666 replies to this topic

[Fred Williams]

I submit the following four primary points to support that Paul indeed was referring to two separate gospels in Gal 2:7:

1) Galatians 1:6-7: I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another.

Why would the Holy Spirit include this? I'm always curious about every single phrase He utters, we need to be prepared to not ignore it. Now pathetically I submit, some translations re-write the Greek to say in verse 7 " not that there is another one". What basis did they have for this? When I look at studies on this, those who seem to be fluent in Greek claim the NKJV is the accurate translation of the Greek. The other side seldom appeals to the actual Greek.

2) Galatians 2:7-8 says: 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 ⁸ (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles).

It's very hard to wiggle out of this. Just now when I searched for online study for "two gospels" I noticed the following: http://www.biblestud...opical/gal2.htm, and http://www.biblicala...ans%202%207.pdf

I have never heard a compelling argument to refute this type of exegesis of these verses.

3) Why does Hebrews 8:13 state the following: In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The plain text says that the old covenant (works+grace) was not yet obsolete. After all, shirley there must be a difference between the two covenants? (sorry for calling you shirley).

4) Why does Paul not chastise James for following the law in Acts 21:17-26?

Those are some biggies just for starters. If there were two gospels at that time (one that was fading away), it would also explain all those law verses in James that confuse everyone, the book Martin Luther fought to get tossed out of the Bible... if only Mr. Luther had realized it was written to the Jews.

OK, now sticks and stones... have at me, fellow idiots!

Fred

[JayShel]

I read it, but I really don't understand it. Are you speaking Greek? (bad pun allert) It would seem like the Holy Spirit is not giving me clarity here. Are you saying the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are two separate Gospels?

[MamaElephant]

When Jesus rose from the dead, He taught His apostles the whole of the OT "concerning Him," and He told them to "obey all that I have taught you." Jesus did not teach them that they were saved by grace and were no longer under the law or good works requirements. You can't find this in the Book or Acts, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or any circumcision epistle. Why? Because the gospel of uncircumcison was not given to circumcision converts.

Jesus return to Israel and they getting their kingdom, and the judging of the sheep and the goats, was contingent on Israel rejecting their risen Messiah. They did not. They stoned Stephen. God cut off Israel and their circumcision program or taking the law, miracles, and Jesus to the world. God decided to bypass Israel and go directly to the Gentiles with one apostle Paul with the gospel of grace (Gal. 2:7-9).ce

Now a shocker: Brace yourselves. The gospel of grace (no works or law) was not prophesied anywhere in the Bible. Neither was the establishment of the Body of Christ. Both "were kept secret" and "never before revealed" and a "mystery.

What about Matthew 16:18? John 7:37-38? John 3:16-17? John 4:10?

Isaiah 11:10; 42:6; 49:6; 60:3; 65:1; Jeremiah 16:19; Malachi 1:11

Hosea 2:23 I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called 'Not my loved one.' I will say to those called 'Not my people,' 'You are my people'; and they will say, 'You are my God.'"

And to whom was Peter writing here?

1 Peter 2:10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

and here: 2 Peter 3:15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

[Fred Williams]

I read it, but I really don't understand it. Are you speaking Greek? (bad pun allert) It would seem like the Holy Spirit is not giving me clarity here. Are you saying the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are two separate Gospels?

No, but do you agree they were different covenants between God and man? Is it therefore a completely foreign idea to consider that perhaps there were two gospels for a period of time after the cross? I'm still learning on this, I just find that there doesn't seem to be an "out" for the Galatians verses I cited above.

FYI, I have not been able to fully follow everyone's comments in the OSAS thread this spawned from, I'll try to do so here.

Don't expect the Holy Spirit to give you clarity overnight, at least that sure doesn't work for me. I live by the verses in the Bible that God's word is plain (Prov 8:9) , and written for the simple to understand (Psalms 119:130). I always have trouble within myself when I find myself struggling to explain away trouble verses. Again, I currently see no way out of Gal 1:7 and Gal 2:7, they appear to falsify claims that Paul was not alluding to two separate gospels. If he meant that these were the same gospels, I'm interested to see an exegesis that explains why the Greek doesn't say what the KJV/NKJV translation plainly states.

