did not already approach the New Testament Scriptures with the viewpoint that the writers were all in complete harmony in their understanding, then I would have already concluded long ago that their beliefs obviously had some differences in terms of understanding what the message of Jesus meant for the believer.

However I have until very recently been giving the benefit of the doubt to the idea that they are all in total harmony. Maybe their audiences shaded their writings in different directions or maybe their personalities, education and different experiences resulted in the perception of a wider variance in the meanings and applications of their beliefs and revelations than what actually existed.

The bottom line for me right now is that I cannot at this moment reconcile certain concepts with each other between the writers and I believe that if I try and force them to fit like I believe many ministers and theologians have done through the years then I potentially compromise the integrity of the writings and the intent of the writers and consequentially the One (Holy Spirit) who inspired them.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? I would appreciate you sharing especially if you have tackled this issue before and have come to a conclusion. I would very much like to hear some ideas.

Galatians 1:11-12: Paul receives the gospel directly from Jesus Himself.

Galatians 2:1-2: Fourteen years later, Paul goes up to Jerusalem and presents to the Apostles the gospel he preached to ensure what he was preaching was accurate. In other words, to ensure his gospel was the same as theirs.

Galatians 2:6: The Apostles added nothing to his gospel message, because it was the same.

 

[Faulty]

It uses the word "overcomes"...that implies my effort that gets me there, then it lists cowards, sexually immoral, liars...murderers and magic arts I can kind of see, but to someone struggling with sexual immorality for instance, this definitely seems to suggest that your salvation is in your own hands.

Does this sound like it's of your own doing?

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 1 John 5:4-5
​

Plug in "the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God", where it says "overcomes", back into that verse and read it again.

 

[Frogster]

It would take a while to put it together.

Off hand there are certain verses that disturb me depending on how they are translated.

One was the Scripture in Hebrews 12:14 that I made an OP about recently where it says for example in the NIV (the version I of this verse I do not like) "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord."

It seems directly contrary to the concept of faith alone, grace alone. That our salvation is dependent on us.


Another one that troubles me even more than that one is in the second to last chapter of Revelations.

"To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Revelation 21:6b-8

It uses the word "overcomes"...that implies my effort that gets me there, then it lists cowards, sexually immoral, liars...murderers and magic arts I can kind of see, but to someone struggling with sexual immorality for instance, this definitely seems to suggest that your salvation is in your own hands.

Now granted it mentions the Lamb's book of life just a couple of verses down, but the book of revelation particularly more so than any other New Testament book shows very little emphasis on redemption by grace through faith in Jesus.

I love the book and I understand its importance of outlining that God will not tolerate evil forever, but will one day cleanse the world of it and arguably doing away with it forever.

I just have trouble taking it and taking letters like Romans and trying to put them together into the same way of thinking.

To me they are two very different ways of thinking.

I understand,some things can seem "commandy".

There is a place where Paul talks about buffeting his body,and such,which one could easily read something into that.

What I do,is read the bible through the eyes of grace,and know that the writers,maybe did not realize their wordage,or the way it might be perceived.

Paul seems to have caught himself midway here,,he said I,..but then,said though...

1 Cor 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

I think part of the inspired text,can also show we are all human,and it is ingrained to look at us,rather than him,as we see ,that could be what happened with your said verses.

Or maybe they took for granted,it was by grace?

I suppose also,sometimes there can be straight talk,to some people who were in the condition of the rev churhes.Imho.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I don't think anyone would argue that they all preached Christ, but were there differences in their understandings of the Gospel that are clearly present and identifiable in their writings?

Obviously their audiences were different and the intent of each of their writings were different. However, particularly when we look at Paul's writings (but not just Paul) as contrasted with the other writings in the New Testament I am increasingly finding it more and more difficult not to conclude that there are some variations between the writers in what Jesus' death and ressurection meant for believers.

