And do those Scriptures support a gospel that is outside the foundation of Jesus' death and resurrection and allegiance to him as God's chosen Messiah and King? I think not.
Theology Club: The Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of Grace
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Translation: I disagree with the plain text of the Bible and insist it must mean something other than what it says.
Here's a question for you, or anyone else who disagrees with MAD:
What did Paul mean when he wrote Romans 4:16?
"...so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all..."
Who are those who are of the law at the time of Paul's writing? Why is Paul mentioning those of the law and those of faith as two different groups and stating that Abraham is the father of both groups?
Paul contrasts Jew and Christian, Judaism and Christianity. He did not teach a two group caste system in the early church of true believers saved by different gospels (there is one true gospel and many false gospels). Romans 4-5 is building a case for grace and justification by faith, even based on the OT (vs law/works). He is not building a case for Bullinger or modern MAD (hyper-disp view with no precedent in Scripture nor church history).
heir
TOL Subscriber
It wasn't the same gospel! They didn't know “that gospel” (an odd thing to say if it were the same gospel, as you say) that Paul preached among the Gentiles until he went up by revelation and communicated it unto them. It was THEN (not before) that they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto Paul. It was THEN (not before) that they “perceived the grace” that was given unto Paul!
Galatians 2:1-2 KJV Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Galatians 2:6 KJV But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person
for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: They added nothing to Paul?! If they had been preaching the same gospel all of those years surely THEY must have added something to Paul. According to the scriptures they DIDN'T!
BUT CONTRARIWISE,…!
Galatians 2:7-9 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; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Like a trained dog, jumping through hoops.
heir
TOL Subscriber
It certainly was for Israel. You know that Peter preached:
Acts 10:35 KJV But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
But Paul preached:
Titus 3:5 KJV Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
But, according to you they preached the same gospel. It's obvious that they didn't. You cannot make those two verses say the same thing no matter how hard you try.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Your "view" contradicts what saith the scripture.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Romans 15:8 KJV Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
heir
TOL Subscriber
:yawn:
heir
TOL Subscriber
Two gospels demonstrated by the scriptures contradicts your religious, denominational stinking thinking.
Last edited:
You are correct Mr. godrulz! Unless the law were kept perfectly it is irrelevant to receiving eternal life. Apart from perfection the law breeds only self-righteousness. Whether faith alone or faith plus works, the salvation gained is pure Grace.
As an illustration, I have two sons, both who like to go camping. Neither has any ability to go to the mountains by themselves. If I take them camping it is because I love them, not because of something intrinsic to them that requires me to take them camping.
If I tell one son, be prepared to leave for our camping trip after work at 5:00, and I tell the other son get the lawn mowed and we’ll leave as soon as I get home, bother boys are being shown exactly the same amount of grace. There is nothing about mowing the lawn that mandates a camping trip for the second boy. Yet as the father it is my prerogative to say I want the lawn mowed. The trouble with mowing the lawn is that my son may become convinced that the act of mowing the lawn, not my love for him, is what produced the camping trip.
There are two Gospel’s unto salvation in the Bible. One require faith, the other faith plus works. Both are 100% pure Grace.
Last edited:
12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.
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
Everything you say is wrong.
Hogwash. There is one cross, one Christ, one finished work, one gospel POST-cross. There is no biblical, logical, theological support for two gospel theories. It is simply a wrong paradigm introduced by Bullinger, Stam, etc. that does not have precedent throughout church history. It is almost universally panned as a hyper-disp teaching.
There is nothing religious or stinking thinking to accept a moderate dispensational view (Acts 2) that better fits the evidence. Even those brethren who see covenantalism vs dispensationalism claim biblical support.
This is a debatable issue, but you have made it tantamount to the simplicity of the gospel or rejection of it. This is sectarian/cultish/fundamentalist thinking and I am tired of wasting time on confused, arrogant, ignorant people that have gullibly adopted a false view and have the gall to berate those who don't follow in their error. Even so, there is a more charitable way to disagree with equally capable, godly, sincere believers who make a case for their view against yours.
Your lack of credibility and theologically insight is reflected in your proof texting out of context, lack of familiarity with sound arguments against your view, tendency to fall for KJV vs original language research, etc.
So, you have an ad hominem attack, but not as much substance as you think.
Your Rom. 4-5 argument is not support for MAD. It is illustrating the common blessing of Jew and Gentile who had a common root in Abraham relating to grace and faith (God's plan has always been the whole world, not just Jews).
I Cor. 12 argues against MAD, not for it. It shows that Jew/Gentile are one in Christ through the gospel, the power of God, based on the cross (whether Paul ever converted or not). Gal. 2 shows a demarcation of ministry, not two different gospels for a limited time/group in the early church.
You are dead wrong, but refuse to see it.
What are you talking about. You claimed Jew vs gentile, OT vs NT. I showed that is not the case in the Body of Christ. You were refuted and provided a non answer.
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
May God repay you for your evil. You have been shown over and over and over. You don't care what the truth is. You want to deceive because your heart is black and you are full of death.
Quite right my friend. No need to disregard two Gospels to accept this truth.
Paul distinguishes between the uncircumcision with circumcision, because two groups existed at the time of this writing. Paul clarifies that the promise to Abraham and ALL his descendants was NOT through the Law but through FAITH (Rom. 4:13). Paul tells us that Abraham is the father of all who have FAITH without being circumcised (Rom. 4:11) and that Abraham is the father of the circumcision who follow in the steps of FAITH (Rom. 4:12). Abraham is the father of both groups because it is by FAITH alone (Rom. 4:13, 16) that both groups become descendants of Abraham in regards to the promise.
Rom. 4:16: The promise is by FAITH SO THAT the promise will be guaranteed to All the descendants, not only those who are of the Law (Jews who follow in the steps of FAITH, Rom. 4:12) but also to those who are “of the FAITH” of Abraham (Gentiles who have FAITH, Rom. 4:11).
Rom. 4:16: The promise is by FAITH SO THAT the promise will be guaranteed to All the descendants, not only those who are of the Law (Jews who follow in the steps of FAITH, Rom. 4:12) but also to those who are “of the FAITH” of Abraham (Gentiles who have FAITH, Rom. 4:11).
You misunderstood me. I have always said and reminded you that Jew and Gentile are one in Christ, but it is through the cross, not the conversion of Paul. MAD shifts the crux from God to man.
You lying piece of garbage.