Paul's gospel started late....

[Lon]

Right, and who's the "our" there? Who is that? "Our" is a first person plural. It's goes with "we" and "us", we and us are our. So, "He was wounded for OUR transgressions"—Paul says, "Christ died for OUR sins"—Isaiah 53 also says, "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering FOR sin"—Paul says, "Christ died FOR our sins".

Is the OUR there just the houses of Israel and Judah, since this concerns their New Covenant? which it does, since this is their prophet Isaiah.

Yes, just Israel 'and' gentiles who converted, at this venture. It was only through the Abrahamic Covenant that 'all nations would be blessed.' At the time, that meant conversion.

Then why do you empower Luther to set the table of contents in your Bible?

Look how your mind works with the presupposition: You are stuck with a go-between authority. We are not at all at the mercies of Luther. We all have internet and minds that work just fine. The 'authority' wall has fallen.

What qualifies Luther to wield that power, according to you? What gives him that right? Show me how that power, which is a power which belongs to God alone, to set the table of contents for His own Book—is entrusted to Luther? Where's the process that does this? Was it a private revelation, only given to Luther in secret? that he had this power?

Luther simply read the scriptures and for himself, eschewed "Bel and the Dragon" for instance. Why? His Bible, his choice. You are thinking 'rights' as if the RC has them. It can be turned around: "What gave them the right?" Rather, a Protestant/Evangelical will do the work his or her own self as they read the scriptures. It is of much more import to 'read' them than argue over them. There are 66 books in the shorter version: plenty enough to keep one studying and learning for a lifetime. How often have you read Leviticus? I have favorite books I've read and reread many times. I have read the Catholic/coptic/Greek Orthodox Bible. I don't believe I've gained any special insight, especially as I've only one Apostle-to-the-gentiles. The rest is good history and relationship stories with the Father, Spirit, and Son. It fleshes out the pictures, like coloring in a coloring book. The black and white was already there.

I'm not questioning btw, whether he made the right choice, do you understand? That is aside from what I'm saying. I'm saying, he exercised power—how? By what right? Based on what? Changing the table of contents, especially through deleting some books, is gigantic power.

Wouldn't you agree?

Difference: We ratify his work, aren't slaves to it. If you only had a N.T., nay even just Paul's letters, you'd understand the gospel and your need of relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, Spirit, and Father. "What is needed" is the impetus for reading scriptures. I ask every new believer to simply read the gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters three times through, then Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs. After that, they can be on their own and choose books or read the whole Bible through.

 

[Lon]

Paul's gospel was preached in the Garden of Eden.
Genesis 3:15 KJV — And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

1) This is regular dispensationalism. Mid Acts disagrees, to a point. While certainly there are elements to differences in dispensationalism that tie together, Mid Acts separates.
2) Genesis 3 is absolutely a promise of Jesus and is the same in Mid Acts as far as the good news(s). Realize that Mid Acts focusses more on 'what is different' than what elements necessarily are the same (I.E. the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving work).
3) You aren't in real disagreement over the promise, but rather on something specific: Paul's gospel was different especially in the fact that "Grace alone (granted Faith) saves. It wasn't known before Paul.

 

[Derf]

1) This is regular dispensationalism. Mid Acts disagrees, to a point. While certainly there are elements to differences in dispensationalism that tie together, Mid Acts separates.
2) Genesis 3 is absolutely a promise of Jesus and is the same in Mid Acts as far as the good news(s). Realize that Mid Acts focusses more on 'what is different' than what elements necessarily are the same (I.E. the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving work).
3) You aren't in real disagreement over the promise, but rather on something specific: Paul's gospel was different especially in the fact that "Grace alone (granted Faith) saves. It wasn't known before Paul.