Fred

[MamaElephant]

and to whom was Peter writing here:

A scripture is worth a thousand words: 2 Peter 3: 14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,

So Peter was writing
To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
² Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, ³ as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, ⁴ by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

and telling them to listen to Paul.... and telling them to be careful not to lose their steadfastness.

Hmmmm...

Then we have Ephesians 3:6; Galatians 3:28; Romans 8:14-17

[Fred Williams]

MamaElephant, I deleted your post to Teejay. No accusations of people lying without proof. There is a BIG difference between someone being mistaken, and someone lying. I simply will not tolerate this accusation among Christians without extremely compelling justification to back it up. Its a big pet peeve of mine.

[MamaElephant]

I apologize. Even though I did not use the word lying and did not think about what my words meant, I should have known better. This type of incorrect statement backed up by one scripture just really bothers me.

Jesus Himself forbid the Twelve from going to any Gentiles, but told them to go only to Israel and Samaria (half Jews) first (Acts 1:8).

Jesus did not tell the twelve to to to Samaria.

"These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.'"--Matthew 10:5-6

Additionally, at the same time Jesus sent the apostles to Israel and did not include Samaritans as a part of Israel....
He told the Samaritan woman:

“If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” John 4:10

[MamaElephant]

"And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49:6)

"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:46-48)

[Salsa]

1) Galatians 1:6-7: I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another.

Why would the Holy Spirit include this? I'm always curious about every single phrase He utters, we need to be prepared to not ignore it. Now pathetically I submit, some translations re-write the Greek to say in verse 7 " not that there is another one". What basis did they have for this? When I look at studies on this, those who seem to be fluent in Greek claim the NKJV is the accurate translation of the Greek. The other side seldom appeals to the actual Greek.

Hi Fred. I don't really get your point here. How do you interpret "which is not another"? Doesn't Paul explain in Galatians that a "gospel" that is a mixture of grace and works is wrong, and for that reason "not another" gospel at all?

2) Galatians 2:7-8 says: 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 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles).

It's very hard to wiggle out of this. Just now when I searched for online study for "two gospels" I noticed the following: http://www.biblestud...opical/gal2.htm, and http://www.biblicala...ans%202%207.pdf

I have never heard a compelling argument to refute this type of exegesis of these verses.

Perhaps you haven't but on the other hand I don't find this very strong evidence of two gospels, at least not when it concerns the core truth of the gospel.

Someone preaching the gospel would obviously need to tailor his message differently to different audiences, especially if the audience was as familiar with the scriptures as the Jews were. Paul wrote:

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." 1 Cor 9:20

Have you ever noticed the difference between witnessing to someone in a cult, who is well-versed in scripture, and someone who has never heard the message before? To witness to someone in a cult often requires sending someone who knows a little about the doctrinal flaws of the cult in question, and even with this knowledge it usually takes a long time to break down the thick walls of defence that surrounds the mind of someone who has been indocrinated. (I know, I used to be one).

So it seems reasonable to me that there would be two separate, and somewhat different, administrations of the same gospel.

3) Why does Hebrews 8:13 state the following: In that He says, 147A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The plain text says that the old covenant (worksGrace) was not yet obsolete. After all, shirley there must be a difference between the two covenants? (sorry for calling you shirley).

OK, I'll assume the role of Shirley (someone has to)

This is a difficult verse, but my guess is that it was "becoming obsolete" as the gospel was advancing. An old covenant is not replaced by a new one until the two parties involved are in agreement. While the old covenant was handed over to the Jews relatively quickly the new one was (and is) being spread by word of mouth, which is a slow process. Just as a covenant does not exist until two parties agree on it, a covenant never becomes obsolete except by agreement.

On the other hand, what is your explanation of these verses? Were the apostles going around handing out a fading gospel that already existed? It doesn't make sense... but perhaps I haven't really understood your position exactly.

4) Why does Paul not chastise James for following the law in Acts 21:17-26?

I think it was for tactical reasons that the gospel was being introduced gradually to the Jews. The gospel was controversial enough as it was with what Paul was teaching about circucision, and James expresses his concern about this here:

"They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do?"

What they agreed to do was a sort of compromise. To avoid a riot and risk the faith of many new converts being destroyed in the process they did some "religious stuff" to cool things down. Probably a good example of being innocent as doves and shrewd as snakes.