If I did not already approach the New Testament Scriptures with the viewpoint that the writers were all in complete harmony in their understanding, then I would have already concluded long ago that their beliefs obviously had some differences in terms of understanding what the message of Jesus meant for the believer.

However I have until very recently been giving the benefit of the doubt to the idea that they are all in total harmony. Maybe their audiences shaded their writings in different directions or maybe their personalities, education and different experiences resulted in the perception of a wider variance in the meanings and applications of their beliefs and revelations than what actually existed.

The bottom line for me right now is that I cannot at this moment reconcile certain concepts with each other between the writers and I believe that if I try and force them to fit like I believe many ministers and theologians have done through the years then I potentially compromise the integrity of the writings and the intent of the writers and consequentially the One (Holy Spirit) who inspired them.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? I would appreciate you sharing especially if you have tackled this issue before and have come to a conclusion. I would very much like to hear some ideas.

I think the real issue is simply that people misunderstand Paul. There is a whole body of teaching prevalent in most of the church today, based on people's perceptions of Paul which I think is incorrect.
I think Paul himself makes this clear if you look at everything he said and take it all together rather than keying on a few verses and then warping everything to fit around those verses.

I should add that for most people they are locked into this view/understanding of Paul because it is what they have been taught all their lives and so they have difficulty seeing it any other way.

 

[Frogster]

You know I love the heck out of you don't you? We're bois no matter what.

I luv u 2.

 

[Frogster]

I think the real issue is simply that people misunderstand Paul. There is a whole body of teaching prevalent in most of the church today, based on people's perceptions of Paul which I think is incorrect.
I think Paul himself makes this clear if you look at everything he said and take it all together rather than keying on a few verses and then warping everything to fit around those verses.

I should add that for most people they are locked into this view/understanding of Paul because it is what they have been taught all their lives and so they have difficulty seeing it any other way.

True.the whole of it,amen.

 

[imperfectchristian]

Why not?
SDA"s,and Messianics don't eat pork .Paul explained the law was one,in 5;3.
Why isn't it the same today?

I agree he meant the whole law, but the church in Galatia happened to be making a deal of the ceremonial law part.

Galatians 1:11-12: Paul receives the gospel directly from Jesus Himself.

Galatians 2:1-2: Fourteen years later, Paul goes up to Jerusalem and presents to the Apostles the gospel he preached to ensure what he was preaching was accurate. In other words, to ensure his gospel was the same as theirs.

Galatians 2:6: The Apostles added nothing to his gospel message, because it was the same.

Great reference Faulty. Of course this is a great reference, but it does not stipulate exactly what it is they agreed upon. Now knowing Paul you would think that they agreed upon salvation by grace alone through faith, but it doesn't say that. Someone could interpret it to mean they agreed on a more general understanding of the Gospel.

Granted though that is not likely. I would like to know what it is they agreed upon.

Does this sound like it's of your own doing?

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 1 John 5:4-5
​

Plug in "the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God", where it says "overcomes", back into that verse and read it again.

Faulty I love this passage that you have cited to go with this and the dozens of times I have read both Scriptures I can honestly say I have never thought of outting those two at the same time and putting them together.

You have to understand I was raised all of my life and surrounded even as an adult by church and family that re-enforced a fear and works based view of God and it is something I struggle with deeply. Even though I read over and over about grace and faith, it is very difficult for me to let go of the fear and guilt and works religion that has been such a big part of my life.

Again...thank you for sharing that. I probably would have never seen it.

I understand,some things can seem "commandy".

There is a place where Paul talks about buffeting his body,and such,which one could easily read something into that.

What I do,is read the bible through the eyes of grace,and know that the writers,maybe did not realize their wordage,or the way it might be perceived.

Paul seems to have caught himself midway here,,he said I,..but then,said though...

1 Cor 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

I think part of the inspired text,can also show we are all human,and it is ingrained to look at us,rather than him,as we see ,that could be what happened with your said verses.

Or maybe they took for granted,it was by grace?

