Jesus and Paul -two different gospels?

[Scribe]

I don't find that satisfactory, yes he was not acting in a straightforward way but underlying that he was siding with those men who came [supposedly ] from James who were insisting upon circumcision and the law of Moses.

I believe Paul preached the same gospel as Jesus, and God had demonstrated in a remarkable way to Peter through the conversion of Cornelius salvation by grace alone through faith ... but he was still fuzzy in his mind and this is shown in his remarks about Cornelius' good works and his desire for Cornelius to be water baptised even though he was already saved.

I am not against water baptism btw it is good for reasons of testimony but it is not essential to salvation.

It is important to underline that Peter did submit to Paul's rebuke and later in Jerusalem spoke in Paul's defence. It is vital to understand that the apostles ended up in complete agreement ... but they Jerusalemites did find it hard to understand as Peter acknowledged in his 2nd epistle.

Peter's asking who can forbid water that they might be baptized was because that he knew that they were saved. They qualified to be baptized in water in obedience to the command of Christ. The fact that they spoke in tongues was proof to him that they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit and therefore this was more than enough proof that they were believers and could be baptized in water.

Unbelievers were not to be baptized in water only believers. Those who believed in Jesus with all their hearts. These qualified. Bring on the water. Peter was not confused or fuzzy.

It is a bit disturbing to see someone accuse Peter of making a mistake in asking for water to baptize the house of Cornelius. Why does this interpretation of Peter being wrong about this not set off alarms in you that you might be making a mistake in your interpretations? That you might be forcing unnatural interpretations to the scriptures over and over again to support a doctrine that might be wrong?

 

[Guojing]

I couldn't agree more, which is why I wish that we could come together and simply offer our ideas to one another, instead of bashing. So many people make it seem like in order to be kind to others, you have to have an 8-year degree in Self-Control.

True, to do that, one must first accept that his idea is only one way in which to interpret the scripture he is reading.

Others are reading the same scripture with a different lens, thus coming up with a different idea, and there is no reason why your lens must always be better than theirs.

Not everyone is willing to accept that, that is why they will say things like "You better repent before God for your erroneous ideas."

 

[Guojing]

I believe Paul preached the same gospel as Jesus, and God had demonstrated in a remarkable way to Peter through the conversion of Cornelius salvation by grace alone through faith ... but he was still fuzzy in his mind and this is shown in his remarks about Cornelius' good works and his desire for Cornelius to be water baptised even though he was already saved.

Out of curiosity, what do you think are the contents of that "same gospel" that was preached to Cornelius?

The clue might lie in Acts 10

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

In your view, what do you think are the contents?

 

[Evmur]

Out of curiosity, what do you think are the contents of that "same gospel" that was preached to Cornelius?

The clue might lie in Acts 10

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

In your view, what do you think are the contents?

We have Peter's exact sermon to Cornelius in-as- far as the Holy Ghost allowed him to speak before He sovereignly interrupted by pouring His Spirit upon Cornelius and his assembled household.

That Cornelius feared God is evident and in obeying Him in the matter of calling for Peter to hear what he might say he worked righteousness.

But God said in the vision He gave to Peter "what God hath cleansed thou shalt not call common" hmmm there is food for thought.

 

[CS1]

I find it laughable that CSI would come to that conclusion that I disrespected Paul, since people have already deemed me as a mid Acts dispensationalist.

But then again, you cannot control the conclusions others want to form about your beliefs, when they don't even know you.

it's CS one, thank you very much. And I think you may have an issue with your own tone or understanding. I will show you why I came to the conclusion I did.

You said :

"How arrogant of Paul to call the gospel "my gospel", he totally disregarded Peter and the others."

 

[Live4Him]

it's CS one, thank you very much. And I think you may have an issue with your own tone or understanding. I will show you why I came to the conclusion I did.

You said :

"How arrogant of Paul to call the gospel "my gospel", he totally disregarded Peter and the others."

You mean you're not a "CSI" or Crime Scene Investigator?