Those are some biggies just for starters. If there were two gospels at that time (one that was fading away), it would also explain all those law verses in James that confuse everyone, the book Martin Luther fought to get tossed out of the Bible... if only Mr. Luther had realized it was written to the Jews.

I don't think the "law verses" are a good defence for two gospels. To start with, and I think you will agree, there is a difference between grace and "lawlessness". The difference between the "works" of the old covenant and the "works" of the new covenant has to do with where they were located - the old covenant the laws consisted of a "external" written code, whereas the laws of the new covenant are written directly into our hearts. This is why it says:

"the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it." Deut 30:14

Why do you suppose James wrote what he wrote if the apostles were preaching works as apposed to "faith only"? Consider what Peter wrote to the Jews about Paul's letters:

"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

And then look at what James writes in James 2:14-26.

Obviously the "faith only" teaching was being taught to the Jews, but it was being distorted and getting out of hand (as it is today). The Jews were misunderstanding the relationship between faith and works and becoming complacent.

Everything James wrote about works is true. If you are living by faith then you will also be doing things to serve and please God - not because they are written down on paper or stone, but because they are written on the tablets of your heart where the Holy Spirit can communicate and inspire. Works inspired by the Holy Spirit are not dirty rags.

OK, now sticks and stones... have at me, fellow idiots

You won't get any sticks and stones from me Fred. I promise.

(Perhaps we should agree on a covenant to that effect!)

[Salsa]

I would also like to submit this verse from the OSAS thread as I think it is strong evidence that there is no alternative gospel as far as the law is concerned:

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." Gal 2:15

and

".. if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" v.21

With this in mind, I would like to know exactly what the doctrine of the "gospel of circumcision" is, and how it harmonizes with these verses.

[Stripe]

Here's how I go about it:

Throughout all of history, men have only ever been saved by the grace of God and through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

What has necessarily changed is the instructions to us on how we should express our faith in God and acceptance of Christ. Obviously the most dramatic change was between before and after the fact of Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

But where is it that God began teaching that faith in the risen saviour was all that was now required?

Similarly, before the law was given to Moses, faith and acceptance of Christ was expressed by righteousness before God. Then the law was introduced in order to teach the standards that righteousness had to reach.

After Christ's appearance to the disciples, there was no teaching that the law was not still in effect. Thus using the gospel accounts (and anything else not by Paul) to indicate faith should be expressed through something other than adherence to the law is to invent a change where none is specified.

As soon as Paul shows up, however, we have clear teaching. The old way was that our faith was expressed through adherence to the law. The new way is that our faith is to be expressed by faith in the risen Christ. At all times, all men have always been saved by grace. But today we have a greater understanding of how that has worked.

[MamaElephant]

Unfortunately, Stripe, there are many to whom this scripture still applies: “YOU are searching the Scriptures, because YOU think that by means of them YOU will have everlasting life; and these are the very ones that bear witness about me and yet YOU do not want to come to me that YOU may have life." John 5:39-40

[Fred Williams]

I apologize. Even though I did not use the word lying and did not think about what my words meant, I should have known better. This type of incorrect statement backed up by one scripture just really bothers me.Jesus did not tell the twelve to to to Samaria.

Ok, thanks (I take "dishonest" to be synonymous with "lying"). There are going to be sharp disagreements, I just want to be sure we don't assume a fellow Christian is being dishonest without very good justification to back it up.

[JayShel]

No, but do you agree they were different covenants between God and man? Is it therefore a completely foreign idea to consider that perhaps there were two gospels for a period of time after the cross? I'm still learning on this, I just find that there doesn't seem to be an "out" for the Galatians verses I cited above.

FYI, I have not been able to fully follow everyone's comments in the OSAS thread this spawned from, I'll try to do so here.

Don't expect the Holy Spirit to give you clarity overnight, at least that sure doesn't work for me. I live by the verses in the Bible that God's word is plain (Prov 8:9) , and written for the simple to understand (Psalms 119:130). I always have trouble within myself when I find myself struggling to explain away trouble verses. Again, I currently see no way out of Gal 1:7 and Gal 2:7, they appear to falsify claims that Paul was not alluding to two separate gospels. If he meant that these were the same gospels, I'm interested to see an exegesis that explains why the Greek doesn't say what the KJV/NKJV translation plainly states.

