heir
TOL Subscriber
The fact is that Paul's gospel was a mystery (Romans 16:25-27 KJV, 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 KJV)!
ECT What gospel was Paul saved under?
- Thread starter Lazy afternoon
- Start date
- Status
heir
TOL Subscriber
All scripture shows otherwise!
All of these are gospels!
the gospel of the kingdom
the gospel of the circumcision
the gospel of the uncircumcision
the gospel of God
the gospel of Christ
the gospel of the grace of God
the everlasting gospel
Interplanner
Well-known member
Nonsense. The circ vs uncirc is grammatically mistaken by the way. The English phrasing is mistaken. The others are all one as the Trinity is one.
Those in Judaism in the IT and the NT periods had to realize, had to come to the realization, that the Gospel of Isaiah was not going to be another phase in a theocracy in Judea. It was going to be a message that they would be asked to spread, and to get Gentiles to spread as well.
Those in Judaism in the IT and the NT periods had to realize, had to come to the realization, that the Gospel of Isaiah was not going to be another phase in a theocracy in Judea. It was going to be a message that they would be asked to spread, and to get Gentiles to spread as well.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Don't you realize that the Gospel is an event? It is not an abstract doctrine. It is the grace of God, the forgiveness of God, etc. All of those things are about an event--what Christ accomplished.
Care to be more specific; I partly agree on the first sentence, but I'm not really clear on what you meant in that second sentence.
ClimateSanity
New member
He is saying most here believe they have a license to sin.
whitestone
Well-known member
lol,are you sure?,,,first there is an old covenant and then there is a new one? nope scratch that out,there's no such thing as two people two plan stuff right? Then there is a new covenant that is established with people who weren't under an old one?,,,it all gets clearer the more we look, our daughter's speak prophecy and no one says know the lord because all of us know him right? And there's no reason for Paul to say prophecies and tongues will cease? something must have changed right,wonder why?
Right Divider
Body part
What a loonie-tune you are!
Please go ahead and provide SOME proof of that bold spin.
Right Divider
Body part
More fluff from a big fluffer. PROVE IT.
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
In the one Gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed. In ch 3 he says it has come as a public demonstration of the justice of God. It was the event of Christ--that God was in Christ straightening out the debt of sin for mankind.
But if Rom 1 and 3 are fluff, what can I say?
Interplanner
Well-known member
In English Gal 2 comes across as saying there were two gospels. In Greek, however, each phrase has a case, and in those phrases, the gospel is not one for one group, and another for another. It is just that one person went there, one went here. It is the difference between genetive case and possessive case.
And then there's the anathema against more than one gospel just a few verses earlier...but that's for the advanced reader dialed into context...
If you were diagramming Gal 2:7, even in English, you might see what's going on. "The task" is the Direct Object. Everything else modifies that. The same gospel went to each kind.
Sheesh!
The CORE issue THROUGHOUT chapters one and two is the Apostle Paul's DISTINCTIVE UNcircumcision Apostleship.
And this, in light of the status of ALL men before God by the end of Romans 3:20.
Gal. 3:1 then opens in the sense of Romans 3:21 forward.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Acts 10:43 is before Acts 13:32, but is the exact same Gospel...
Apostleship was solved by the fact that he taught the same one, not a different one.
Apostleship was solved by the fact that he taught the same one, not a different one.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your Sonnett meme wiffenpoofle notwithstanding, asked and answered:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?118147-What-gospel-was-Paul-saved-under/page23&p=4754205#post4754205
Judging by a few of the responses, your view is even a wee bit outside your own camp.
AMR
That read (reed) AMR, is a bit too much for what the immediate sense of 2 Tim. 2:15 and its near passages are dealing with.
As for your comment about who within MAD may or may not hold to views on some things in the same way heir does; you well know, brother - I in fact, well know, that all subscribers to Reformed are not always all on the same page either, as I have Pastor friends who are Reformed and they too at times display great differences in understanding between one another :chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Danoh,
You claimed in a thread to have 'just stated' what the necessary summary of MAD is in relation to Acts 13. I looked back two pages and found nothing. What are you about--besides ending every post with the mocking icon?
You claimed in a thread to have 'just stated' what the necessary summary of MAD is in relation to Acts 13. I looked back two pages and found nothing. What are you about--besides ending every post with the mocking icon?
Right Divider
Body part
What is the gospel of the circumcision? Spell it out for us. Give us some details.
Yep.
For back when "the mission" was TO the circumcision; there was, as the Twelve well knew "difference between us, and them."
The fact of the matter is that in the Apostle Paul's very asserting of his Apostleship OF the Gentiles to the GREAT EXTENT he OFTEN does THROUGHOUT his Epistles is due to a RADICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN his Apostleship and that OF the Twelve.
But, we MADs are barking up the wrong tree, where the likes of Interplanner and his endless horde of expert amateurs on "MAD" are concerned.
It is simply too late in their read of things. They are too far gone.
Heck, he merely wants to argue for his blindness - he's already admitted a dozen times or more that he considers looking into MAD a waste of his time.
The guy is no more than one more TOL troll.
Through and through...
Oh, I almost forgot - :chuckle:
His is the "one size fits all" gospel of Interplanner.
In other words, in his mis-understanding, the sense is that of a division not of gospels, but of respective labors in this "one size fits all" gospel.
1 - Peter TO the Circumcision;
2 - Paul TO the Gentiles;
3 - Interplanner TO the MADs he "could care less about" learning about FIRST.
He claims to follow Paul; while ignorant of the fact that Paul was very well versed in the positions of those he was attempting to reach.
All Inter is actually doing, is admiring himself in the reflection his words are meant to reflect back to him as to how well read he is, and thus, all knowing, above "these Bible over reliant MAD boobs..." :chuckle:
- Status