|
Home Page |
|
|
|
Do YOU Have an IMMORTAL SOUL? |
|
|
|
OpenViewTheism 1 |
|
|
|
OpenViewTheism 2 |
|
|
|
Our TRUE Hope, the EARTH! |
|
|
|
Only One Gospel-Peter and Paul |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
Only One Gospel-Peter and Paul
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;
Galatians 1:11-12 (KJV) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
It is commonly taught in dispensationalism that the above mentioned texts prove that:
1. Paul’s gospel was not from man, therefore, he could not have been preaching Peter’s gospel.
2. That the gospel OF the circumcision is a different gospel that the gospel OF uncircumcision.
My conclusion: I put myself in this scenario- If I were listening to a colored man preach and he said about his message that it was “the good news of the black man”, and I later listen to a white preacher exclaim that he preached “the gospel of the white man”, would I assume that these were two all together different gospels? OR, rather, would I assume that two different groups are in identification with the same gospel? Indeed, it is the gospel of the white man and the black man (in the same manner that it’s the gospel of the circumcision and the uncircumcision). I believe that it technically could be taken either way. That is, I would not have enough knowledge to make up my mind (without presupposition
Furthermore, Paul says this:
Galatians 1:6-9 (KJV) 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; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 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. 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.
Paul is speaking to Peter on this one: Galatians 2:16-17 (KJV) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
It seems to me that Paul was reiterating the fact to Peter that both he and Peter were NOT justified by the law, but by the faith in Christ. I believe that they went to two different groups with the same message. I could draw this out…
1 Peter 2:24 (KJV) Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
1 Peter 2:25 (KJV) For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Peter is preaching the cross before Paul, as seen in Acts.
Acts 5:30-32 (KJV) The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
To me, it is clear when I lay Isa. 53 next to 1 Pet. 2 that the death of Christ for sin is there…only then could the testimony of Jesus giving forgiveness of sins make sense…it is done with the knowledge of his death in view (as I see it).
And as far as the New Covenant being without the Old Testament Law, the bible says that:
Jeremiah 31:31-32 (KJV) 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: 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:
By making the New Covenant out to be the Mosaic Law reinstituted, it nullifies the truth of the above passage. It makes the New Covenant just like the covenant made with the Jewish fathers-the blood of bulls and goats and cardinal ordinances.
I realize that this is probably not new stuff to you. I also realize that because of other verses that you see elsewhere you may not see how this position makes sense. But I would encourage you to think about the things that I have said. Yes, MidActs dispensationalism has some true points, but experience has taught me to take the truths and leave the rest behind. Therefore, I no longer call myself a dispensationalist. When I was reexamining the movement I told myself “do not let what I do NOT know, change what I do know”. Even if a person did not understand the square root of 1 million, would that change the fact that 1+1=2? No. At the time, I did not know how Peter and Paul could be preaching the same gospel when in fact Peter talked about having all things common. “And what about Acts 2:38”? So what? How does not knowing the answer to that problem somehow change what was true about the above mentioned points? If I had misunderstood the texts in Galatians, then it stands to reason that other texts are misunderstood as well.
Oh, by the way, for the record, Peter DID preach to those of Galatia:
Galatians 1:1-2 (KJV) Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Galatians 1:9 (KJV) 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 Peter 1:1 (KJV) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithyniaand,
I think that if you lay this side-by-side it shows what I have said. Both Peter and Paul would be ministering to the same folks-Galatians. Would Peter be cursed for following the commission to go to them with a gospel? Only if he preached a different gospel from Paul’s. I think you see how I regard the MidActs position as being extremely problematic and incorrect. A natural, plain reading of the texts could not support MidActs dispensationalism. God says about the Jews and Gentiles “Acts 15:9 (KJV) And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Dispensationalism uproots this and says that Paul’s crowd was saved by belief only, while Peter’s crowd was saved by belief and a legalistic method.
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