Fred

This morning it is making more sense. First let's look at the context of Galatians 1:6-7:

1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.


"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the Grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another".

Paul seems to be expressing astonishment, To paraphrase; "I'm stunned that you have already drifted away from the true Gospel of Christ to a new gospel, that isn't really a gospel at all!" (since false gospels offer false hope.) Remember certain people were still teaching that you had to be circumcised, and believe in Jesus to be saved (This is a Jesus Plus gospel which would mean that Jesus's sacrifice was not sufficient to forgive our sin).

"but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." Seems like instead of preaching the true Gospel of Christ, they are compromising by people pleasing, and Paul is warning against this.



2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

2:8 Seems to clarify: Paul was sent to preach the Gospel to the uncircumcised aka the Gentiles, and Peter was sent to preach the Gospel to the circumcised.

That is how I have always read both of these passages. http://www.lavistach...ircumcision.htm seems to explain it even better than I can. I hope this helps.

The message is this: God gifts some people to speak with more understanding and relevance toward atheists, some people Jehovah's Witnesses, some people h*m*sexuals, some people Muslims, some people Jews, some people Hindus, some people Buddhists, some people Mormons, some people S@xual assault victims. The gospel is the same but the approach must vary widely to reach people with such different life experiences. Different people hold up different barriers to Jesus. For some it is scripture, others scientific or historical evidence, others emotional/physical trauma, etc. This forum is an example of the Gospel being preached to intellectuals who value scientific and historical evidence highly, and they may perceive a barrier to the Gospel because of this. No matter how hard it is to get through to these highly diverse people, we must never compromise the Gospel, and offer another gospel that might make them feel better, but will lead them to Hell.

[Teejay]

[quote] name='Fred Williams' timestamp='1331605365' post='81542']
I submit the following four primary points to support that Paul indeed was referring to two separate gospels in Gal 2:7:

1) Galatians 1:6-7: I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another.

Why would the Holy Spirit include this? I'm always curious about every single phrase He utters, we need to be prepared to not ignore it. Now pathetically I submit, some translations re-write the Greek to say in verse 7 " not that there is another one". What basis did they have for this? When I look at studies on this, those who seem to be fluent in Greek claim the NKJV is the accurate translation of the Greek. The other side seldom appeals to the actual Greek.[/quote]

Fred, here's my take on Galatians 1:6-7. Right out of the chute, Paul starts slamming them for being led away from what they were originally saved under--which was not law but grace. They had been saved by Paul's gospel of grace and were walking in the Spirit and not under the law. But they put themselves back under the law or the "other gospel" of circumcision. How did this happen. This is explained as you read Galatians: God told Paul to go up to Jerusalem and explain to the Twelve the gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:2). I always ask, why would Paul have to explain his gospel to them if it was the same as theirs? Why did God tell Paul to do this? "This occured because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us in bondage" (Gal. 2:4). These people who infilitrated Paul's church were "believers" but were under the gospel of circumcision. They came in and taught Paul's converts that they had to get circumcised and keep the law.

So, naturally, "Paul marveled that they were turning away so soon who were called under grace [paraphrased]" (Gal. 1:6). He called it "another" gospel which was not really another gospel, but was a gospel that Peter had been saved under and was not what Paul had received from Jesus. You can't read Galatians, Chapter 1 and 2, and not come away with Paul making it clear, crystal even, that he did not get his gospel from Peter.

Fred, my wife just walked in with a hot pizza. I'll be right back. Hold that thought.

TeeJay

[Teejay]

[quote] name='Fred Williams' timestamp='1331605365' post='81542']
I submit the following four primary points to support that Paul indeed was referring to two separate gospels in Gal 2:7:

1) Galatians 1:6-7: I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another.