I suppose also,sometimes there can be straight talk,to some people who were in the condition of the rev churhes.Imho.

Yes I am aware of this Scripture and many others that say either directly or indirectly that it is the grace of God. It is just hard to embrace it when there are constantly voices re-enforcing self improvement concepts.

I think the real issue is simply that people misunderstand Paul. There is a whole body of teaching prevalent in most of the church today, based on people's perceptions of Paul which I think is incorrect.
I think Paul himself makes this clear if you look at everything he said and take it all together rather than keying on a few verses and then warping everything to fit around those verses.

I should add that for most people they are locked into this view/understanding of Paul because it is what they have been taught all their lives and so they have difficulty seeing it any other way.

I am one of those people who have tremendous difficulty seeing it differently.

 

[Frogster]

I agree he meant the whole law, but the church in Galatia happened to be making a deal of the ceremonial law part.

Yes...but circumcision meant conversion to Judaism,which meant the whole legalisitc system of ceremonial,and moral.

Great reference Faulty. Of course this is a great reference, but it does not stipulate exactly what it is they agreed upon. Now knowing Paul you would think that they agreed upon salvation by grace alone through faith, but it doesn't say that. Someone could interpret it to mean they agreed on a more general understanding of the Gospel.

Granted though that is not likely. I would like to know what it is they agreed upon.



Faulty I love this passage that you have cited to go with this and the dozens of times I have read both Scriptures I can honestly say I have never thought of outting those two at the same time and putting them together.

You have to understand I was raised all of my life and surrounded even as an adult by church and family that re-enforced a fear and works based view of God and it is something I struggle with deeply. Even though I read over and over about grace and faith, it is very difficult for me to let go of the fear and guilt and works religion that has been such a big part of my life.

Again...thank you for sharing that. I probably would have never seen it.



Yes I am aware of this Scripture and many others that say either directly or indirectly that it is the grace of God. It is just hard to embrace it when there are constantly voices re-enforcing self improvement concepts.



I am one of those people who have tremendous difficulty seeing it differently.

 

[Frogster]

Have you been reading the new perspective on Paul perhaps? NPP.

 

[imperfectchristian]

Have you been reading the new perspective on Paul perhaps? NPP.

No. Just treading water where I am at.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Yes...but circumcision meant conversion to Judaism,which meant the whole legalisitc system of ceremonial,and moral.

Come on, preach it, I'm waiting, and I know I will agree with you.

 

[nephilimiyr]

No. Just treading water where I am at.

Sounds to me like you need a new dose of grace. Those who know that grace is everything don't tread, we swim.

If you have any doubts, just call on him and He will answer you. Your current sins will not matter, neither will anyone else's opinions.

 

[Frogster]

Sounds to me like you need a new dose of grace. Those who know that grace is everything don't tread, we swim.

If you have any doubts, just call on him and He will answer you. Your current sins will not matter, neither will anyone else's opinions.

Well said.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Well said.

I treaded too long but when I found out that treading is not apart of being in relationship with him I was like, YEAH!!! I was so glad. Relationship with Him means rest, and treading is definately not rest!

I'll be praying...

 

[Simon_Templar]

t1wGl,

Earlier a scripture was cited from Paul, and it was interpeted a certain way which is in line with how that scripture is generally interpeted. I'll use it to show you how I think people misunderstand Paul.

The scripture I refer to is 1st Cor. 15:10

" But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me."

There is always a tension in the Church between grace and law. There are some Churches that focus on grace and others that focus more on law and works.
I tend to think that both sides are wrong to a certain degree. Ironically I think both sides are wrong because they misunderstand grace, but they misunderstand it in different ways.

Those who focus on law and on works often times under-estimate grace. They often also tend to under-estimate their own need for grace.
Those who focus on grace, probably the more predominant in today's church I think, do people just as much of a disservice because they present grace in such a way that they essentially make it grace in vain.