Too bad because the crime of butchering God's word regularly takes place on many of these threads, and somebody needs to investigate (and reprove) it.

 

[Evmur]

Peter's asking who can forbid water that they might be baptized was because that he knew that they were saved. They qualified to be baptized in water in obedience to the command of Christ. The fact that they spoke in tongues was proof to him that they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit and therefore this was more than enough proof that they were believers and could be baptized in water.

Unbelievers were not to be baptized in water only believers. Those who believed in Jesus with all their hearts. These qualified. Bring on the water. Peter was not confused or fuzzy.

It is a bit disturbing to see someone accuse Peter of making a mistake in asking for water to baptize the house of Cornelius. Why does this interpretation of Peter being wrong about this not set off alarms in you that you might be making a mistake in your interpretations? That you might be forcing unnatural interpretations to the scriptures over and over again to support a doctrine that might be wrong?

I did not say Peter was mistaken but fuzzy in his thinking, unclear. For the vision of unclean creatures shows that Peter did not understand the new arrangements of God's dealing with the Gentiles and the fact that he did side with the Jerusalem pharisees and withdrew from fellowship with the Gentile brethren underlines the fact that he still did not fully understand.

Paul says it was no small disagreement, it was important enough for him to call for a conference of the whole church in Jerusalem to decide the matter. The upshot of this conference decided that Paul was in the right and of critical importance they decided that Paul should go to the Gentiles and that the Jerusalem crowd should go to the circumcision.

That the disagreement still rumbled on is shown by the fact that John Mark and Barnabas separated from Paul at that time.

And if you think that Peter could not be unclear on certain points I point you to his own words in Peter 2 where he heartily commends Paul but confesses that there be many things in his letters which be hard to understand.

It was the unclarity in the minds of the Jerusalem crowd which caused God to raise up Paul. And he is God's appointed apostle to the Gentiles ... so if there are differences of understanding in doctrines as for instance between Paul and James we Gentiles should go to Paul.

And that is not to say that I believe that James and Paul were in any disagreement, on the contrary James gave Paul the right hand and wrote to the churches endorsing Paul's gospel.

How come this question of works and salvation still vexes the church? all we need to do is go to the letter James wrote to the Gentiles.

 

[Scribe]

I did not say Peter was mistaken but fuzzy in his thinking, unclear. For the vision of unclean creatures shows that Peter did not understand the new arrangements of God's dealing with the Gentiles and the fact that he did side with the Jerusalem pharisees and withdrew from fellowship with the Gentile brethren underlines the fact that he still did not fully understand.

Paul says it was no small disagreement, it was important enough for him to call for a conference of the whole church in Jerusalem to decide the matter. The upshot of this conference decided that Paul was in the right and of critical importance they decided that Paul should go to the Gentiles and that the Jerusalem crowd should go to the circumcision.

That the disagreement still rumbled on is shown by the fact that John Mark and Barnabas separated from Paul at that time.

And if you think that Peter could not be unclear on certain points I point you to his own words in Peter 2 where he heartily commends Paul but confesses that there be many things in his letters which be hard to understand.

It was the unclarity in the minds of the Jerusalem crowd which caused God to raise up Paul. And he is God's appointed apostle to the Gentiles ... so if there are differences of understanding in doctrines as for instance between Paul and James we Gentiles should go to Paul.

And that is not to say that I believe that James and Paul were in any disagreement, on the contrary James gave Paul the right hand and wrote to the churches endorsing Paul's gospel.

How come this question of works and salvation still vexes the church? all we need to do is go to the letter James wrote to the Gentiles.

I read it and clearly understand how the Holy Spirit brought them into understanding and agreement and not division. Even though it says that Paul was to reach the Gentiles we still see him preaching to Jews and so there is no two gospels.

James was not in disagreement with Paul and they both preached the same things. Peter was referring to you not understanding what Paul wrote not Peter.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Out of curiosity, what do you think are the contents of that "same gospel" that was preached to Cornelius?

The clue might lie in Acts 10

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

In your view, what do you think are the contents?

