Answer them.
And stop acting like I didn't believe otherwise when I joined TOL. You're forgetting that I used to agree with you.
I am aware of this, but your reject sound interpretation for a fad.
Answer them.
And stop acting like I didn't believe otherwise when I joined TOL. You're forgetting that I used to agree with you.
I am aware of this, but your reject sound interpretation for a fad.
I am aware of this, but your reject sound interpretation for a fad.
Bondage is good news?I vote two Gospels, one for covenant of bondage and one for the covenant of freedom.
Gal 4:24-26
for these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar--for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children--but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
I vote two Gospels, one for covenant of bondage and one for the covenant of freedom.
Gal 4:24-26
for these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar--for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children--but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Bondage is good news?
There is OT and NT, Israel and Church, Jew/Gentile and Christian. Gal. 4 is not contrasting two post-cross gospels (like MAD might think), but contrasting Law vs Grace, OT vs NT. To have a law/works gospel after the cross for a limited time before Paul is a denial of His finished work that predates Paul and is based on the cross, not Paul's conversion/commission to take the one gospel to Gentiles (not another true gospel to supplant a Jewish Christian gospel?!).
They propose two true NT gospels after the cross, circumcision/uncircumcision, faith/works and grace/faith. This is patently false in light of Romans and Hebrews (they marginalize the non-Pauline books as not directly applicable to the Body of Christ).
Both Abraham and David were righteous because of their faith (Romans 4:1-8).Old Testament believers were required to keep the law. If their efforts sufficed, they were sent to Abraham’s Bosom to await the slaying of the Lamb of God to pay for their sins. Those people who were required to keep the law for salvation remained faithfully to their obligation even after the Cross.
But after redemption was paid there was no longer need for the shadowy rules and regulations that only pointed to the Cross. Thus a New Covenant through Paul which teaches grace by faith alone, not faith plus works.
We also see Peter going first to the gentile, does that make Peter double minded? or does it simply show that in Christ there is neither Jew or gentile.
godrulz answered these scriptures in post 31 when he said
legion said:No, this is a demarcation of ministry like you taking the gospel to Americans and me taking the gospel to my fellow Canadians.
We also see Peter going first to the gentile, does that make Peter double minded? or does it simply show that in Christ there is neither Jew or gentile.
Old Testament believers were required to keep the law. If their efforts sufficed, they were sent to Abraham’s Bosom to await the slaying of the Lamb of God to pay for their sins. Those people who were required to keep the law for salvation remained faithfully to their obligation even after the Cross.
But after redemption was paid there was no longer need for the shadowy rules and regulations that only pointed to the Cross. Thus a New Covenant through Paul which teaches grace by faith alone, not faith plus works.
You, like godrulz, didn't answer the question and explain Paul's statement. He went to the circumcision, and Peter to the uncircumcision. Yet Paul said this.
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
So, what does he mean knowing he did go to the circumcision? It is easy. He is preaching his gospel of grace that Peter was not given.
If what you say is true, then you've got a problem. Paul went to the Jew first and also to the Greek during his ministry during the Acts period. Sorry, rulz, but your denial of the scripture meaning exactly what it says is exposed (again). There are two gospels in this one verse alone.There is one post-cross true gospel of Jesus, two two gospels post-cross. This is the majority view because it is right and biblical. This one gospel was preached to two different target audiences by two ministry teams (Gal. 2 demarcation of ministry).
If what you say is true, then you've got a problem. Paul went to the Jew first and also to the Greek during his ministry during the Acts period. Sorry, rulz, but your denial of the scripture meaning exactly what it says is exposed (again). There are two gospels in this one verse alone.
Galatians 2:7 KJV But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Your unbelief (again) is showing.
No, rulz. Paul went to the Jew first and also to the Greek to gather the remnant according to the election of grace which God foreknew into the Body of Christ.The normative pattern for Jesus and Paul was to go to Jew first, but Paul experienced a shift when the Jews continued to reject the Messiah. He was raised up to take the gospel to the Gentiles primarily, but not exclusively. There was a shift from a Jewish/Jerusalem center to a Gentile/Antiochian, etc. center as the gospel was expanded (Jn. 3:16 world=all unregenerate, not just elite Jews).
You, like godrulz, didn't answer the question and explain Paul's statement. He went to the circumcision, and Peter to the uncircumcision. Yet Paul said this.
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
So, what does he mean knowing he did go to the circumcision? It is easy. He is preaching his gospel of grace that Peter was not given.
No, this is a demarcation of ministry like you taking the gospel to Americans and me taking the gospel to my fellow Canadians.
[/QUOTE]Which position are you taking? Is it a declaration he doesn't go to the circumcision, or that he does go? Make up your mind so we can debate.
And I made an answer to this point on the link below.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86600
The context shows a demarcation of ministry, not two gospels (which contradicts principles in the rest of the NT). You go to Americans and I go to Canadians, but it is the same gospel.