Why would the Holy Spirit include this? I'm always curious about every single phrase He utters, we need to be prepared to not ignore it. Now pathetically I submit, some translations re-write the Greek to say in verse 7 " not that there is another one". What basis did they have for this? When I look at studies on this, those who seem to be fluent in Greek claim the NKJV is the accurate translation of the Greek. The other side seldom appeals to the actual Greek.[/quote]

Fred, continuing: Now I know that I am going to get challenged as to who were these stealth breathren who slithered in behind Paul's back. Christians who are of the one gospel persuasion argue that they can't be believers. But they were Peter's people and Peter and James wrote a letter to them and ordered them to leave Paul alone. You can read this letter in the Book of Acts 15:23-29. You can also read the minutes of the meeting between Paul and Peter the circumcision apostles in Acts 15. Paul was successful in persuading them that he and his followers did not have to keep the Mosaic law such as circumcision, Sabbaths, feasts, etc. While Paul made a few minor concessions to keep peace in the family, Paul was elated that they were not required to be circumcised (Gal. 2:3).

The rite of circumcision was the biggie for Paul. When a person got circumcised as a religious rite in Israel, he was automatically under the covenant of circumcision which was he had to keep the whole Israel law. Jesus put Himself under it when He was circumcised on the eighth day. Jesus not only kept the whole Mosaic law; He fulfilled it. Five of Israel's feast (Tabenacles, Passover, Unleveaned Bread, First Fruits, Pentacost) were fulfilled by Jesus' birth, death, three days in the tomb, resurrection, and gift of the Holy Spirit on Pentacost. (And, when every Jew in Israel was buying their lamb to celebrate Passober, the High Priest of Israel was buying Jesus from Judas.)

Paul could and did teach his followers not to get circumcised. Paul's followers getting circumcised is what upset Paul the most, which was what happend in Galatians. "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as curcified?" (Gal. 3:1). And in the rest of chapter 3, he asks them basically, why are you getting circumcised and putting yourself back under a law that you have been delivered from? "Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh [law keeping]" (Gal. 3:3). Or for our purposes, we could read it: "Having been saved under the gospel of uncircumcision where you are saved by faith plus nothing, are you wanting to put yourself under Peter?

Now we must understand that because God gave Paul a different gospel, there was much dissension in the ranks. I can just see Peter's followers going to Peter and tattling that Paul is not making Titus get circumcised and that Paul is even teaching that we don't have to keep the Sabbath or the feasts. What's with this, Peter. And, Paul's converts can eat in them pagan restaurants where they sell the meat offered to idols. By the way, they do serve better cuts of meat than our restaruants. Why can't we eat there? So Paul had to help Peter and James keep peace in the family. James even asked Paul to take a group of young Jewish men and observe some Jewish rite to show the Jews that Paul was not teaching that the Law was to be disregarded. And Paul was not teaching that the law should be put aside for circumcision Jews but only for his followers.


To make it clear to all, the circumcision and the uncircumcision, he wrote: "Was anyone called while circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised" (1 Cor. 7:18). "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised" (1 Cor. 7:18). "The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:29). Two thousand years ago, if you were saved before Paul, under the gospel of circumcision, then that is where you were to stay. Peter could not put in for a transfer to Paul's outfit.

Regarding Galatians 2:7-9. For years I had been reading an Old King James which translated "gospel OF." The first time I read a New King James, I noted that it was translated "gospel FOR." One little word makes a big difference. The JW's are famous for changing meanings totally with this slight of hand. The Old King James translated it correct: Gospel OF the circumcision or gospel OF the uncircumcision. It should not be translated as one gospel for two groups. It's two gospels for two groups.

One more important issue--very important. When the last circumcision apostle died, no man on Planet Earth is under the gospel of circumcision. When Seventh-day Adventists observe the Sabbath and diet laws, they have unwittingly placed themselves under a covenant which is no longer in effect. There is only one dispensation from God that is valid today, and it is the gosple of grace that was given to Paul for us.

When we separate these two gospels, all doctrine disputes disappear. Under the gospel of circumcision, where law keeping and good works were required, one could not possibly know if they were saved. All was contingent and future. Under the gospel of grace, your salvation (present) is KNOWING that you are saved (future). If you don't know you're saved, then you are not saved, for salvation by grace requires faith plus nothing. Make sense?

TeeJay

[Teejay]

[quote] name='JayShel' timestamp='1331608695' post='81544']
I read it, but I really don't understand it. Are you speaking Greek? (bad pun allert) It would seem like the Holy Spirit is not giving me clarity here. Are you saying the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are two separate Gospels?
[/quote]

JS,

Actually, while there were two covenants, neither one was new. Both had been given to Abraham:


God Calls Abraham

God made two covenants with Abraham. Under the first covenant in Genesis 15, God put Abraham to sleep. While asleep, Abraham could do nothing except believe. “And he believed God; and He counted it to him for righteousness.” Fourteen years later, in Genesis 17, God commanded Abraham to circumcise. This is the second covenant.

