Confusion in the Body of Christ

[pilgrim]

• 

Why are there upwards of 300 different Christian denominations in America coming from the same textbook; the bible? I would like to point to some basic theological reasons for all the confusion and suggest some correctional answers.

In ordinary Christian conversation about understanding different passages of Scripture one often hears the term “spiritual interpretation,” without realizing that it is not happenstance or a natural progression of thought, but is a derivative of more nefarious things that most are not acquainted with.

To get to the roots of the problem, as with so many things it helps to understand its origin. The terms “allegorical,” “parabolical,” or the more common expression in layman terms, “spiritual,” have their roots in ancient history and are by their very geneses a stumbling block to, and in direct opposition to understanding Divine revelation. The Oxford Classical Dictionary states:

Allegorical reading of works of literature-above all the mythological poems of Homer and Hesiod, decoded as accounts of the physical world or the truths of morality-seems to begin as early as the 6th cent, BC and to be an established (if controversial) practice by the end of the 5th.

According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, the intent of those who originally advocated the allegorical method was to discover what was seen as hidden mysteries in the writing of the poets. However, it was believed:

...in the second cent. AD and subsequently, that the philosophical tradition produced strongly ‘positive’ allegorical readings, presenting the poets themselves (Homer above all) as the first and greatest philosophers. …Homer by this stage was being built up, as a figure of authority to resist the rival claims of Moses and Christ on behalf of pagan Greek culture.

To state it simply, it was said that those who had the enlightened teaching of Homer were saying that Homer knew more about morality and man’s place in the cosmos than Moses and Christ. Nevertheless, that was the identical pagan method first introduced into Judaism and then into the primitive church by those who claimed the “gnosis,” and authority to use the same as a vehicle not to understand the poets, but to discover the supposed hidden mysteries in the Sacred Scriptures.

Webster’s dictionary explains the definition of the modern word “allegorical” when used in connection with the Scriptures:

...having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text.

It is almost inconceivable that rational people would or could approach the Scriptures with such foolishness in mind, yet that is precisely what those who use that method do. It should be axiomatic, if a normal literal statement doesn’t mean what is said, then it has no meaning. If God indeed meant other than what is written, the entirely reasonable question could be asked concerning the misuse of Scripture, “How could God find fault with anyone, if He himself doesn’t mean what He says?

From the heathen mystery religions came the belief that not only did almost every passage have a secret, mysterious and higher meaning, but that God had at times actually falsified even historical events and dates as  Philo, an Alexandrian Jew (20 BC AD 50) a contemporary of Christ claimed. This was commonly taught by Philo, Barnabas, and later by Clement of Alexandria, who passed it on to his star pupil, Origen (185 254), who in AD 203 at the age of eighteen became head of the catechetical school of theology at Alexandria Egypt, which was at that time the worlds foremost such school.

From there, that belief was established by the church leadership as the correct and legitimate method of teaching that would determine the course of church history and to some extent world history for the next thirteen centuries; until the Reformation. And even until the present, the same disastrous method is used more or less by most of Christendom. The absurdity of the method is witnessed to by the heresy, confusion, and disastrous results everywhere it is used. Were it not that they constantly mimic each other, not two would come up with the same thing.

That method is in fact what almost everyone believed in the primitive church and is the parent of the present theological confusion in the body of Christ. Examples of the claim that God at times falsified Scripture were common in the early church writings. It is often and especially seen in the writings of Origen (AD 185 254), one of the most prolific writers of the post apostolic times. Speaking of the writers of the Scriptures he said:
They proposed to speak the truth where it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood. (Origen, Commentary on John, Anti Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Pub., 1994. Vol. 9, p. 383.)

Following are listed in loose order the basic theological mistakes and heresies created from the allegorical method of teaching from which came the total fracturing of Christianity.

The Christian Church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.

That God has forever abandoned ethnic Israel as his chosen people.

The Church is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom promised to Israel.

The incorrect division of the Old and New Covenants.
The New Covenant (Testament) began with the Lord’s birth and earthly ministry.

The Lord revealed the present Church during His earthly ministry.

The Gospel of the Kingdom is the same as the Paul’s Gospel of Grace.

The 11 apostles of the Lord with Peter established the present church.

The Church began with the preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost.

The Church is the last dispensation ending with the final judgment and end of the world.

The above is a listing as I see it of the root problems that causes so many schisms in the Body of Christ. I realize that they will have to be addressed separately and under different names but listed are the basic problems.

I also realize the above conclusions will be met  by some as the ramblings of an unsettled mind. If so, then challenge me. Show me where I am wrong and we will have from the Scriptures a serious in depth discussion of any or all the above and related things.

In His Grace

pilgrim

[JB Horn]

• 

Hello pilgrim and welcome.

A very well thought out post. I would like to clarify what or who you are referring to when you use the term 'Church'.
I do not find the Bible hard to understand but there is some confusion on the lifestyle, traditions and culture of the men who penned the Scriptures. Sometimes their meaning can be obscurred by my ignorance of their customs.

The Christian Church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.
That God has forever abandoned ethnic Israel as his chosen people.
The Church is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom promised to Israel.
The incorrect division of the Old and New Covenants.
The New Covenant (Testament) began with the Lord’s birth and earthly ministry.
The Lord revealed the present Church during His earthly ministry.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is the same as the Paul’s Gospel of Grace.
The 11 apostles of the Lord with Peter established the present church.
The Church began with the preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost.
The Church is the last dispensation ending with the final judgment and end of the world.

