:first:Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Well that's what I thought I was presenting. The fact the Paul was given a special revelation and did not confer with the twelve before starting his ministry, along with the fact that Peter didn't get it (at least not right away) and that he (Peter) thought that what Paul was teaching was in part "difficult to understand", and the fact that you along with everyone else I've ever asked before are at a loss to explain why Peter, James, or John could not have done what Paul did if indeed their messages were all the same, is all evidence that there are gaping holes in your logic that leads you to conclude that Paul was teaching the same message as the twelve.
The simple fact is that if Paul was teaching the same message as the twelve then he was unnecessary and much of the New Testament is inexplicable and contradictory.
Further, the fact that I can read both Romans and James and take them both totally at face value is further evidence that Acts 9 Dispensationalism is correct. I don't have to even try to make James say the same thing because he isn't saying the same thing. He's saying the absolute opposite in fact. But James was teaching law to those under the law and so there is no conflict. I don't see why this should be any big deal really. All I am talking about is context. Context includes not only the subject matter of the book and chapter that a verse is in but also the author's audience and which dispensation that audience was saved under.
You and I are in agreement that all are saved by the grace of God through faith. However, in the previous dispensation, observance of the law was not optional, it was absolutely required. If one refused to obey the law, they would be cut off. Moses did not come down from Mount Sinai with two tablets of grace; he came with the law which anyone who wanted to be in relationship with God had to obey. If you wanted to have a relationship with God, the only way to do that was to become circumcised and follow the Mosaic Law. You had to become a proselyte Jew.
God's plan was to purge Israel through tribulation and then return and set up a kingdom by which the whole world would come to repentance. That was the plan from the beginning, and in Acts chapter 2 that plan was still in full swing. Pentecost was the next event in God's prophesied plan after the resurrection and ascension of the Messiah. Peter himself said as much in the sermon he preached in Acts chapter 2. He also preached that his listeners (the nation of Israel) should repent so that God would send Jesus back and establish their kingdom.
It wasn't until a year or so later with the stoning of Steven that God changed things. Everything preached up to that point was wholly consistent with Mosaic covenant of law. Which was preached by Jesus, John the Baptist and every other prophet of God since Moses brought the ten commandments down off the mountain.
Nothing changed at all (look it up since you want to see evidence), until Paul was converted in Acts 9. Paul was the first who was saved by grace plus nothing. His message is entirely different than that of Peter, James and John. Paul says do not follow the law whereas James says that all his followers are zealous for the law. Paul says the God saved those who DO NOT WORK but believe. James says that a man is JUSTIFIED BY WORKS.
No, I do not think that it can be denied that Paul was indeed preaching something quite different. This explains the existence of his ministry, this explains the confusion on the part of the twelve (Peter in particular), this explains the seemingly contradictory nature of the texts, ect, ect.
How much more evidence do you want? This ought to be plenty but there is more. Act 9 Dispensationalism also has the effect of resolving countless doctrinal debates that rage in today's churches. Should we follow the Sabbath or not? Should we water baptize or not? Should we tithe or not? Can you lose your salvation or not? Etc.
All of these debates and more are easily resolved while leaving the plain meaning of the text in tact without having countless problem texts. No other systematic theology can make such a claim. None. I can read the Bible, take it for what it seems to be saying, understand what it is saying, and have no problem texts that make my eyes glaze over before I've finished reading a single page. I don't know what better argument can be made!
Resting in Him,
Clete
[ CONTEXT ]
