Right Division

[tdidymas]

And how do you DEFINE , what THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION IS ?

And DEFINE what is CIRCUMCISION , then mans , your thoughts with verses ??

dan p

Many people want shortcuts to knowledge, so they go to every opinion to try sorting out truth, when they are completely unfamiliar with scripture. I recommend that you read scripture exclusively for about 10 years as I did, looking to God for how to interpret it (and not to your own imagination).

It appears to me that you are so prejudiced that you can't see that there is one gospel, described in many different ways in many different words. Here your questions show your prejudice, that you assume that different words automatically mean different gospels. I suggest you carefully read what I wrote earlier, and that will answer these questions.

I am assuming, of course, that your questions are sincere, and you're wanting information, rather than just trying to argue.

 

[Guojing]

Mt 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
John preached the wrath of God coming on that nation, under the law. Christ was an escape from it for Jew's...

Ro 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Ro 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Ga 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

That cannot be. If Peter was preaching that in the 4 gospels, he would not have denied Christ at the cross.

 

[Guojing]

So what do you think is the message in the gospel preached by Peter and the 12 to Israel?

Do you think he was preaching that Jews and gentiles are equal under a new "Body of Christ" Galatians 3:28-29

 

[tdidymas]

So what do you think is the message in the gospel preached by Peter and the 12 to Israel?

The message of the grace of God just as it was by Paul. Just because there was a different emphasis on different audiences doesn't mean it's a different gospel.

 

[Guojing]

The message of the grace of God just as it was by Paul. Just because there was a different emphasis on different audiences doesn't mean it's a different gospel.

So what are some of the contents of that gospel?

Do you have any idea? You can use Luke 9:6 as a starting point.

Let me give you a simple example, if I approach Peter during the time of Jesus first coming and I ask him "What do I need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved?", what do you think he would reply with?

 

[timf]

Let me give you a simple example, if I approach Peter during the time of Jesus first coming and I ask him "What do I need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved?", what do you think he would reply with?

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.


It seems that faith in Jesus as the Messiah was the requirement for the kingdom gospel. This seems born out in James chapter two as well.

The grace gospel seems to require faith in the death burial and resurrection;

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

A significant difference seems to be that the kingdom gospel requires perseverance and the grace gospel is a once saved always saved (I know, another area of contention)

 

[ralliann]

That cannot be. If Peter was preaching that in the 4 gospels, he would not have denied Christ at the cross.

Christ and his blood inaugurated the new covenant, which redeemed them from the wrath of the law.

 

[tdidymas]

So what are some of the contents of that gospel?

Do you have any idea? You can use Luke 9:6 as a starting point.

Let me give you a simple example, if I approach Peter during the time of Jesus first coming and I ask him "What do I need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved?", what do you think he would reply with?

Your questions are designed around what you think is the "right answer" you want to hear, so I don't think you're sincerely wanting correct information. I think you're really wanting to trap me somehow.

If you want a brief "gospel in a nutshell", then read John 3, 1 Cor. 15:3-4, Acts 17:24-31, 1 Pet. 2:24-25, and Eph. 2:1-10, which are all different descriptions of the same gospel of grace in Christ that has been preached since the 1st Century. IOW, there is only one gospel, not 2, 3, or 10.

 

[Clare73]

That cannot be. If Peter was preaching that in the 4 gospels, he would not have denied Christ at the cross.

Peter did not deny Christ at the cross because of wrong doctrine, he did so because of fear.

 

[Guojing]

Let me give you a simple example, if I approach Peter during the time of Jesus first coming and I ask him "What do I need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved?", what do you think he would reply with?

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

It seems that faith in Jesus as the Messiah was the requirement for the kingdom gospel. This seems born out in James chapter two as well.

If you really understood scripture literally, if I do approach Peter, first he would tell me to go away and don't bother him as I am a gentile. (Matthew 15:23, Matthew 10:5).