I personally am not into this replacement theology, I can't find it anywhere in the scriptures.

God does not break His promises no matter how far His people wonder from Him.

The division of the Scriptures is a man made decision that really has nothing to do with the validity of anything written. It could have as well been divided at Genesis 3.

The Gospel of the Kingdom (not the law but by Grace) is what both Christ and Paul taught.

Christ said, "I will build my church."

The first member to the Body of Christ, the first Christian, was the thief on the Cross.

Dispensationalism is just another ism it and a $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.


Your brother
JB

http://inhisword.net

[Bob]

• 

The Gospel of the Kingdom is the same as the Paul’s Gospel of Grace.

Christ preached everlasting life and so did Paul. They both also preached the gospel of grace. Why would you referrer ti it as Paul's Gospel?

In His Service
Bob

[pilgrim]

• 

Hi JB, thanks for your response. You say:

“I personally am not into this replacement theology, I can't find it anywhere in the scriptures.
God does not break His promises no matter how far His people wonder from Him.
The division of the Scriptures is a man made decision that really has nothing to do with the validity of anything written. It could have as well been divided at Genesis 3.”

You ask some legitimate questions that deserve answers. It takes more time and space to answer than to ask a simple question. When I mentioned Replacement Theology I was referring to the Amillennial teaching that God has forever abandoned ethnic Israel as His chosen people and nation.

When I speak of the incorrect division of the Old and New Covenants, I am speaking of where the Mosaic Covenant of the Ten Commandments ended. The Law of commandments ended insofar as salvation is concerned at the cross.
The present division of the Old and New Covenant mixes law and grace because they teach exactly the opposite. The Lord ministered under the law of commandments of the Old Mosaic Covenant of commandments and all the Laws of Exodus, Leviticus, etc.. Paul ministered under the New Covenant after the Old came to its end at the cross.

Paul said:
“...when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons (Gal. 4:4 5).”

The birth of Jesus under the law was announced some thirty-three years before the cross to redeem those who were “under the law,” meaning the Jews. The Gentiles were not under the law (Rom. 2:14; Eph. 2:12). The simplistic question must be asked, how or by what means did He redeem those who were under the law? According to the Scriptures:

“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (Eph. 1:7)....in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins (Col.1:14).”

From the above and many more passages it should be sufficiently clear that insofar as sins were concerned the Mosaic covenant of commandments ended at the cross. It was only hours before the Lord’s death before the New Covenant was ever mentioned during His ministry. When He passed the cup the Lord said to His disciples:

“Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:27 28).” The same is repeated in Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20 and in both cases He speaks of that which is still future, i.e., His death.
In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul said:

“...how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the New Covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives (Heb. 9:14 17).”

It is evident from the above, without exception; all the saved who were living during and under the first covenant of the law was redeemed by His death. It included John the Baptist and the Lord’s disciples during His ministry, which until His death were yet under the Old Covenant of which time the Memoirs (called Gospels) recorded. Not only were the Jews sins covered, but all sins forward from Adam who were saved. It is very misleading to use Matt, Mk, Lk, and Jo. as New Testament (covenant).

You say:
“The division of the Scriptures is a man made decision that really has nothing to do with the validity of anything written.”

We are talking about the division of the Old and New Covenants which God made, not man. The old is replaced by God because the Old Covenant saved no one, but condemned all under it because no one could keep it.

It would be difficult to devise an instrument that would wreck more havoc in the formulation of biblical theology than the present division of the Old and New Covenants. With the present division, a harmonious and workable theology is impossible because the foundation itself is flawed. With the present division we have combined two covenants that are mutually exclusive insofar as the salvation of the sinner is concerned. Under the old Mosaic Law of commandments, which continued until Christ’s death and resurrection, is taught exactly the opposite as under this present dispensation of grace. As things presently stand, we have a direct confrontation between the Lord’s teaching and that of the apostle Paul.
As already shown, it was under the Mosaic Law that the Lord ministered and taught, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Under the Law it is said that keeping the commandments was the way of life (Matt. 19:16-17; Mk. 10:17-19; Lk. 10:25-28; Rom. 2:13; Gal. 3:5). But because of the inability of anyone to keep them, Paul said that in reality they became a ministry of condemnation and death (2 Cor. 3:7, 9). Paul says:  “the law works wrath” (Rom. 4:15); “the letter kills” 1 Cor. 3:5;” the Law was a “ministry of death” (2 Cor. 3:7); “ministry of condemnation” (v. 9).
 
In the above passage from Matthew the Lord told a young man who inquired about how to attain eternal life: “…if you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Whereas, under Grace in the New Testament, we are taught, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4), and, “if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain” (Gal. 2:21).

To use the books Matt. Mk. Lk. and Jo. as New Testament (Covenant) documents mixes two mutually exclusive covenants that as history has shown can bring nothing but endless confusion. It is a poisonous mixture of law and grace with the end result of people trying to get to heaven by keeping the Ten Commandments. Just like the Lord taught) and the law commanded (Lev. 18:5; Matt. 19:16-17; Rom. 2:13; Gal. 3:12).

There were Jews who were teaching the Galatians that they had to keep the law (commandments) to be saved. But Paul said of their teaching: “But if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8, 9). It was the same thing that the Lord taught the young man in Matt. 19:16-17.

You say:

The Gospel of the Kingdom (not the law but by Grace) is what both Christ and Paul taught.