The Gospel is the Mysterious Plan of God, as outlined in Ephesians chapters 2 and 3. By Nature, God made His Plan difficult to see so that it is only shown to those who belong to Him. Regular people find the Word, or the Truth, as foolishness. If this is True, and I very much believe that it is, then we have to look at the hidden elements of what you've provided in your hint.

Simply put: No one can fear the Lord, OR work Righteousness, unless that person has been enabled. If we do not acknowledge our God who Causes things to happen, then we are not including the Gospel in our message to others, nor do we understand it. Can I demonstrate this idea? Yes, through the below passages . . . which describes the Heart of the Bible, which happens to be the Purpose and Work of Christ:

Ezekiel 36:25-27 KJV - "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

Now, does the Bible have any kind of description of how this new Heart and Spirit is placed into those whom the Lord knows? Yes . . . we do, and it is rather clear, though very, very few people (note that I did not say Christians) are aware of it.

Colossians 2:9-15 KJV - "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

As said, this is the Heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I am going to be bold enough to say that if a person does not understand Holy, Spiritual Circumcision, their Eternal Destiny is in grave danger. Why? Because if we don't understand what it is that Christ does for His Childen, how will we know what to look for and consider as we ponder the validity of our Salvation. We must ALL know that the Body of our Sinful Nature must be cut out, removed, and quickened together with Christ as He Purifies us through His Holy Work. Any person that refuses the Doctrine of Spiritual Circumcision likely does so because they cannot imagine that it is True, as they consider their patterns of sin. If a person doesn't believe in the Circumcision of Christ . . . they will never have to obey.

And how about that? Isn't that something . . . the Devil lied to Adam and Eve, essentially causing them to believe that they can disobey, yet still be in right standing with God. Low and behold . . . the "church" of today essentially teaches the exact . . . same . . . thing.

It is the Circumcision of Christ that causes, or enables us to obey.

Deuteronomy 30:6 NIV - "The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live."

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I read it and clearly understand how the Holy Spirit brought them into understanding and agreement and not division. Even though it says that Paul was to reach the Gentiles we still see him preaching to Jews and so there is no two gospels.

James was not in disagreement with Paul and they both preached the same things. Peter was referring to you not understanding what Paul wrote not Peter.

Amen

what people fail to grasp I think is who each person spoke to and the context of why they were saying what they said.

they both were in complete agreement 100%

 

[CS1]

You mean you're not a "CSI" or Crime Scene Investigator?

Too bad because the crime of butchering God's word regularly takes place on many of these threads, and somebody needs to investigate (and reprove) it.

nope

 

[Guojing]

it's CS one, thank you very much. And I think you may have an issue with your own tone or understanding. I will show you why I came to the conclusion I did.

You said :

"How arrogant of Paul to call the gospel "my gospel", he totally disregarded Peter and the others."

I was trying to play along with the “shock” the person I was replying to, was claiming.

You cannot possibly understand fully the intentions of strangers over the internet, so the rule of thumb is, ask clarifying questions before you jump to conclusions, especially negative ones.

 

[Evmur]

I read it and clearly understand how the Holy Spirit brought them into understanding and agreement and not division. Even though it says that Paul was to reach the Gentiles we still see him preaching to Jews and so there is no two gospels.

James was not in disagreement with Paul and they both preached the same things. Peter was referring to you not understanding what Paul wrote not Peter.

When you say the Holy Spirit brought them into agreement you are admitting that there had been a disagreement and division, Peter withdrew from fellowship with the Gentiles, that is division.

There is only one gospel, the fuzziness of thinking is between how Paul and the Jerusalem crowd understood how the gospel applied to the Gentiles who had not been given the law and the Jews who had. After a long and heated debate it was agreed that the salvation received by the Gentiles was exactly the same without the law as the salvation received by the Jews who had the law.

There is also this, Paul had revelations that the other apostles did not have, his understanding of how the gospel dispensation would pan out with the church among the nations is certainly different to the Jerusalem crowd who thought that Jerusalem was to be the place from which the gospel should be administered.

