I am aware of this, but your reject sound interpretation for a fad.
Theology Club: The Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of Grace
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
I am aware of this, but your reject sound interpretation for a fad.
I take it he is not all that interested in your answer.
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.
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).
Last edited:
Bondage to the law is good new if by following it God bestows us with righteousness.
But I am thankful to be freed from the law so that I can live righteously for righteousness sake, and not for the purpose of earning my salvation.
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.
Both Abraham and David were righteous because of their faith (Romans 4:1-8).
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.
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[/QUOTE]
Rom. 4-5 shows that grace/faith were still the issues in the OT. Obedience demonstrated heart faith/love. No one kept the law perfectly, but were condemned by it. Even grace believers should keep God's moral law (vs civic/ceremonial laws) lest we condone murder and adultery.
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.
heir
TOL Subscriber
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.
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).
The grammar, context, theology does not support MAD's proof texting of this verse.
Just because I am called primarily to share in my Canadian city does not mean that I have not shared the gospel with people of all nations in my city or abroad (short term missions to Los Angeles Olympics, Iceland, St. Lucia, and personal Mexico medical trip where we also shared with Mexicans).
All truth is not in one verse. Again, experts like A.T. Robertson and William Mounce show that the genitive in Gal. 2:7 is better translated 'to' vs 'of' as many credible versions note (but of is OK in KJV since the gospel of the Chinese is the same as the gospel of the Americans). This fits the context and the warp/woof of NT theology that MAD denies for a modern, fringe view not accepted by most exegetes/theologians for a reason (including fellow dispensationalists who see disp truth, but not hyper/extreme disp views that negate much of the NT intended for the Church).
heir
TOL Subscriber
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.
Romans 1:15-16 KJV So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 11:1-5 KJV I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
His ministry had nothing to do with the ministry given the 12 apostles in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Please notice it was Paul's 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,...
Romans 16:25-27 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, 26 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: 27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
In fact, not only did Paul's ministry have nothing to do with the 12's, he couldn't have even been forgiven under their good news at all because he blasphemed the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 12:31 KJV Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Matthew 12:32 KJV And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
How then do you explain he preached the same gospel? And can you explain why Paul received mercy even though he was before a blasphemer?
And BTW, John 3:16 is not the gospel of Christ, the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth...
godrulz did answer the question and I agree with him
Do you have a hard time understanding what he said above?
[/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
I already gave you a half dozen scriptures that show that MAD build up the wall Jesus tore down. So if you really intend to debate you can start with them.
I don't see how they cannot understand that concept.