When the Lord told the young man in Matt. 19:16-17 that he had to keep the commandments to inherit eternal life He was teaching the very opposite of what Paul taught the Galatians and everyone else.
The gospel of the kingdom was an offering of the re-establishment of the Davidic Kingdom to Israel and included salvation after the cross where sins were paid for. Paul’s Gospel of Grace was salvation only to the Gentiles and Jews and had nothing to do with establishment of David’s kingdom. The kingdom belongs to Israel.
The two gospels are noted in Gal. 2:2, 7-8. One was Paul’s gospel of Grace to the Gentiles and the twelve’s was different and to different people. Paul was sent to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the other apostles. If they were the same, why would God tell Paul to do that?

You say: “Christ said, "I will build my church."

He said He would build his “assembly,” (ekklesia). Because the translators believed the present assembly of Christ was what the Lord spoke of, they have misled the present assembly of Christ for two thousand years by translating the Greek “ekklesia,” to “church,” when all the word ‘ekklesia’ means is an assembly, of any kind. And that applies to the letters to the seven churches (assemblies) of Rev. 2 and 3 also. They are Jewish assemblies in the tribulation and have nothing to do with the present church.
 
   If the word means church as used today, then we have a contradiction when the Lord said He would build His assembly and then give Peter the keys to what He identified as the kingdom of heaven in Matt. 16:19. They are most certainly not the same. If the Lord was speaking of the present assembly of Christ, then all things He spoke of afterwards would apply to the assembly that He and they had been offering for the past 3 years and said He would yet build. Has all things been restored that Adam lost (Acts 3:19-21)?

   As shown above, that assembly mentioned in Matt. 16:18 is immediately identified in the next verse (19) when the Lord said He would give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which he used in Acts chap. 2 and 3. The term “kingdom of heaven” is used for a total of 33 times in Matthew alone, so there is no doubt as to what the keys were to open in spite of what scholars and church leaders tell us. Neither is the church a kingdom or nation par-se of any kind.

The same Greek word ekklesia (assembly) translated “church” can mean any assembly. It has no religious connotations whatever. In Acts 19:32,39,41 it is used to describe a mob of rioting Ephesian Gentiles who in opposition to Paul, Demetrius, a silversmith, called together an “ekklesia” (there corrected translated assembly), in an effort to stem the tide of defections to Paul’s teaching about Christ. To show the nonsense of their translation, most if asked what the word church means, explain that it has a meaning of “called out ones.” But how could that be a proper rendering of ekklesia?    Would we call those idol worshipers who was trying to kill Paul “the called out ones?”

You say: “Dispensationalism is just another ism it and a $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.”,

The word Dispensation is a good biblical word that Paul used twice to describe two distinct periods of time (The Apostle Paul names two of those dispensations. (1) The present Dispensation of Grace (Eph. 3:1). (2) The future Dispensation of the Fullness of times (Eph. 1:9-10).
To use the word dispensation is merely saying that God had different covenants and requirements at different times for different people or groups of people. If we do not make those distinctions, then the end is confusion without end and that is precisely what we have. It is common knowledge that the greatest single problem that Paul encountered throughout his ministry was the same legalistic Jew’s insistence that his converts must keep the law to be saved.
When Paul spoke of “the gospel,” or the “gospel of grace,” he was speaking of free salvation in Christ completely apart from the law and ritualistic temple worship of the Jews which the Pharisees’ and Lord taught. But before the cross and during the Lord’s ministry, not only did He honor the law, but commanded others to do the same.
   When the Lord healed a leper (Matt. 8:3; Mk. 1:44; Lk. 5:14), He told him (v. 4) to show himself to the priest and “offer the gift that Moses commanded.” Can anyone argue that the Pharisees did not teach circumcision, Sabbath keeping, tithing, and the law of commandments as the way of life? Are we in this dispensation supposed to observe and do as the Pharisees said? Can we just give a writing of divorce to our wife if she don’t please us and tell her to get lost.

Again Brother, thanks for the post JB.

In His grace

pilgrim

[pilgrim]

• 

Hi Bob

Thanks for the input.

It would perhaps clear away some of the confusion if we clarify the word “gospel” (euaggelion). In later Jewish and early church times it had a simple meaning of “glad tidings” or, “good news” about anything. But today the problem is the word ‘gospel’ has taken on a meaning other than the original NT usage. In a corrupted form and apart from a biblical setting, it is common to hear it used to describe something as no more than absolutely true. In evangelical Christianity today most when speaking of the “gospel,” assign to it a narrow and explicit meaning of the way of salvation revealed.

Paul says the mystery of his gospel in this dispensation was: “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Eph. 3:6). Another mystery was that the Gentiles would be accepted in the same body of believers as co-equals of the Jews and that, completely apart from the Jewish ceremonial religion, the temple, and the kingdom message; a new dispensation (Eph. 3:2).

No less than three times Paul spoke of that “mystery,” as, “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:, which means the present body and bride of Christ, a mixture of both Jews and Gentiles with equal access to God was unknown before being unveiled to him. By the very fact that Paul boldly spoke of the message he preached as “his gospel” to the unbiased, should separate his gospel as different from all those who preceded him. The other apostles never spoke of the gospel they preached as their gospel.

That explains why the apostles before him were ignorant about the present assembly of Christ, and especially so by the whole episode between Peter and Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. When Peter came to the house of Cornelius, one of the first things he said was, as a Jew he was not supposed to be in the company of a Gentile (Acts 10:28). Cornelius even had to explain to him why he was there (Acts 10: 29). After Cornelius explained his vision, Peter said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.”

