glorydaz
Well-known member
You're assuming a lot, once again.
Do you have any scripture that supports Peter teaching the sufficiency of the cross without the law?
I'd love to see it.
These are NOT the same gospel
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
You're assuming a lot, once again.
Do you have any scripture that supports Peter teaching the sufficiency of the cross without the law?
I'd love to see it.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Ah, so when Jesus was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, you think it was something besides the "Kingdom of Israel" on earth where He would sit upon the throne of David?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Peter's good news was not the same as Paul's.
Peter's good news was for the Jews......that Jesus would sit on the throne of David when He returned in Glory.
In fact, they all expected that to happen soon.
I'd love to see you show where Peter says works of the law were needed to complete the sufficiency of the cross.
You're confusing what Peter expected to happen before and after the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Before the death and resurrection Peter didn't even expect Jesus to be crucified.
glorydaz
Well-known member
If you can't show where Peter preaches the sufficiency of the cross it must not be there for you put forth.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I'm confusing nothing.
Peter didn't expect to be saved until Jesus returned in His glory. Acts 3
Paul preaches a present salvation when we believe. Eph. 2
Right Divider
Body part
Please show where Peter preached "the sufficiency of the cross".
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The Gospel of Mark is known to originate with Peter. Mark 14:23 " And [Jesus] took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."
So Peter knew by then, by the time Mark was being written, " how that Christ died for our sins" (1Co15:3)----that's what Jesus means by saying "My blood . . . is shed for many."
Peter didn't know it while it was happening, but he did know it by the time Mark was being written down.
Right Divider
Body part
"For many"? Why not ALL?
Try again...
The "My blood... is shed for many" was specifically about the nation of Israel. (i.e., the new covenant).
Romans 16:25-26 KJV
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, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Can't be something that was not said by the prophets if Paul says it was.
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, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Can't be something that was not said by the prophets if Paul says it was.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You some sort of universalist?
Saying it doesn't make it so.
I know that. What I do not know but that you all seem so certain of, is that the New Covenant definitely doesn't involve or include Gentiles, and isn't related to "Paul's Gospel to the uncircumcision." I don't know that.
Right Divider
Body part
You misunderstand that scripture... it has TWO parts.
The complete stablishment requires BOTH Paul's revelations AND the scriptures of the prophets.
God gave Paul the duty to fulfill the Word of God (i.e., to complete). Col 1:25
Right Divider
Body part
No, but there is a clear difference there. Are you blind?
It's just a fact.
Jer 31:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)
(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Just sounds like "Paul's Gospel to the uncircumcision" to me.
Right Divider
Body part
It's specifically talking about Israel.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
But not necessarily exclusively.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Amen.
One has to realize that had the "obedience of faith" been revealed to the Jews before Paul preached it, they would have given up the law long ago. They had this. Psalm 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.
Some things were kept secret, even though they were there until God wanted them to be revealed. That happened with the Apostles. They couldn't see that Jesus would be killed even when Jesus told them plainly He would be. There is a lot to that word REVEALED, if you ask me.
Deut. 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
glorydaz
Well-known member
It's a covenant. The covenants were with Israel.
Or ..... you do.