It wasn't verbalized in the same way, but that doesn't mean grace was absent in the other forms of the gospel. That makes us look at what the good news in each case is all about. If salvation is by works some of the time, and not by works other times, then I will have to admit that there are multiple gospels, and Paul was wrong to anathematize them all. But Peter tells us that is not the case when he said
Acts 15:11 KJV — But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

If the Jews are saved through grace EVEN AS THE GENTILES ARE SAVED, then whether it was verbalized the same or not, the mechanism of salvation is still the same, which means, if the good news is about how to be saved, they are the same gospel.

 

[glorydaz]

Right, and who's the "our" there? Who is that? "Our" is a first person plural. It's goes with "we" and "us", we and us are our. So, "He was wounded for OUR transgressions"—Paul says, "Christ died for OUR sins"—Isaiah 53 also says, "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering FOR sin"—Paul says, "Christ died FOR our sins".

Is the OUR there just the houses of Israel and Judah, since this concerns their New Covenant? which it does, since this is their prophet Isaiah.

The prophets didn’t belong to the Jews, but God used them to speak to all of mankind.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.​

Then why do you empower Luther to set the table of contents in your Bible? What qualifies Luther to wield that power, according to you? What gives him that right? Show me how that power, which is a power which belongs to God alone, to set the table of contents for His own Book—is entrusted to Luther? Where's the process that does this? Was it a private revelation, only given to Luther in secret? that he had this power?

I'm not questioning btw, whether he made the right choice, do you understand? That is aside from what I'm saying. I'm saying, he exercised power—how? By what right? Based on what? Changing the table of contents, especially through deleting some books, is gigantic power.

Wouldn't you agree?

Sorry, I can’t agree with your “facts” concerning Luther and his role. For one thing, God would not allow it.

 

[glorydaz]

It wasn't verbalized in the same way, but that doesn't mean grace was absent in the other forms of the gospel. That makes us look at what the good news in each case is all about. If salvation is by works some of the time, and not by works other times, then I will have to admit that there are multiple gospels, and Paul was wrong to anathematize them all. But Peter tells us that is not the case when he said
Acts 15:11 KJV — But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

If the Jews are saved through grace EVEN AS THE GENTILES ARE SAVED, then whether it was verbalized the same or not, the mechanism of salvation is still the same, which means, if the good news is about how to be saved, they are the same gospel.

Yes. It was never by works, and that’s the whole point. The other apostles were wrong to demand circumcision, and Paul put a stop to that requirement. I think the confusion came when the kingdom program was put on hold, but the Lord had a man in mind, a Jew of the highest order. It took God sending Peter a vision regarding Cornelius before Peter understood. So cool, actually.

 

[Right Divider]

Rom 11:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:6) And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.​

 

[Derf]

Rom 11:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:6) And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.​

You're suggesting, I suppose, that "no more of" means that at one time it was of works. I don't think that phrase means that.

 

[glorydaz]

You're suggesting, I suppose, that "no more of" means that at one time it was of works. I don't think that phrase means that.

And you’re correct. Men were never saved by their works. The closest we see are these three and it was their obedient faith that saved them.

Ezekiel 14:14​

Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.​

​

Paul also makes it clear here. Man may glory in his works, but not before God.

Romans 4: 2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.​

​

​

 

[Right Divider]

Some on TOL claim that salvation has always been the way that Paul preached it, but nobody knew it until Paul "made it clear". That is a very silly idea.

So God put all of this information in the scripture, starting in Genesis 1:1... but nobody knew about it until Paul. God kept the truth of salvation hidden for thousands of years.

Scriptures like these do not phase them at all:

John 4:22 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.​

​

Rom 11:11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.​

You just cannot put a dent is their false paradigm, no matter what you show them.

P.S.

Rom 2:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.​

​

Rom 16:25 (AKJV/PCE)​

(16:25) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,​

​

2Tim 2:8 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:8) Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: ​

 

[glorydaz]

Some on TOL claim that salvation has always been the way that Paul preached it, but nobody knew it until Paul "made it clear". That is a very silly idea.