That sounds strange for someone who had supposedly just established a church to be made up of people without distinction from all nations on the Day of Pentecost. The apostle Paul speaking of the church said: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Savior

It is critical for the understanding of many things including the rapture that we understand and believe what Paul said about his gospel. Three times he named it as “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:. If there is no difference between Paul’s gospel, and that of the other 12 apostles, then why would he make such a statement? Did any of the 12 apostles ever say the gospel of the kingdom was their gospel? Where can it be shown that Paul in his preaching to the Gentiles was accompanied by any of the twelve?

   In Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:4-5; Col. 1:24-27 identifies his gospel as a mystery, hidden in past ages. Which means the present body and bride of Christ, a mixture of both Jews and Gentiles with equal access to God was also unknown before being unveiled to him.

   Were it not that we are all affected by our associations and prior training there would be no need to get into a debate about Paul's gospel being different from the 12. A completely open and untainted mind would know Paul's gospel was different from the twelve simply by Paul's speaking of what he preached as being "my gospel."

   And furthermore, most all when confronted with the claim of Paul saying that his gospel was a mystery now revealed to the apostles say the his gospel was also revealed to them at the same time as it was to him. And that in spite of the fact that Paul was sent by special revelation to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to them and they all concluded that he was to take his gospel to the Gentiles and the 12 to the Jews. But just as important, is the question, if it was a mystery revealed to them just as it was to him, why was it never mentioned by anyone other than Paul that it was a mystery?

   Had the gospel Paul preached been the same as the twelve, he would have said “the” gospel. Even more to the point, if his gospel was the same as the other apostles, why then was Paul called apart from the others. Was the twelve failing in their preaching of the gospel of the kingdom? They had already been commanded by the Lord to preach their message to all nations in what we are constantly told is the great commission and the beginning of the present assembly of Christ. It was a great commission to make Gentile proselytes (Ex. 12:48-49). Where can it be shown that the Lord changed their message since He told them in Matt. 10:7 that they would be preaching: “…the kingdom of heaven is at hand until He comes?”
   
       The so-called “great commission,” almost without exception is taught by all churches to be the beginning of the present church. But the twelve apostles before Paul were to make disciples of the Gentiles to the ends of the earth (Matt. 28:19-20). However, those Gentile disciples were to be proselytes; to become part of the commonwealth of Israel in the kingdom they were offering (Ex. 12:48-49). Nowhere can it be shown that the Lord ever changed that.

   Whereas, today in the Dispensation of Grace, there is no advantage in being a Jew, and we are not offering the Messianic kingdom. That coming kingdom of David belongs to Israel. David himself will reign as a prince over Israel (Ezek. 37:25). Nowhere did Paul ever speak of David having anything to do with the church. Speaking of the church in this dispensation Paul said: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

    It was common knowledge that when the kingdom of Israel (David) is re-established, all the Gentile nations will be blessed through the exaltation of Israel in their kingdom (Gen. 12:3; Duet. 32:43, Acts 15:17). But in this present dispensation, individuals from those nations are being saved and blessed through the fall of Israel (Rom. 11:25-28).
   In Rom. 16:25 Paul said:

Now to Him who is able to establish 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.

    Paul in context states three things that are indisputable.

(1) He says: “…my gospel.”

(2) “…a revelation.”

(3) “…a mystery which was kept secret since the world began.”

When Peter was offering the kingdom for the second time according to (Matt. 22:4-7) in the opening chapters of Acts, he was fulfilling the Lord’s giving him the keys to the kingdom (Matt. 16:19) of his preaching he told Israel that what he was offering was what all the prophets had spoken since the world began (Acts 3:21), and in vv 24-15 he said all the prophets from Samuel forth had spoken of those days of what he was speaking.   

In Gal. 1:11-12 Paul said:

…I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

In the above, Paul says he neither received, not was he taught his gospel by the twelve, or by man, but from the Lord Himself. The question can be reasonably asked, why did he make that statement if his gospel was the same as the 12 before him? It was because he wanted to make sure all understood that his gospel and mission was different than that of the twelve. That there should be no confusion between his gospel and those who were still offering the kingdom to Israel and observing the Mosaic laws for the governing of a nation.
   The constant problem Paul had with many of the Jews was their constant complaining that his teaching was not according to the Mosaic Laws. On one occasion Paul was forcibly brought before a court of law.

When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat, saying, "This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law" (Acts 18:12-13).

It should be noted here, that we have as witnesses, the testimony of Paul’s enemies that Paul’s gospel just as he claimed, was different than that of the twelve. If Paul’s teaching was the same as theirs, and the twelve, why would they try to kill him? Ironically, little did they realize that the time would come when they would be defending Paul’s gospel and doing him a favor in showing that his gospel was different than the Jew’s gospel of the kingdom.
   Paul’s enemies knew that his gospel was different, but refused to believe Paul’s claim that his gospel was received directly from the Lord because it was different than those before him. Those today who claim there is no difference between Paul and Peter's gospel could learn from Paul's enemies.
   Paul had already shown in Acts 21:21-26 that he as a Jew also honored the law, but would not force it on the Gentiles or Jews in his churches because the Mosaic laws did not apply to the Gentiles in his Dispensation of Grace. What was preached by the 12 had to do with the offering of the re-establishment of the kingdom of Israel on earth. But Paul’s gospel was about a heavenly people with a heavenly destination and citizenship.
   When Paul says “my gospel” was what was hidden since the world began, he did not include the apostles and leaders before him and say, “our gospel,” or “the gospel.” In Gal. 2:2 he was sent up to Jerusalem by the Holy Spirit to explain to them “…that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.” After he explains his gospel, they realize a distinction in his gospel to the Gentiles as something they did not understand before and different from what they were preaching to the Jews.
   Their message was the second offer of the kingdom from Matt. 10:16-18; 22:4-7 and as already shown was precisely what Peter was given the keys to open in Matt. 16:19, and he used in Acts 2:14-39, and especially in 3:19-24.