This is the famous "dispensation" we hear the MAD (mid-acts-dispensation) people talk about, I am not a MADianite but I do agree with them that Paul saw better than they that there was to be a long gap or parenthesis in which the Jewish church would be diminished and the Gentile/Jewish church would become dominant among the nations. THAT is what the Jews could not get their heads around although God showed it to them over and over. They simply could not understand how the church could be among the nations.

This has implications for us in these end-times which is perhaps another topic.

Make no mistake Peter James and John had a Jewish mind set. Before Jesus came Mary Magdalan and the woman of Samaria would have been as repugnant to them as they were to the pharisees. Peter really did think that Cornelius had been saved because of his good deeds ... but Jesus came to save sinners of the worse kind.

I understand Peter's letters very well thank you.

 

[Guojing]

We have Peter's exact sermon to Cornelius in-as- far as the Holy Ghost allowed him to speak before He sovereignly interrupted by pouring His Spirit upon Cornelius and his assembled household.

That Cornelius feared God is evident and in obeying Him in the matter of calling for Peter to hear what he might say he worked righteousness.

But God said in the vision He gave to Peter "what God hath cleansed thou shalt not call common" hmmm there is food for thought.

So to Peter, even as late as Acts 10, he believe that one needed to "work righteousness".

He was not preaching what Paul would preach to us in the Body of Christ in places like Romans 4:5

 

[Guojing]

When you say the Holy Spirit brought them into agreement you are admitting that there had been a disagreement and division, Peter withdrew from fellowship with the Gentiles, that is division.

There is only one gospel, the fuzziness of thinking is between how Paul and the Jerusalem crowd understood how the gospel applied to the Gentiles who had not been given the law and the Jews who had. After a long and heated debate it was agreed that the salvation received by the Gentiles was exactly the same without the law as the salvation received by the Jews who had the law.

There is also this, Paul had revelations that the other apostles did not have, his understanding of how the gospel dispensation would pan out with the church among the nations is certainly different to the Jerusalem crowd who thought that Jerusalem was to be the place from which the gospel should be administered.

This is the famous "dispensation" we hear the MAD (mid-acts-dispensation) people talk about, I am not a MADianite but I do agree with them that Paul saw better than they that there was to be a long gap or parenthesis in which the Jewish church would be diminished and the Gentile/Jewish church would become dominant among the nations. THAT is what the Jews could not get their heads around although God showed it to them over and over. They simply could not understand how the church could be among the nations.

This has implications for us in these end-times which is perhaps another topic.

Make no mistake Peter James and John had a Jewish mind set. Before Jesus came Mary Magdalan and the woman of Samaria would have been as repugnant to them as they were to the pharisees. Peter really did think that Cornelius had been saved because of his good deeds ... but Jesus came to save sinners of the worse kind.

I understand Peter's letters very well thank you.

Acts 21:20-25 will shed light on what James and the elders felt about Paul teaching Galatians 5:2 "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

They are fine with Paul teaching gentiles that, but once some Jews start to hear it and try to follow likewise, they have a problem.

 

[Scribe]

. Peter really did think that Cornelius had been saved because of his good deeds ... but Jesus came to save sinners of the worse kind.

I understand Peter's letters very well thank you.

Acts 10:4
The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.

When Peter said....

34Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

You seem to be saying that you do not like it that Peter said this and that this theology offends your "not by works" ideas.
I think your "not by works" ideas are probably not what the scriptures actually teach. Many are using the "not by works" rhetoric to apply it to something that the scriptures do not mean.

1 Pet 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."

Peter was not mistaken. He knew the scriptures which also say...Ps 147:11 the LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love.

The parable of the sower also gives us insight into the difference between those who have understanding and those who don't. It is always a condition of the heart based on choices made.

Those that earnestly seek after God will find him and this is not the "Works" Paul was talking about when he was talking about the works of the Law. We must not mix up seeking God in faith and call it works. It is just confusion.