So God put all of this information in the scripture, starting in Genesis 1:1... but nobody knew about it until Paul. God kept the truth of salvation hidden for thousands of years.

Scriptures like these do not phase them at all:

John 4:22 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.​

​

Rom 11:11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.​

You just cannot put a dent is their false paradigm, no matter what you show them.

Scripture is clear that salvation is OF the Jews, meaning all the promises, and Christ Himself was a Jew, and Christ Himself is salvation. Nothing false there.

​

Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.​

P.S.

Rom 2:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.​

​

Rom 16:25 (AKJV/PCE)​

(16:25) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,​

​

2Tim 2:8 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:8) Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: ​

It’s my gospel, too.

 

[Lon]

It wasn't verbalized in the same way, but that doesn't mean grace was absent in the other forms of the gospel. That makes us look at what the good news in each case is all about. If salvation is by works some of the time, and not by works other times, then I will have to admit that there are multiple gospels, and Paul was wrong to anathematize them all. But Peter tells us that is not the case when he said
Acts 15:11 KJV — But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

If the Jews are saved through grace EVEN AS THE GENTILES ARE SAVED, then whether it was verbalized the same or not, the mechanism of salvation is still the same, which means, if the good news is about how to be saved, they are the same gospel.

True but look at 'difference.' In all of these conversations, for me, it is best to keep in mind that one group emphasizes difference and the other 'same.' Because I'm analytical by nature, I'm always listening between the two. Mid Acts is right of course, there had to be difference or there was no need for Paul. Not only Mid Acts, but all Dispensation Theology is about difference. 2nd Acts sees less difference. Covenant Theology sees the church as supplanting Israel until some future time and see even less difference, etc.

Importance? All churches that struggle with applying Jewish principals tend toward legalism: rules. Grace churches try to follow Grace without getting too hung up on works/behavior. They do look at behavior, but not for salvation, but practical living and oneness in the Body.

On Topic: Paul did say clearly several times the gospel as he grasped it from Christ, chosen by Christ, was hidden before being revealed. The question for all of us necessarily has to be "what was different? What is different? What was revealed in Paul that no other revealed?" Mid Acts does a great job of pointing out what we all need to entertain, at the very least. Good question on point in thread. I find these threads very helpful for understanding how all of scripture ties together. In Him -Lon

 

[Lon]

You're suggesting, I suppose, that "no more of" means that at one time it was of works. I don't think that phrase means that.

Needs more discussion. Works was always in tangent with grace and disobedience punished with the ground opening up, serpents, swords. Paul was very clear that the Law bound any Jewish believer. While Grace was involved, it was only in promise, unavailable but by future payment. When Jesus went to the cross, He told the thief "Today you will be with me in Paradise." When He went to the grave, He preached to the captive spirits. Before Christ's work, all O.T. saints went to Paradise, held until the DBR of the Lord Jesus Christ. For 3 days the Lord Jesus preached to the captives. When He walked the earth, the saints were seen by many with Jesus and ascended with Him. Now? There is a difference: "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." All of this points to 'difference.' While we all realize somethings are the same, it is equally important to note 'what changed?' If we don't, we miss the work and purposes of our Lord Jesus Christ that are important and essential to our walk with Him today. This all very good, important discussion for every believer. The two threads we are currently participating in should be pinned imo. This is essential doctrine discussion. -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

Jesus preached it first.

John 3:15-18​

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.​

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.​

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.​

​

His death for sin is there in the Prophets, but Paul certainly gave us clarity with his teachings.

However, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news of salvation no matter how you put it. Paul fleshed it out quite well, adding His death, burial, and resurrection, plus the mystery of Christ in us can’t be found anywhere else in scripture that I can find. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

​

​

 

[glorydaz]

True but look at 'difference.' In all of these conversations, for me, it is best to keep in mind that one group emphasizes difference and the other 'same.' Because I'm analytical by nature, I'm always listening between the two. Mid Acts is right of course, there had to be difference or there was no need for Paul. Not only Mid Acts, but all Dispensation Theology is about difference. 2nd Acts sees less difference. Covenant Theology sees the church as supplanting Israel until some future time and see even less difference, etc.