   The twelve had already been commanded to take their message to all nations (Matt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15; Lk. 24:7-8). And if Paul’s gospel was the same as the 12 why did the Lord not just tell Peter and the others to take Paul under their wing and teach him their gospel? Because Paul’s gospel of grace was a different message that they were unaware of. Paul's explanation of his gospel to the 12 apostles was approximately 14 years after his conversion (Gal. 1:17-19; 2:1-2).

If Paul’s message and gospel was the same as the twelve, then the entirely sensible question can be asked, why was Paul called in the first place. His gospel had to do with a whole different dispensation that was given to him which he said was a mystery (Eph. 3:1-9). But the twelve the Lord said would judge the twelve tribes of Israel in the coming kingdom. If their gospel, work, and mission was the same, why was Paul not included?
 
   Both Dispensationalists and those who reject the teaching of an earthly kingdom of Israel say that Paul went to check his own gospel with those in Jerusalem to make sure it was correct (lest I might run, or had run in vain). Of course the reason is the claim that the gospel of the kingdom was the same as Paul’s gospel of grace, and he was just checking to make sure he had his straight; that they were in agreement. But we must ask, would God send him to check on what He Himself had revealed to Paul? That would be utter nonsense.

   In Gal. 2:2, 7-8, Paul said:

…I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,…when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles).

To be noticed, Paul did not say, the gospel was committed to me, for the Gentiles, and to Peter for the Jews. What he said was, “the gospel for the Jews,” and “the gospel for the Gentiles,” two different gospels.
   To those who teach that Paul went to check his gospel with the apostles before him to make sure he got it right. But in defense of his gospel Paul says:

…to whom we did not yield submission, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But from those who seemed to be something-whatsoever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man-for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me (Gal. 2:5-6).
   
Does that sound like Paul was uncertain about his gospel? Did Paul cower before any of them as someone who was timidly checking whether he had misunderstood the gospel the Lord had given him, or forgotten something?
   It was not a question whether Paul doubted the genuineness of his gospel. But to remove any doubt that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem might have about his gospel, so that Paul’s work would not be hindered by any dissension between him and the other apostles as to whether his gospel was from God. And, how it differed from those who were still preaching the gospel (offering) of the kingdom to no one but the Jews as late as (Acts 11:19). The outcome of the meeting was, the believing Jews agreed that Paul’s gospel was different than their kingdom gospel (Gal: 2:7-8).
   To summarize, when speaking of two different gospels, it is not being said that there are two different ways of salvation. It was the same Savior, for without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins for anyone (Heb. 9:22). What is being said is, the gospel of the kingdom that included salvation was an offering of the re-establishment of Israel’s Messianic Kingdom and that, to Israel only.
   Whereas, Paul’s gospel was salvation through the blood of Israel’s New Covenant (Zech. 9:11; Eph. 2:13), completely apart from the nation Israel and their offering of the kingdom. There is no covenant with the church. All the covenants and promises still belong to Israel (Rom. 9:4).

In His grace

pilgrim

[Bob]

• 

Hi Pilgrim

A little quote from Bauslin:

gos´pel ( τὸ εὐαγγέλιον , tó euaggélion ): The word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word which meant "the story concerning God." In the New Testament the Greek word euaggelion , means "good news." It proclaims tidings of deliverance. The word sometimes stands for the record of the life of our Lord (Mk 1:1 ), embracing all His teachings, as in Acts 20:24 . But the word "gospel" now has a peculiar use, and describes primarily the message which Christianity announces. "Good news" is its significance. It means a gift from God. It is the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins and sonship with God restored through Christ. It means remission of sins and reconciliation with God. The gospel is not only a message of salvation, but also the instrument through which the Holy Spirit works (Rom 1:16 ).
The gospel differs from the law in being known entirely from revelation. It is proclaimed in all its fullness in the revelation given in the New Testament. It is also found, although obscurely, in the Old Testament. It begins with the prophecy concerning the ‘seed of the woman’ (Gen 3:15 ), and the promise concerning Abraham, in whom all the nations should be blessed (Gen 12:3 ; 15:5 ) and is also indicated in Acts 10:43 and in the argument in Rom 4 .
In the New Testament the gospel never means simply a book, but rather the message which Christ and His apostles announced. In some places it is called "the gospel of God," as, for example, Rom 1:1 ; 1 Thess 2:2 , 9 ; 1 Tim 1:11 . In others it is called "the gospel of Christ" (Mk 1:1 ; Rom 1:16 ; 15:19 ; 1 Cor 9:12 , 18 ; Gal 1:7 ). In another it is called "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24 ); in another "the gospel of peace" (Eph 6:15 ); in another "the gospel of your salvation" (Eph 1:13 ); and in yet another "the glorious gospel" (2 Cor 4:4 the King James Version). The gospel is Christ: He is the subject of it, the object of it, and the life of it. It was preached by Him (Mt 4:23 ; 11:5 ; Mk 1:14 ; Lk 4:18 margin), by the apostles (Acts 16:10 ; Rom 1:15 ; 2:16 ; 1 Cor 9:16 ) and by the evangelists (Acts 8:25 ).
We must note the clear antithesis between the law and the gospel. The distinction between the two is important because, as Luther indicates, it contains the substance of all Christian doctrine. "By the law," says he, "nothing else is meant than God’s word and command, directing what to do and what to leave undone, and requiring of us obedience of works. But the gospel is such doctrine of the word of God that neither requires our works nor commands us to do anything, but announces the offered grace of the forgiveness of sin and eternal salvation. Here we do nothing, but only receive what is offered through the word." The gospel, then, is the message of God, the teaching of Christianity, the redemption in and by Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, offered to all mankind. And as the gospel is bound up in the life of Christ, His biography and the record of His works, and the proclamation of what He has to offer, are all gathered into this single word, of which no better definition can be given than that of Melanchthon: "The gospel is the gratuitous promise of the remission of sins for Christ’s sake." To hold tenaciously that in this gospel we have a supernatural revelation is in perfect consistency with the spirit of scientific inquiry. The gospel, as the whole message and doctrine of salvation, and as chiefly efficacious for contrition, faith, justification, renewal and sanctification, deals with facts of revelation and experience.