 

[Live4Him]

Acts 21:20-25 will shed light on what James and the elders felt about Paul teaching Galatians 5:2 "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

They are fine with Paul teaching gentiles that, but once some Jews start to hear it and try to follow likewise, they have a problem.

Yeah, well they shouldn't have had any problem with it whatsoever...if they had a better understanding of the scriptures at that time.

For example, we read:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10:16)

That was spoken by Moses to a bunch of outwardly circumcised Israelites/Jews.

Jeremiah chapter 4

[3] For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns.
[4] Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

That was spoken by the LORD, via the mouth of Jeremiah, to a bunch of outwardly circumcised Jews.

Jeremiah chapter 9

[25] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;
[26] Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

An outward circumcision in the foreskin of one's flesh, in and of itself, never amounted to anything in God's sight.

With such being the case, when Paul wrote...

Romans chapter 2

[28] For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
[29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

...he was merely reaffirming what God had been saying all along.

As far as your quote from Galatians 5:2 is concerned, here is its context:

Galatians chapter 5

[1] Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
[2] Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
[3] For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
[4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

In other words, just being outwardly circumcised wasn't the real issue.

The real issue was that Judaizers were coming to the Christians in Galatia and telling them that they needed to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

Paul rightly told them that to do so would result in a fall from grace and an entanglement AGAIN with the yoke of bondage or the law.

 

[Guojing]

Yeah, well they shouldn't have had any problem with it whatsoever...if they had a better understanding of the scriptures at that time.

For example, we read:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10:16)

That was spoken by Moses to a bunch of outwardly circumcised Israelites/Jews.

Jeremiah chapter 4

[3] For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns.
[4] Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

That was spoken by the LORD, via the mouth of Jeremiah, to a bunch of outwardly circumcised Jews.

Jeremiah chapter 9

[25] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;
[26] Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

An outward circumcision in the foreskin of one's flesh, in and of itself, never amounted to anything in God's sight.

With such being the case, when Paul wrote...

Romans chapter 2

[28] For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
[29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

...he was merely reaffirming what God had been saying all along.

As far as your quote from Galatians 5:2 is concerned, here is its context:

Galatians chapter 5

[1] Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
[2] Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
[3] For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
[4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

In other words, just being outwardly circumcised wasn't the real issue.

The real issue was that Judaizers were coming to the Christians in Galatia and telling them that they needed to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

Paul rightly told them that to do so would result in a fall from grace and an entanglement AGAIN with the yoke of bondage or the law.

Whether they "should" or not is a matter of opinion, which you are free to have a contrary one.

But my point was that they, James and the elders, did have a problem with Paul preaching Galatians 5:2 so fervently among the gentiles, until there end up Jewish believers who followed that, instead of the gospel of the circumcision (Galatians 2:7-9).

 

[Evmur]

So to Peter, even as late as Acts 10, he believe that one needed to "work righteousness".

He was not preaching what Paul would preach to us in the Body of Christ in places like Romans 4:5

I think he had submitted to Paul's rebuke and testified that the salvation received by the Gentiles was of identical nature with that of the Jews. The debacle took place in the 15th of Acts. This was quite a long time after he had himself preached to the Gentiles and seen the power of God ... and yet when those pharisees came down to Antioch preaching circumcision and obedience to Moses Peter withdrew from the Gentiles so he still was not fully right in his mind about the Gentiles.

This is exactly why Paul was raised up. I'm not blaming Peter, but it is there for all to see.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

So to Peter, even as late as Acts 10, he believes that one needed to "work righteousness".

He was not preaching what Paul would preach to us in the Body of Christ in places like Romans 4:5

You make a good point. In fact, we see the Apostles develop their belief system, such as what we find in Acts 15.

Acts 15:10-11 NIV - "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Later, we see what it is that they all mutually concluded:

Acts 15:19-21 NIV - "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

No doubt, there was a development of the Law. Even later, Paul spoke about how women shouldn't speak in the Church. Wow . . . talk about legalism! What happened to, "There is neither male nor female . . ."