But you are correct, faith in Jesus as the Messiah was the requirement for the gospel of the kingdom. But the Law must still be kept at the same time (Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 10:25-28)

Would you agree with that so far from a literal understanding of what was actually taught during Jesus's first coming?

Does that look like the same gospel Paul would preached?

 

[Guojing]

Peter did not deny Christ at the cross because or wrong doctrine, he did so because of fear.

That is irrelevant to the point I was making.

But if you want further evidence, here is what went down in Matthew 16:21-22, that reinforce my point directly.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

 

[Guojing]

Your questions are designed around what you think is the "right answer" you want to hear, so I don't think you're sincerely wanting correct information. I think you're really wanting to trap me somehow.

If you want a brief "gospel in a nutshell", then read John 3, 1 Cor. 15:3-4, Acts 17:24-31, 1 Pet. 2:24-25, and Eph. 2:1-10, which are all different descriptions of the same gospel of grace in Christ that has been preached since the 1st Century. IOW, there is only one gospel, not 2, 3, or 10.

I am asking you a simple question since you are making the claim, in this section of the forum on dispensationalism, that there is only one gospel.

No one is trapping you, you should be more confident in what you are believing in and why. Forums like this allow you to articulate what you truly believe in.

But of course, you can always choose not to answer, cheers.

 

[tdidymas]

I am asking you a simple question since you are making the claim, in this section of the forum on dispensationalism, that there is only one gospel.

No one is trapping you, you should be more confident in what you are believing in and why. Forums like this allow you to articulate what you truly believe in.

But of course, you can always choose not to answer, cheers.

No, it was a loaded question.

 

[tdidymas]

If you really understood scripture literally, if I do approach Peter, first he would tell me to go away and don't bother him as I am a gentile. (Matthew 15:23, Matthew 10:5).

Ludicrous response. This was before the church age when Jesus was ministering only to Jews. Has nothing to do with soteriology, therefore it's a straw man.

But you are correct, faith in Jesus as the Messiah was the requirement for the gospel of the kingdom. But the Law must still be kept at the same time (Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 10:25-28)

Would you agree with that so far from a literal understanding of what was actually taught during Jesus's first coming?

There has to be a transition between the law as a tutor and grace as the power of life, according to Paul in Gal. 3:21 "Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? Far from it! For if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law."

Since Paul got this idea directly from Jesus, then the same gospel was preached by both Jesus and Paul. Just because Paul makes it clearer in his writings doesn't justify the claim it's a different gospel. No, keeping the law did not impart life to anyone before or after Christ, neither inside the Jewish camp nor outside it. Gal. 3:21 indicates that no one in OT times who thought God accepted them because they complied with the law, were actually righteous before God. Only those who believed God's promise about the Messiah saving them were righteous.

The reason why Jesus answers the lawyer in Lk. 10 saying "what says the law" doesn't mean that people were saved by law-keeping. Moral character showing obedience to God's will does not cause a person's salvation, and never did. But it does show that a person is already saved, if that obedience is motivated by love for God. This is why Jesus told him "do this and you will live." Love for God and others is the proof that one is born of God, according to many places in the NT, especially in John and 1 John. Jesus is demanding proof that one loves God, not teaching salvation by law-keeping.

There are many commands in scripture (and wise advice) that points to God's will. If one is willing to do God's will, it shows that person has a vital relationship with God already. Doing God's will doesn't cause salvation, but rather results from it. When you read scripture this way, it's completely unified. To try to break up the scripture into 2 different gospels (or many) is erroneous and extremely shallow.

Does that look like the same gospel Paul would preached?

Just because Jesus (restricting Himself by His humanity) resisted spending time on gentiles doesn't mean He preached a different gospel. You're reading something into it that's not there, and is besides that erroneous. Jesus said He was sent to the house of Israel, not to gentiles. And yet He still attended to those gentiles who had faith that Jews should have exhibited. In the case of Mat. 15, he was simply testing the woman, who proved she had the faith Jesus would attend to, which He did. If you read erroneous things into scripture, you're misusing it.