Paul tells us in  Rom 1:16 ; 15:19 ; 1 Cor 9:12 , 18 ; Gal 1:7; 1 Thess 2:2 , 9 ; 1 Tim 1:11 that the Gospel he preach is the same Gospel preached by Christ Mk 1:1; Mk 1:14 ; Mt 4:23 ; 11:5 ;  Lk 4:18.

Yes, it is true Paul teaches of the mystery of the grafting of the gentiles to the Jewish root. Is it really a mystery? Did not God say to Abraham, "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

Blessing to you Pilgrim
Bob

[pilgrim]

• 

Hey Bob

I am having trouble reading the posts. They are about 2’’ wide. I asked about it but so far received no answer.

Most of what you said was of things said by men since the Scriptures were written and they display some of the confusion that I am trying to show. I was misled for many years because I believed them.

You say:

“Yes, it is true Paul teaches of the mystery of the grafting of the gentiles to the Jewish root. Is it really a mystery? Did not God say to Abraham, "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

As to whether it’s a mystery or not, all I know is that Paul sure thought it was. I don’t know what the grafting in of the Gentiles has to do with my remarks. In the promises to Abraham it says all nations  or families of nations will be blessed. I pointed out that it was through the fall of Israel that we Gentiles have been blessed in this dispensation. Not the exaltation of nations as it will be in the kingdom.

It seems you have overlooked the Scriptures where I showed Paul’s remarks that his gospel was a mystery; unknown in past ages. This whole dispensation also was also unknown until revealed and given to Paul.

Paul says to the Gentile Ephesians:

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ… (Eph. 3:1-9).

As to his gospel I also pointed out that it was a mystery, whereas, Peter said what he was preaching was known from the beginning of the world and spoken of by all the prophets (Acts 3:19-24).

Of his gospel Paul said to the Roman Church:

“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began (Rom. 16:25).”

He said to the Colossians:

“I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship (dispensation) from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.
To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory (Col.1:24-27).”

You also overlooked the point I made when I asked why Paul was called in the first place if their gospel was all the same. It is evident from Acts 1:3 that the apostles after listening to the Lord for 40 days speaking of the kingdom asked Him if he would then restore the kingdom to Israel. Does that sound like they were looking for the present church? And why did He not correct them if they were wrong?

I have shown from Matt. 22:4-7 that the kingdom was offered after the cross when the Lord began the discourse by saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like...” The reason we know it was after the cross was there was no persecution of the disciples before the cross. But after the cross the city Jerusalem was destroyed because they persecuted and killed his servants.

The third offer in Matt. 22:8-10. The third offer is when the Lord in Matt. 24:14 said the gospel of the kingdom (which Paul never mentions by name) will be preached to all the world, then the end will come.

In Matt. 10:5-23 is again shown the preaching of the kingdom ending without a break for this dispensation, but ends with saying they would not go through all the cities of Israel until the Son of Man would come.

In all the above and many more the present church is never mentioned, and that because Paul said it was a mystery until revealed to him.

When luke in Lk. 21:22-24 the Lord spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem and skips entirely over the present church and only mentions the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled. Why did He not even mention the present church?

Again, it’s because Paul said it was hidden until revealed to him.

I could fill a book with such as the above, but if that isn’t enough to show that Paul’s gospel was different there isn’t anything I can say to change your mind.

Thanks anyway Bob.

In His grace

pilgrim

[JB Horn]

• 

Shalom Pilgrim

Your post is titled, Confusion in the Body of Christ.

The Christian assembly has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.
That God has forever abandoned ethnic Israel as his chosen people.
The assembly is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom promised to Israel.
The incorrect division of the Old and New Covenants.
The New Covenant (Testament) began with the Lord’s birth and earthly ministry.
The Lord revealed the present assembly during His earthly ministry.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is the same as the Paul’s Gospel of Grace.
The 11 apostles of the Lord with Peter established the present assembly.
The assembly began with the preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost.
The assembly is the last dispensation ending with the final judgment and end of the world.