The first covenant is the Covenant of grace which Paul would preach. Paul would also refer to it as the Gospel of Uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7 & 9). The command to circumcise is the second covenant or the Gospel of Circumcision (works plus faith). The Gospel of Uncircumcision is justification by faith alone. The Apostle Paul would write of this in Romans 4:

“Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin. Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of the circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised”

Circumcision is the cutting off of the flesh or foreskin. Why did God give this strange ritual? Circumcision is a synonym for the Law. Israel had to circumcise and keep the law, as the effort to keep the law is a “cutting off of the flesh.” Paul wrote, “For the flesh lusts against the Spirit [God], and the Spirit against the flesh…” (Gal. 5:17-19).

And also recall that Paul teaches that Abraham is the father of both groups.
TeeJay

[Teejay]

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1331609507' post='81545']
What about Matthew 16:18? John 7:37-38? John 3:16-17? John 4:10?

Isaiah 11:10; 42:6; 49:6; 60:3; 65:1; Jeremiah 16:19; Malachi 1:11

Hosea 2:23 I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called 'Not my loved one.' I will say to those called 'Not my people,' 'You are my people'; and they will say, 'You are my God.'"

And to whom was Peter writing here?

1 Peter 2:10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

and here: 2 Peter 3:15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
[/quote]

ME,

Under the gospel of circumcision, acceptance of Jesus Christ was the first step to salvation. If the Jews could earn salvation by the law alone, then Jesus' sacrifice would not be necessary.

But although they were saved by Jesus's sacrifice for them, they still had to keep the law and do good works. God can add grace to works and law keeping but He can't possibly add works to grace. If you add works to grace, then it is no longer grace, but wages earned.

Circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and the feasts are perpetual laws for Israel. Any Jew under the gospel of circumcision who did not produce fruit was cast into the fire, so Jesus warned.

Please read my last posts on the other thread. I show irrefraggably that Peter wrote his letters to circumcison followers. Only Paul writes his letters to us. Only Paul writes about a grace gospel.

TeeJay

[Salsa]

Teejay, I hope we can have a meaningfull discussion in this thread. And by that I mean responding to each others arguments rather than just throwing out what we believe and ignoring the counter-arguments. That, I think is the proper way to debate, and although I may not have directly responded to each and every question you posed earlier on I made an effort to do so as far as the "big questions" were concerned. Please point out if you disagree and still think you have unanswered questions, but understand that I expect the same from you.

Each response should portray a correct representation of the arguments submitted by the one you are adressing. That goes both ways of course, but so far I have not seen any objection from you that what I have posted has misrepresented your arguments, but if so then let me know.

Anyway, on to the discussion...

Paul, as Stripe pointed out, had a "clear teaching" at a time when the other apostles were obviously confused and had difficulties breaking free from their Jewish traditions. Judging from the fourteen "unknown" years he spent before going up to Jerusalem, it seems he had a number of "surpassingly great revelations" some of them being "things that man is not permitted to tell." That, I think, was a little bit more than simply being told that he was going to the gentiles while the others are going to preach to the Jews, and I also think is the answer to your question as to why he went to Jerusalem and approached the other apostles. Their understanding of the gospel was not complete. Otherwise Paul would never have made that journey.

Paul had a clear teaching, which is why two thirds of the NT were written by him rather than any of the twelve, and I think that is this clear teaching that is the decisive factor in this discussion.

In light of this we need to be a little careful with "extrapolated" truths, because once they root themselves in our minds it is very easy to grant them the same status as truths that we can get directly from scripture. There are 7958 verses in the NT (it took me quite a while to count them). How many of these directly take up the subject of different gospels? Galatians 2:7-8? That is incredibly thin, and one that doesn't lack a reasonable alternative explanation.

Why, if there really were two gospels, as opposed to being two groups that require two separate cultural and historical considerations, doesn't Paul directly mention them and discuss the doctrinal diffences between them? Why doesn't John mention them? Peter? James? Out of 7958 verses?