 

[Guojing]

The reason why Jesus answers the lawyer in Lk. 10 saying "what says the law" doesn't mean that people were saved by law-keeping. Moral character showing obedience to God's will does not cause a person's salvation, and never did. But it does show that a person is already saved, if that obedience is motivated by love for God. This is why Jesus told him "do this and you will live." Love for God and others is the proof that one is born of God, according to many places in the NT, especially in John and 1 John. Jesus is demanding proof that one loves God, not teaching salvation by law-keeping.

That is not the literal reading and understanding of Luke 10 to me, but if you rather spiritualize what Jesus actually meant in those words, I am fine.

 

[Guojing]

No, it was a loaded question.

People ask me loaded questions in this forum all the time. If you are confident of what you are believing and why, you won't care.

 

[Clare73]

That is irrelevant to the point I was making.

It matters not. . .the fact remains, Peter denied Christ at the cross for only one reason--fear, and no other reason.

But if you want further evidence, here is what went down in Matthew 16:21-22, that reinforce my point directly.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

 

[ralliann]

That cannot be.

How could it not be?

If Peter was preaching that in the 4 gospels, he would not have denied Christ at the cross.

Peter was preaching the baptism of John in the four Gospels, TO JEWS to repent. Wrath of the curse was upon them....
Ga 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

The Apostles ( including Peter) were continuing the baptism of John, during the entire ministry of Christ...
Joh 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
Joh 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

Lu 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
Lu 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.



Mr 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.



Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

John's baptism is distinct from Christs baptism

Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Mr 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

 

[Dan Perez]

Incredible response. It means the same thing.

Which is the only gospel, the one about Jesus.

Which is the same gospel. Many things in scripture are described with different words, but mean the same thing.

same gospel.

Same gospel.

Same gospel. He calls it "my gospel" because he had direct revelation from Christ and didn't get it from the other apostles like everyone else did. He taught the same gospel, as shown in Acts 15, that all the apostles including Paul agreed on it - Gal. 2:2.

Your "few" gospels prejudice is an error that could make you an apostate. Time will tell, as there will be one day when all things are revealed, since we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. James 3:1 "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment."

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit made a mistake , where b wrote what Paul wrote and ERROR ?

And better check just where the JUDGMENT SEAT // BEMA is written and it is NOT James 3:1

And they are not " all the same GOSPELS , Period , so why not explain what each one means and lets have your thoughts ?

dan p

 

[tdidymas]

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit made a mistake , where b wrote what Paul wrote and ERROR ?

What are you talking about? You need to be clear, as this looks like nonsense.

And better check just where the JUDGMENT SEAT // BEMA is written and it is NOT James 3:1

Rom. 14:10 "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" - this means all CHRISTIANS will be judged by Christ. Ja. 3:1 is a warning not to teach if you don't know what you're talking about. So James 3:1 implies the same thing as Rom. 14:10, since he says those who teach will be judged more strictly, meaning if you teach falsehoods, you'll lose all your rewards, which 1 Cor. 3 says the same thing.

And they are not " all the same GOSPELS , Period , so why not explain what each one means and lets have your thoughts ?

dan p

Why do you need explanation, unless you just don't know the gospel or are not familiar with the whole counsel of God? You shouldn't be trying to teach that there is more than 1 gospel if you don't know the meaning of the scriptures you read. If you are reading something into it which is a foreign idea (like more than 1 gospel), then no wonder why you can't understand what you're reading. If you're a follower of Stam or someone else who taught that error, then you should abandon their teachings and study scripture exclusively. It's hard enough to live by the truth when you know the truth. But thinking you know truth when you're in error puts a big obstacle in your way.

The Christian life is living by faith that Jesus is our healer from the disease of wrongdoing. This is just another way of saying the same thing the whole NT is saying.