John 17 NAS
20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word ; 21 that they may all be one ; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22 "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one ; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. 24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world

Romans 12:5 NAS
so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

1 Corinthians 12:27 NAS
Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

Ephesians 4:12 NAS
for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ ;

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.

Colossians 3:15 NAS
Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body ; and be thankful.

Because of your explanation I am going to make the assumption that your use of the word Church or assembly is in reference to the Body of Christ and the Head being our Lord Jesus. Even though it doesn't fit well in all of your statement.


As to your question, "Why are there upwards of 300 different Christian denominations in America coming from the same textbook; the bible?"

I am not in the belief that there is only one true denomination but I do believe there is only one true Gospel that leads to salvation. I find critical problems in the teaching of some of the denominations, critical to the point of heresy. The division that comes from some of the -ism-'s such as Calvinism, Arminianism, premillennialism, or postmillennialism are not critical problems, but those like Mormonism is.

You can search the Scriptures and justify baptism by submersion or sprinkling. You can build a case for the time of the rapture, pre or mid using Scripture. What you cannot do is misinterpret the Gospel of Christ.

Is there any eternal salvation (everlasting life) taught in the law? Is there any Good News there?


IHS
JB

[pilgrim]

• 

Hey JB, you say:

John 17 NAS
20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word ; 21 that they may all be one ; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22 "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one ; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. 24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world

There were 3000 (Acts 2:41) saved on the Day of Pentecost, plus others as shown in the early chapters of acts. All preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews only (Acts 11:19). You have completely ignored Gal. 2:2,7-8 where all the apostles settled the business of who preached what gospel to whom.

Both Amillennialists and Dispensationalists have argued that Paul went to check his own gospel with those in Jerusalem to make sure it was correct (lest I might run, or had run in vain). Of course the reason is the Amillennialists’ claim that the gospel of the kingdom was the same as Paul’s gospel of grace, and he was just checking to make sure he had his straight and they were the same.

Not only would God not send Paul to explain something they already knew, but it must be remembered, Paul went because God sent him. That being true, would God send him to check on what He Himself had revealed to Paul?  The very thought is absurd.

Paul says in defense of his gospel (Gal. 2:5-6):

To whom we did not yield submission, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But from those who seemed to be something-whatsoever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man-for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

Does the above sound like someone who had doubts’ about what they were preaching?

The question was not whether Paul had any doubt about his gospel to the uncircumcision, but to remove any doubt that those Jewish believers in Jerusalem might have had as to the validity of Paul's gospel to the Gentiles. And to the end that Paul’s work would not be hindered by the dissension between the non-believing Jews, and believing leaders in Jerusalem who were still preaching the gospel (offering) of the kingdom.

Here is a synopsis of v. 2 by M. R. Vincent who is amillennial, as to what Paul was saying,

I laid before them that gospel which I preach to the Gentiles, that they might examine and settle for themselves the question whether I am not possibly running or had run in vain. The investigation was to be for their satisfaction, not for Paul’s.129

    From Adam Clark’s commentary who was not a Dispensationalists:

Lest by any means—And he held these private conferences with those more eminent men, to give them information how, in consequence of his Divine call, he had preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the great good which God had wrought by his ministry; but they, not knowing the nature and end of his call, might be led to suppose he had acted wrong, and thus labored in vain.130

    From Alford who was premillennial, but not pretribulational, or dispensational.

It is quite out of the question, that this last cause should express a bona fide fear, lest his ministry should really be, or have been, in vain, without the recognition of the church at Jerusalem: Such a sentiment would be unworthy of him, and besides, at variance with the whole course of his argument here.131

Paul again in 2 Cor. 4:3 and 2 Thess. 2:14 identifies the gospel that he and those with him preached as being “our gospel.” In Gal. 1:11, he speaks of “that gospel,” which was preached by me. Paul said of his special knowledge in Christ:

And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure (2 Cor. 12:7).

If Paul did not have revelations and understanding about things which those apostles before him were ignorant, why didn’t they also get a “thorn?”

And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain (Gal. 2:2). …But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 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 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Gal. 2:7-9).

After Paul went to Jerusalem to explain to James, Peter, and John that gospel which he preached to the Gentiles, they gave him the “right hand of fellowship” and concluded that he and Barnabas would preach their gospel to the Gentiles without any legal attachments whatever (Acts 15:19-29; Gal. 2:9). That in itself excludes the kingdom message. The gospel of the kingdom always had to do with the Lord coming to the temple in Jerusalem and delivering His people Israel (Ezek. 43:2-7; Zech. 2:10-12; 6:12-13; 8:2-8; 12:1-10; 13:7-9; 14:1-11).

When reading the remarks of the commentators, it is conspicuous that they completely ignore or perhaps to be more accurate, deliberately avoid what Paul said in the above passages, and in Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:4-5; Col. 1:24-27 that his gospel was a mystery to the other apostles until he explained it to them.

If his gospel was unknown to the apostles to the circumcision which included Peter, then Rome’s claim that Peter was the founder and, or head of the Roman church is pure fiction. Furthermore, if Peter was the head of any Gentile church, why then did Paul not address his epistle to Peter? Or even more so, why did Peter not write epistles to the Gentile churches instructing them instead of Paul? Peters epistles were to Jews, the “pilgrims of the dispersion ” (1 Pet. 1:1) to whom he was an apostle (Gal. 2:7).
 
