Yes, but Peter didn't understand that the same message that he and the apostles were commissioned to speak to "the people" (Israel), he was now speaking to Cornelius, at God's direction. The same message. The same gospel. It was new that it was to go to the Gentiles, but it wasn't a new message.
Not the "same gospel" as Paul was preaching. That gospel was hidden until God gave it to Paul.
Can you quote scripture that says "until God gave it to Paul"? I submit that it was hid until Paul's time, but obviously Peter was preaching the gospel to Cornelius. He certainly wasn't preaching your 'gospel of the kingdom' to him. And surely you don't think Peter was preaching Paul's gospel. Your gospel of false dichotomies is getting you all confused.
Peter was not preaching the gospel of the grace of God to Cornelius.
Peter was not preaching the gospel of the grace of God to Cornelius.
LOL. You're a very confused but funny guy.
So what I think you're saying is that we are not to fear God or work righteousness? Is that part of the grace of God? You are saying that we are free to be like this:
Not to be "accepted in Him" we don't.
You sound exactly like those that accused Paul of teaching that sin was OK. You're in bad company.
I guess that you are also unsaved... If you think that your "works of righteousness" contribute to your salvation.
That's gotta be the absolute worst explanation of any gospel I've ever heard.
You're starting to sound like Gary K. You are irrational and emotional.
Yes, I do... you should too.
This "reasonable service" comes AFTER we get saved.
Again, those who "serve Christ" do so AFTER they are saved. Or do you think that unbelievers "serve Christ"?
For the THIRD time, this refers to how SAVED people should behave. It is NOT how they get saved.
I sure do understand your attempted misdirection.
Righteous and fear are NOT requirements to be saved BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH in THIS dispensation.
Lying is a sin Derf. (i.e., false witness).
RD responded to a post of mine replying to Dan P, talking about what Peter gave to Cornelius. Nothing I said was intended to say that we must do works of righteousness in order to be saved. That is the gospel of grace that applies to all men, Jew and Gentile. Peter gave that gospel to Cornelius...you can tell because he didn't require them to become circumcised. But he also made a statement that God honors those who fear God and do righteous works (like Cornelius). ANd how did God honor Cornelius' fear of God and righteous works? By telling him how to find someone that would explain how to be saved, which he obviously wasn't already just by his fear of God and righteous works. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but it isn't the end of it.Of course we do.
AMEN!
Correct. But that's not what RD was talking about.
To be "accepted in Him" is not talking about "what is acceptable to God."
This is what happens when you just search for a term instead of understanding what exactly is being said.
To be "accepted in Him" is talking about getting saved.
"What is acceptable TO Him" is talking about one's behavior AFTER one is saved, and has no bearing on BEING saved.
No, he's not.
Just as Paul said:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 6:1-4 - New King James Version
Dead to Sin, Alive to God - What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried...www.biblegateway.com
As RD said, you are literally asking what is underlined in the above passage, accusing us of teaching that it's OK to sin, when that's not what we're doing.
It's an EXCELLENT litmus test to see if one is teaching the gospel Paul taught.
What RD had said was that we do not need to DO anything TO BE SAVED ("fearing God and working righteousness"). God alone saves.
Neither faith nor works are meritorious.
How very dishonest of you.
Same idea. Isn't it an honor to be accepted into the presence of a king, or of God? Plus, it's actually stated here (different translation, but that's the whole idea, that one word might substitute for the other):
At least part of Revelation was written to GENTILE churches. It certainly doesn't say "to the angel of the church of Jerusalem..." anywhere.
I understand that you cannot tell the difference between Gods various dealings with mankind.
No, it's not. Those seven churches in Asia are all Jewish in nature.
So what?
Paul never went to Ephesus? Are you serious?
Then you're saying Paul backed out of the agreement, since he went to Ephesus.
Just as Paul agreed to limit his ministry to the Gentiles. Now you're telling me he preached to a Jewish church?
And Paul shared his gospel with those scattered twelve tribes. Either the agreement was binding on Paul or it wasn't. Which way is it going to be?
Nope... you poor confused soul.
That's NOT what the scripture says.
Sometimes Paul went to synagogues and preached to UNBELIEVING Jews.
Supra
Nope.
There were Jews and Gentiles in every place on earth.