Importance? All churches that struggle with applying Jewish principals tend toward legalism: rules. Grace churches try to follow Grace without getting too hung up on works/behavior. They do look at behavior, but not for salvation, but practical living and oneness in the Body.

On Topic: Paul did say clearly several times the gospel as he grasped it from Christ, chosen by Christ, was hidden before being revealed. The question for all of us necessarily has to be "what was different? What is different? What was revealed in Paul that no other revealed?" Mid Acts does a great job of pointing out what we all need to entertain, at the very least. Good question on point in thread. I find these threads very helpful for understanding how all of scripture ties together. In Him -Lon

What was different? The indwelling Spirit. Christ in you, the hope of glory.

And, of course, opening the door to the gentiles, although that was prophesied.

 

[Lon]

What was different? The indwelling Spirit. Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Again: 'same.' Rather, because Paul emphasizes it, what was the difference? Acts does a good job of spelling out differences, especially
Acts 15:1-35 Acts 15: 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

Acts 15: 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
--Part of the mystery that had to be stated.

2nd Acts (regular?) Dispensationalism: Genesis 22:18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” Genesis 3:15 and so on. Note with me that 'obedience' (Law) is the avenue for blessing such that in Acts 15, there was much debate about whether gentiles were to be circumcised and obedient to the Law. It was still a mystery (Even Peter said Paul's writings (mystery/gospel) were hard to understand. 2 Peter 3:16 Why? If we keep asking good why questions, we'll always be better off in scripture understanding. Every Bible study hermeneutic class I've had to date tells us to ask repeatedly 'who, what, when, where, why, how' of every text and implores us to 2 Timothy 2:15 " Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."
I cannot think it worth effort in threads like this. We are doing deep bible study together. In every sense, Mid Acts asks questions none of the rest of us ask as often as they, yet is exactly what good Bible study methods tell us to do. I've inundated myself with Mid Acts teaching these last 5 years simply because the hard questions are asked and I've had to entertain them. Even so, I've come to realize I have to agree on a huge number of scriptures and truth thereof.

And, of course, opening the door to the gentiles, although that was prophesied.

Yet 'how' (good bible study questions) was the door opened? Through keeping the Law? Without Paul in Acts 15:8, you and I would have to become Messianic Jews. Again, part of the mystery is that Jesus does this all for us. In a few words, the Mystery was the complete work of Christ Death, Burial, Resurrection, sending the Spirit, and interceding continuously on our behalf! If nothing more, you will appreciate Mid Acts in every sense that it reveals more and more of what Our Lord Jesus Christ actually did for us and the extent! Worth that look!

 

[Right Divider]

Paul's use of the word 'grace' in his thirteen epistles: 90+

Times that Jesus is quoted using the word 'grace' during His earthly ministry: 0

Jesus sent Paul.

 

[glorydaz]

Again: 'same.' Rather, because Paul emphasizes it, what was the difference? Acts does a good job of spelling out differences, especially
Acts 15:1-35 Acts 15: 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

Acts 15: 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
--Part of the mystery that had to be stated.

A matter of timing. A matter of ongoing revelation with an indwelling Spirit, which, after my noting ‘Christ in you’ was a mystery revealed to Paul, we see Jesus speaking of it before He was crucified. One of those hid with Christ in God nuggets of information noted before Paul revealed it…fleshed it out so to speak. I am in the Father, and you in me (baptized into Christ), and I in you. There it is. Not really a mystery just not yet understood by the apostles.

