My Gospel by Paul

[OnePlanPeopleDestiny]

The word "gospel" means good news or good message. There is but one good message that has been revealed over time, and it the message of God's plan and promise by HIS grace to send a redeemer to destroy the devil, put an end to sin and death, and save HIS elect. The good news of God's saving grace is evident throughout scripture, from the beginning in the garden to the end in Revelation and everywhere in between.

The gospel is like a multifaceted gem, each facet revealing more truth of the good news.

Paul said "my gospel" only to indicate that there is but one gospel and it is the good news he shared, and that good news included the kingdom of God, the grace of God, the death, burial and resurrection of Lord Jesus, the atonement, the coming of the Lord, etc.

 

[Rose_bud]

So you do agree there was a time when physical circumcision was required.

Are you not reading my posts? Wasn't spiritual circumcision always what was important?
I never indicated that physical circumcision was not required. I indicated that it was not required for eternal salvation. The physical circumcision was always meant to point to a deeper spiritual reality of the heart.

As for what you think James was actually thinking about at Acts 21, I disagree, but you are free to form your own hypothesis.. I prefer to understand scripture literally there.

Yes, you are free to form your own. I was merely offering a perspective that takes into consideration the historical, geographical, cultural and literary context and considering what this means in light of the full corpus of Scripture. So that whomever reads this and the Bible understands that literal reading of Scripture has its limitations.

 

[Guojing]

I never indicated that physical circumcision was not required. I indicated that it was not required for eternal salvation.

Genesis 17:14 states literally that those who are not physically circumcised will be cut off from God's people.

If you are cut off during that time, can you be said to have eternal salvation?

 

[Guojing]

So, you acknowledging that this is correct, but apparently my reasoning is incorrect.
Interesting. Yet you offer no explanation why?

Being saved thru the fall of Israel was not prophesied in scripture before Paul. It was a mystery hidden in God until it was revealed to the apostle Paul. (Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:9)

So your reasoning "And as the parable in Matthew 22:1-14 explains, the Jews rejected Jesus, where the invitation is extended to all the nations/Gentiles. It's a prophetc image of God's plan to include all people in His Kingdom." is incorrect.

 

[Rose_bud]

Genesis 17:14 states literally that those who are not physically circumcised will be cut off from God's people.

If you are cut off during that time, can you be said to have eternal salvation?

My friend, this is straw.

I'm not sure if you are deliberately ignoring my questions by focusing on secondary issues or you genuinely don't understand that the Bible is a progressive revelation of God to humanity that should be read in its entirety to comprehend God's plan of redemption. God was unfolding his plan of redemption through Genesis to Revelation, working through the history of humanity (specifically Abraham descendants, the promises, the Law, the Prophets until it culminated in the Person of Jesus. He is what this always points towards. Flawed humanity can never be the standard of our salvation, it doesn't matter what the ethnicity. A cut in the foreskin can never be either.

But I'll reiterate and give you the benefit of the doubt.
I never said physical circumcision wasn't required in its historical context. My argument is that spiritual circumcision, representing a heart transformation, has always been the real goal and what truly matters for eternal salvation. You bring up Genesis 17:14, which discusses physical circumcision. I can surely engage with what it means to be "cut off" in this context. But I'm afraid that you are not open to understanding.

 

[Rose_bud]

Being saved thru the fall of Israel was not prophesied in scripture before Paul. It was a mystery hidden in God until it was revealed to the apostle Paul. (Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:9)

So your reasoning "And as the parable in Matthew 22:1-14 explains, the Jews rejected Jesus, where the invitation is extended to all the nations/Gentiles. It's a prophetc image of God's plan to include all people in His Kingdom." is incorrect.

Again, You haven't addressed my previous points or provided substantial evidence for your claims. I'm happy to continue the conversation, but I need to see engagement with my arguments and explanatory evidence to support your claims? If not, I'm afraid this conversation is not very productive.

In the past you've displayed similar tendencies (I was hoping this time would be different) where I provided a disclaimer for engagement to protect my time. I am more than willing to enforce the disclaimer again.

upfront disclaimer
If this discussion is going to digress into a back and forth with no meaningful engagement. I politely excuse myself.

 

[Guojing]

You bring up Genesis 17:14, which discusses physical circumcision. I can surely engage with what it means to be "cut off" in this context. But I'm afraid that you are not open to understanding.

You said "it was not required for eternal salvation."

I used Genesis 17:14 to point out otherwise.

I can understand your point, without necessarily agreeing with your point. But if you don't want to explain, that is your prerogative.

 

[Guojing]

Again, You haven't addressed my previous points or provided substantial evidence for your claims. I'm happy to continue the conversation, but I need to see engagement with my arguments and explanatory evidence to support your claims? If not, I'm afraid this conversation is not very productive.

In the past you've displayed similar tendencies (I was hoping this time would be different) where I provided a disclaimer for engagement to protect my time. I am more than willing to enforce the disclaimer again.

You asked me to explain why I believe your "reasoning is incorrect", and I just did.

What else do you want?

FYI, participating in Internet discussions with strangers is like that, you have to constantly repeat yourself to others. I do that all the time here.

If you feel that is a waste of time, then feel free to disengage, or just engage with strangers who happen to agree with you.

 

[Rose_bud]

You said "it was not required for eternal salvation."

I used Genesis 17:14 to point out otherwise.

I can understand your point, without necessarily agreeing with your point. But if you don't want to explain, that is your prerogative.

If being uncircumcised always means cut off /eternally separated from God. How would you explain the generation of Israelites who wandered in the wilderness under Joshua's leadership? They were not circumcised, yet they were still God's people, and He was still with them.

