May I ask you, how do you define sheep?
Those who follow the good Shepard, the ones who hear his voice.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
John 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and
there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
One fold, not two.
Please drag this out a bit more for me, if you will. Similar, as you know, is not equal. What was different? You say this is not because there were two gospels. What defines a Gospel, and what would it require for one to be different from another?
I assume you know the difference between form and substance. Well, if the substance of the gospel is the same, it doesn't matter what form the message takes, whether it be in the form of parables like Jesus told, a ritual like the Lord's Supper, or Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. All have very different forms, but are identical in substance.
Brother, if you read through the first few pages of Bright Raven's
Rightly Divinding the Word of Truth thread, you can read all my posts where I show the gospel Peter preached and the gospel that Paul preached were the same, even in form. I used their own writings to prove it. Just read what I wrote there and ask me about it here, so I don't have to explain all that again.
Please show where those under the Law were instructed to live simply by faith and NOT by the Law.
Under the law:
Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Under grace:
Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Ga 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Brother, will you now argue that Paul was teaching something new when the prophets under the law taught the same? Will you argue that when Paul taught "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God" that he meant some men under a different gospel are justified by the law in the sight of God (as MAD teaches)? Romans 3:20, 28, and I already showed you Galatians 3:11.
Is it possible that you are not reading something correctly, as you've suggested of me?
Is there a difference between living under the Law and under Grace?
Yes. For example, under the law when you touched something unclean you became unclean and separate from God. Under grace, not so. The ordinances under Mosaic law were meant to convince people that they could not be reconciled to God through works of the flesh. The law condemned flesh. The ten commandments exist to keep the wicked in check. Those who have the righteousness of God without the law, by grace through faith, don't need a law to keep them in check because ... "when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts..."
Does Paul think you should be showing the work of the law written in your heart? What did he mean by the work of the law written in your heart?
One cannot be saved under the Law today.
I've not argued anyone could be saved under the law today, brother.
The Kingdom was cut out. It was removed. This will not always be the case.
I've refuted all those claims in post #45 on this thread. Did you read that post? Please do, so I don't have to repeat the same arguments that have been ignored.
The time will come when Israel will be grafted back in.
Grafted back into what? The Olive Tree is Israel.
Jeremiah 11:16 The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.
Brother, do you think Paul was making up stuff on the fly? The terms and symbols he used come straight out of the law and the prophets. Doesn't common sense tell you, that if they were broken off something, that they were part of that something before being broken off? Israel = Olive Tree = Christ. Read post #45, search the scriptures, see for yourself.
Most of the early Kindgom rejected this and were cast off (as Paul describes very clearly). Those who believed (such as Peter) were still under the Law and they were accepted.
Again, read post #45. And to claim that Peter believed but was still subject to the law for justification doesn't make any sense. Why would God prefer Paul over Peter and give one a easy yoke and the other an unbearable yoke?
They continued to preach the Kindgom to their followers. This happened until their death.
Brother, that is illogical on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. Hopefully my other points will convince you to rethink that.
Paul preached something new...something that he was commissioned to teach by God.
I've already shown you that Paul was not teaching something new. "The just shall live by faith."
He was sent to the Gentiles.
Not only to the Gentiles, brother.
Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings,
and the children of Israel:
I'm not, and never was.
We are saved and justified through the death of our Lord and Savior and in no other way.
We are not saved by his death, but by his life. Very important distinction. Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be
saved by his life.
But you seem to think that works of the law were necessary for Peter's salvation. It is the mid-Acts position that argues men could be saved through law keeping,
not me.
To say so is to deny God's work on the cross.
Then how is it you can say that about Peter and not deny God's work on the cross? :idunno:
It is to place ourselves as equals with God, which, obviously, cannot be done.
But you have implied that it could be done, else Peter was given a worthless other "gospel."
We cannot pick and choose which works do or do not justify our salvation. No work does.
Then the mid-Acts second gospel theory is false, right?
Anyway, you didn't respond to my question about the righteousness of God without the law, but instead said all that, implying that I believe things I don't, and implying you believe things you shouldn't.
Again, brother, I ask you:
Do you believe the narrow way is the righteousness of God without the law?
And ...
Is the substance of the gospel that Paul preached the righteousness of God without the law?
Thanks for responding, brother. I hope you will answer my questions.