John 14:19. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.​

2nd Acts (regular?) Dispensationalism: Genesis 22:18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” Genesis 3:15 and so on. Note with me that 'obedience' (Law) is the avenue for blessing such that in Acts 15, there was much debate about whether gentiles were to be circumcised and obedient to the Law. It was still a mystery (Even Peter said Paul's writings (mystery/gospel) were hard to understand. 2 Peter 3:16 Why? If we keep asking good why questions, we'll always be better off in scripture understanding. Every Bible study hermeneutic class I've had to date tells us to ask repeatedly 'who, what, when, where, why, how' of every text and implores us to 2 Timothy 2:15 " Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."
I cannot think it worth effort in threads like this. We are doing deep bible study together. In every sense, Mid Acts asks questions none of the rest of us ask as often as they, yet is exactly what good Bible study methods tell us to do. I've inundated myself with Mid Acts teaching these last 5 years simply because the hard questions are asked and I've had to entertain them. Even so, I've come to realize I have to agree on a huge number of scriptures and truth thereof.

I was so hooked on MidActs that I was ignoring the very words spoken by our Lord. I neglected much of the Bible because it wasn’t of Paul. That is a travesty that cannot be ignored. It’s not too late to see how all of scripture works together to make a whole truth. Paul should be our example, not our only guide to truth. The problem isn’t with Paul, it’s with the idea that he holds all truth. Paul would roll over in his grave if he saw how Jesus has been cast aside with his chosen people. That’s how it appears to me.

Yet 'how' (good bible study questions) was the door opened? Through keeping the Law? Without Paul in Acts 15:8, you and I would have to become Messianic Jews. Again, part of the mystery is that Jesus does this all for us. In a few words, the Mystery was the complete work of Christ Death, Burial, Resurrection, sending the Spirit, and interceding continuously on our behalf! If nothing more, you will appreciate Mid Acts in every sense that it reveals more and more of what Our Lord Jesus Christ actually did for us and the extent! Worth that look!

I’ve looked and it’s only led me back to the words of Jesus and the rest of the Bible. I spent too long in MidActs being told we were no longer to know Jesus after the flesh according to some misinterpretation of theirs. Don’t get me wrong, they have some good points concerning about Paul’s teaching, but it ain’t the gospel.

Btw, that was Peter in Acts 15, and the Lord was able to send Peter a vision without Paul being there at all.

Peter believed and was saved the same as Paul was. That, alone, should cause people to reconsider.

 

[Lon]

Btw, that was Peter in Acts 15, and the Lord was able to send Peter a vision without Paul being there at all.

Peter believed and was saved the same as Paul was. That, alone, should cause people to reconsider.

True, but relating Paul and Barnabas' thoughts it'd seem to me. Again, without Paul there, the issue would be Judaized gentiles. It is fitting both Peter and James agreed.

On the former, it is good to ask every question Mid Acts asks. With you, I don't agree with everything I've heard, but I do think the way they divide the Word of God is very beneficial for Bible Study.

 

[glorydaz]

Paul's use of the word 'grace' in his thirteen epistles: 90+

Times that Jesus is quoted using the word 'grace' during His earthly ministry: 0

Jesus sent Paul.

Jesus didn’t use the word grace, He was grace.
Grace and truth came from Him.
He was the dispenser of grace.
The very personification of grace.

John 1:

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.​

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.​

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.​

And Paul makes that clear.

Titus 2:11-14.​

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,​

12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.​

 

[glorydaz]

True, but relating Paul and Barnabas' thoughts it'd seem to me. Again, without Paul there, the issue would be Judaized gentiles. It is fitting both Peter and James agreed.

On the former, it is good to ask every question Mid Acts asks. With you, I don't agree with everything I've heard, but I do think the way they divide the Word of God is very beneficial for Bible Study.

Paul had an incredible impact for sure. I doubt they’d have gotten past acknowledging gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean. Even after God intervened, Paul had to withstand them to their face. I love that part.

Nothing wrong with searching the scripture, and that should include all of scripture. There is so much there still to unwrap. I must say, Hebrew scholars who are believers can bring a lot of light to the table. Jesus was a Jew, after all.