 

[Rose_bud]

You asked me to explain why I believe your "reasoning is incorrect", and I just did.

What else do you want?

FYI, participating in Internet discussions with strangers is like that, you have to constantly repeat yourself to others. I do that all the time here.

If you feel that is a waste of time, then feel free to disengage, or just engage with strangers who happen to agree with you.

I asked if you believe it was a literal fall or metaphorical fall? You did not respond.

You said that it was not prophesied in the OT. I disagree. You proceeded to quote to passages from the NT. So when Paul in Romans shares this, what passage in Scripture do you think he is referring to. Is it not to Moses?

I will await your explanation and response of what it means that it was hidden or veiled?. Does it mean that God was deliberate in hiding the truth? or rather that it was wrapped up in His Sovereign plan of redemption, that was being progressively revealed to us? And how exactly does this two scriptures contradict my apparent incorrect reasoning?

I understand that we may not always reach consensus. I am merely trying to understand your point of view and why? You indicated that you are making a claim. Yet I have not seen substantial support of your claim. Instead what I do experience is evasion and misdirection.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

literal reading of Scripture has its limitations.

Brilliant deduction

Luke 8:11
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

IF we live by every Word of God, per Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4, and Deut. 8:3, THEN the Word automatically has to transcend in order to apply to all of us

Hard place to get to, but that's the essence of the matters. The hard places are to understand wrath/condemnation/judgment and destruction, and apply them "personally," with joy no less

 

[Guojing]

You said that it was not prophesied in the OT. I disagree. You proceeded to quote to passages from the NT. So when Paul in Romans shares this, what passage in Scripture do you think he is referring to. Is it not to Moses?

Romans 11:11 is not from Moses. Its a new revelation.

Why would you think Moses spoke it?

I will await your explanation and response of what it means that it was hidden or veiled?. Does it mean that God was deliberate in hiding the truth? or rather that it was wrapped up in His Sovereign plan of redemption, that was being progressively revealed to us? And how exactly does this two scriptures contradict my apparent incorrect reasoning?

Ephesians 3:9 tells you the mystery is hidden in God.

Romans 16:25 tells you it was kept secret since the foundation of the world.

So yes, God was deliberate in hiding it.

Your incorrect reasoning is saying that you can read it in the scriptures before Paul epistles. If you can, it contradicts the above 2 passages.

I understand that we may not always reach consensus. I am merely trying to understand your point of view and why? You indicated that you are making a claim. Yet I have not seen substantial support of your claim. Instead what I do experience is evasion and misdirection.

Just because you disagree with my above reasoning, it does not mean I was being evasive and misdirecting you. You simply have a different interpretation of those scriptures.

 

[Guojing]

If being uncircumcised always means cut off /eternally separated from God. How would you explain the generation of Israelites who wandered in the wilderness under Joshua's leadership? They were not circumcised, yet they were still God's people, and He was still with them.

Is there any scripture that actually tell you how many of them were not? How do you conclude this?

Anyway, Joshua took over in Joshua 1. They were circumcised in Joshua 5.

Was that timing too long for you to come up with this point?

 

[Rose_bud]

Romans 11:11 is not from Moses. Its a new revelation.

Why would you think Moses spoke it?



Ephesians 3:9 tells you the mystery is hidden in God.

Romans 16:25 tells you it was kept secret since the foundation of the world.

So yes, God was deliberate in hiding it.

Your incorrect reasoning is saying that you can read it in the scriptures before Paul epistles. If you can, it contradicts the above 2 passages.

Was it a literal or metaphorical fall?

 

[Guojing]

Was it a literal or metaphorical fall?

As I said, They are no longer God's favored nation after Acts 7. Every Jewish unbeliever is now considered uncircumcised in God's eyes.

I leave it to you to decide whether which of the 2 terms applies.

 

[Rose_bud]

As I said, They are no longer God's favored nation after Acts 7. Every Jewish unbeliever is now considered uncircumcised in God's eyes.

I leave it to you to decide whether which of the 2 terms applies.

You are being evasive and misdirecting. It's not a difficult question? Yes, I understand it as literal or no I don't.

 

[Guojing]

You are being evasive. It's not a difficult question? Yes, I understand it as literal or no I don't.

Different people have different metaphors in mind, so even if I were to say its a metaphorical fall, will you be clear exactly what I meant by that?

If I said it was literal fall, you might think I am thinking, everyone in Israel fell down to the ground.

 

[Rose_bud]

Different people have different metaphors in mind, so even if I were to say its a metaphorical fall, will you be clear exactly what I meant by that?

If I said it was literal fall, you might think I am thinking, everyone in Israel fell down to the ground.

Regardless of your response, if you claim it is literal or metaphorical, substantiate it with a scriptural and logical explanation. And acknowledge if you cannot.

I am not out to trick you, merely trying to engage productively and critically.

 

[Guojing]

Regardless of your response, if you claim it is literal or metaphorical, substantiate it with a scriptural and logical explanation. And acknowledge if you cannot.

I am not out to trick you, merely trying to engage productively and critically.

I gave you all the scripture already, starting from Romans 11:11.

In there, Paul clearly states that thru the fall of Israel, salvation has come to the gentiles.

If you don't want to accept that causality, there is nothing else I can do.

 

[Rose_bud]

I gave you all the scripture already, starting from Romans 11:11.

In there, Paul clearly states that thru the fall of Israel, salvation has come to the gentiles.

If you don't want to accept that causality, there is nothing else I can do.

Let's me try this differently, in case I wasn't clear. Do you think Paul was talking about a literal fall or metaphorical fall ? And if literal why do you think so? If a metaphorical fall, why do you think so?