Looking at the scripture above, note that the context is that Paul is talking about himself as an Apostle. He has just made the point that he was among the worst sinners and least deserving because he persecuted the Church of God. He wasn't just a sinner, he actually went out of his way to persecute the righteous. In a very real sense before he met Jesus, his actions were literally anti-christ.

He begins the verse we are looking at by saying...

"but by the grace of God, I am what I am..."

Here we have grace as most understand it, unmerited favor. Despite the fact that he was an undeserving wretch and a determined enemy of God, God showed him favor and not only saved him, but made him an Apostle.
God reconciled Paul to himself, despite the fact that Paul was an avowed enemy of Christ.

That was the beginning point, he did not earn that grace, he did not deserve it, he was not worthy of it.

The next section of the sentence is...

"and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them..."

Now here is where the wheels fall off for most Christians who look at this passage. This simply doesn't jive with their understanding of Paul or the gospel, so they have to either find a way to ignore it, or a way for Paul to mean something other than what he says.
So this portion of the passage is usually reasoned away as "well Paul was off for a moment and speaking incorrectly... but then he caught himself and corrected his mis-step".
The question they should ask themselves is why is this mis-step even there? If this is truly Holy Spirit inspired, even God-breathed, why would a mistake so fundamental be present?
The next question they should ask themselves is, is it ever safe to assume that a portion of scripture is a 'slip up' or a faulty thought that was just left in?

On the contrary, I think Paul, by the inspiration of the Spirit is being entirely intentional and purposeful in what he is saying here. Further, he means exactly what he says.

The first major point here is that the grace of God is given with the intention that it accomplishes specific results. If it does not accomplish those results, it was in vain.
The second major point is that the result which grace is intended to produce is qualitative change in you.

This idea is so constant through out the New Testament that I'm relatively amazed at how people so easily ignore or rationalize it away. Grace that doesn't produce the desired results is grace in vain.
Consider this in light of the numerous parables and examples given involving plants and crops... if the tree, or the field is tended and watered, but doesn't produce fruit, it is torn up and burnt and the tending and watering that went into it were all in vain.

Now the temptation that people always fall into on the other side is that they view works, and 'fruit' as the things they do to improve themselves, or things they do to earn something.

This is so tempting because it is very close to the truth, it is a matter of subtle perception. The Christian life described in the New Testament is an ascetic life. The word ascetic refers to training as an athelete trains. Paul uses this metaphor himself. It is our nature when we train in that manner to think that we are bettering ourselves that we are earning our betterment.

And that is why Paul finishes his statement here with this last phrase...

"though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me."
This is what every Christian must remember. Yes we work, yes we train like an athelete, yes we run the race... but we are only able to do those things by the grace of God. We can accomplish NOTHING without the grace of Jesus Christ.

But, every Christian also needs to remember that grace is given to you so that you can and will work, so that you can and will train like an athelete, so that you can and will run the race, and produce fruit... and if you don't do those things, then the grace that you were given was in vain.

We can accomplish NOTHING without grace, but the church today has turned grace into a reason to accomplish nothing.

You did not earn grace, and you can not earn it. You did not deserve it and you were not worthy of it... but grace does place obligation on you. You were reconciled to God when you were still his enemy, just like Paul, but the fact that he has given you grace obligates you to allow that grace to bear fruit in you.

For some reason people have this twisted idea that grace means they just sit around and suddenly, magically they will change.
Salvation is presented in scripture as a three part deal. One part is spiritual regeneration, ie being born again. God does this work sovereignly of his grace and mercy, there is nothing you can do to bring this about.
The final part is the resurrection of the body when Christ returns.

The other part is the one that the most people over-look. It is conversion, or sometimes called heart-conversion. This is the part where God's Spirit working within you changes your heart and thus your life. This part is necessarily co-operative because it can not take place without your involvement. You're involvement is simply to submit, to surrender.
To say it is co-operative doesn't mean that you earn anything. All it means is that you do what God enables you to do.