It is also important to distinguish between different perspectives, and the underlying truths.

The four gospels were a good example of this.

Someone who disregards the perspecives of these gospels can reach the faulty conclusion that they contradict each other, instead of actually harmonizing with each other.

Paul had his own perspective, writing style, concerns, personal revelations and so on. Peter had his. John his, James his, and so on.

There is a also a historical perspective. We see the end of one age resulting in Israel begin cut off, and the beginning of another age where the gentiles were being grafted in.

Now, what I would like to bring up in this discussion is whether or not these different perspectives have any effect on the doctrinal truth of the gospel. And what I mean by the gospel is the concept of righteousness by faith, contra righteosness by works. It is easy to point out differences. Anyone can do that. But once you get past the differences, I see no hint that the truths revealed to Paul were subjective truths. Instead we can read things like:

"a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ."

"by observing the law no one will be justified."

"if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

"it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast."

If the Jews were somehow being justified by the law then all of these doctrinal truths cease to apply.

[Teejay]

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1331645834' post='81557']
I would also like to submit this verse from the OSAS thread as I think it is strong evidence that there is no alternative gospel as far as the law is concerned:

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." Gal 2:15

and

".. if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" v.21

With this in mind, I would like to know exactly what the doctrine of the "gospel of circumcision" is, and how it harmonizes with these verses.
[/quote]

UD,

You could not get Peter and James to write that verse if you held a gun to their head. For the Jew, law keeping was not optional.


moral nor immoral. The first man to violate the Sabbath law was executed (Num. 15:33-35).

Perpetual Laws for Israel

We have already seen that Abraham and all his descendants had to circumcise (Gen. 17:10). God said that circumcision is ”an everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:9, 13). Now while the New Testament uses “circumcision… of the heart” (Rom. 2:29) as a metaphor, the Old Testament does so three times (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4). But such usage does not negate the requirement for Israel to obey God’s command to circumcise in either testament. God gave many commands to Israel as “perpetual statutes” which He withheld from the Body of Christ. While He made circumcision an “everlasting covenant” for Abraham and his descendants “throughout their generations” (Gen. 17:9, 13), He forbids circumcision for Christians today as a religious rite (Gal. 5:2-3; 3:10; Acts 15:24).

He also told Israel to observe the Day of Atonement forever: “It [the Day of Atonement] is a Sabbath of solemn rest for you…. It is a statute forever” (Lev. 16:31).

The Lord gave many symbolic commands including circumcision, the feasts, and the Sabbath to Israel as “everlasting statutes.” But none of these apply to us, today, in the Body of Christ. Note the Jewish purpose of the Sabbath:

”’Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath… throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever…’” Ex. 31:16-17.

But Paul writes, “Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow [sign] of things to come, but the substances is of Christ” (Col. 2:16-17). And many mistakenly think that Israel was no longer under the law after the Cross. While this will be addressed in detail later, consider what Jesus warned about the Tribulation which is after the Cross: “And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath [after the Cross]” (Mat. 24:20).

Jesus Came to Israel with the Law

Moses did not come down from Mount Sinai with Grace. He came down with two stone tablets of Law. Jesus did not come to Israel (the people of the circumcision) with Grace. He was a Jew, born under the Law, circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21). And, most importantly, He kept the Law perfectly.

Jesus taught Israel obedience to the law. Whatever law Moses commanded was to be heeded:

And [Jesus] answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” Mark 10:3

It mattered not whether moral or symbolic. God’s commandments were to be obeyed:

And Jesus said to him, “See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” Mat. 8:4 from Lev. 14:1-32

Now one came and said to Him, “Good teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” So [Jesus] said to him, “…if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” Mat. 19:16-19 from Lev. 18:5

Moses’ law contained hundreds of commandments, some greater, and some lesser. Regardless, according to Jesus all must be taught and obeyed.

“…one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men to do so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great…” Mat. 5:18-19

Moses had to be obeyed even if espoused by hypocrites:

[Jesus said] “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do…” Mat. 23:2-3

Not one law, no matter how small, could be disobeyed:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cmmin, and have neglected the weightier matters of he law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.” Mat. 23:23

We can just look at one verse from Paul and ignore mountains of evidence that show that Israel was under the law.
TeeJay