Moreover, if Peter was the head of the Gentile churches, why would Paul take it upon himself to rebuke Peter for his inconsistent behavior among the Gentile Christians (Gal. 2:11-14)? Who in the Catholic Church today would rebuke the Pope for inconsistent behavior? If there was a successor of Peter his ministry ended in AD 70 when the second offer of the kingdom to Israel ended according to Matt. 22:4-7 and Lk. 21:12-23.

Of all the complaints that the Jews made against Peter, he never accused of starting a Gentile church. Paul alone was given the commission of taking his gospel of the grace to the Gentiles in this dispensation by the Lord personally (Gal. 1:11-12) and commanded to go to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 13:2, 46-47).
 
There is no indication whatever that the original Jerusalem assembly of apostles and elders had deserted the temple with its sacrificial observances. Why should they? According to the record they had received no such instructions. Their commission was still an offering of the kingdom (Matt. 10:7; 22:4-7; Gal. 2:7-8). If there had been repentance as demanded by Peter (Acts 3:19) God would have sent Jesus back from heaven for the “times of refreshing,” and “restoration of all things.”

The kingdom would have been established and the statutes and judgments of Moses’ that was to govern a nation would have continued. The primary change would have been that the real Passover had been slain in the person of the Lord Jesus, and in His name was preached the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 15:10 11).

Paul as a Jew verified the above in his submitting to the purification rites in Acts 21:19-26. Accordingly, in his submitting to the Jews as late as AD 60, he acknowledged that the Jews were yet justified in their Mosaic ceremonial regulations for Jews. And those Jewish leaders in Jerusalem remembered (v. 25) from the former council in Acts 15 that those things were not binding on the Gentile believers.

The behavior of Paul is indisputable proof that the Jews were yet observing the law and preaching the kingdom message, and that his mission to the Gentiles was an altogether different Divine program and so recognized and attested to by the believing Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.

Is there any eternal salvation (everlasting life) taught in the law?

Jesus said to the young ruler who asked what he must do the inherit eternal life and Jesus said:

“And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments Matt. 19:17).

 Is there any Good News there?

Read Gal. 3:19-24.

[JB Horn]

• 

Pilgrim brother, you cannot read into the Scriptures something does not exist.  You cannot assume that every time Paul mentions, gospel that he is talking about a gospel other than the Cross.  There's nothing here in your argument other than the fact that Paul is preaching to the Gentiles, and he is doing this under the direction of Jesus Christ.  This is the same gospel that Peter is preaching to the Jews. It is the Good News. Paul said 'A renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.''

Calling Gal. 3:19-24 good news is like a doctor walking into the examination room and saying to you, "I have some really good news for you.  We have found that the infection in your leg has gangrene.  You'll be lucky enough to see what a good doctor I am as I amputated and save your life."

The good news in Gal. 3:19-24 is still the Cross.

Anyway, it is nice to see your thoughts on these subjects, and I pray that you feel the hand of God throughout all your earthly endeavors.

Blessings
JB

[pilgrim]

• 

Good morning JB, you say:

Your post is titled, Confusion in the Body of Christ.
Then you quote on Feb. 11th in my original post where I say:

The Christian assembly has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.
That God has forever abandoned ethnic Israel as his chosen people.
The assembly is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom promised to Israel.
The incorrect division of the Old and New Covenants.
The New Covenant (Testament) began with the Lord’s birth and earthly ministry.
The Lord revealed the present assembly during His earthly ministry.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is the same as the Paul’s Gospel of Grace.
The 11 apostles of the Lord with Peter established the present assembly.
The assembly began with the preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost.
The assembly is the last dispensation ending with the final judgment and end of the world.

But you leave off with what I said preceding the above, which was:

Following are listed in loose order the basic theological mistakes and heresies created from the allegorical method of teaching from which came the total fracturing of Christianity.

Without which, You seem to think that is my position and belief’s and I am sure that many of the readers will also think the same. Let me make it very clear, I was listing the problems that I have been trying for years to correct and prevent some of the confusions listed.

Would you please edit and preface my remarks in your post with the above listed explanation?

It would perhaps clear away some of the confusion JB if we clarify the word “gospel.” You must have missed it but I have made it clear in earlier posts that when I speak of the gospel that I am not saying that Peter preaches one way of being saved and Paul another. Below are my remarks.

In later Jewish and early church times the Greek word (euaggelion) had a simple meaning of “glad tidings” or, “good news” about anything. But today the problem is the word ‘gospel’ has taken on a meaning other than the original NT usage. In a corrupted form and apart from a biblical setting, it is common to hear it used to describe something as no more than absolutely true. In evangelical Christianity today most when speaking of the “gospel,” assign to it a narrow and explicit meaning of the way of salvation revealed.

You say:

There's nothing here in your argument other than the fact that Paul is preaching to the Gentiles, and he is doing this under the direction of Jesus Christ.  This is the same gospel that Peter is preaching to the Jews. It is the Good News.

Again let me remind you again, in Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:4-5; Col. 1:24-27 identifies his gospel as a mystery, hidden in past ages. Which means the present body and bride of Christ, a mixture of both Jews and Gentiles with equal access to God was also unknown before being unveiled to him.

In Rom. 16:25 Paul said:

Now to Him who is able to establish 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.

    Paul in context states three things that are indisputable.

(1) He says: “…my gospel.”

(2) “…a revelation.”

(3) “…a mystery which was kept secret since the world began.”

When Peter was offering the kingdom for the second time according to (Matt. 22:4-7) in the opening chapters of Acts, he was fulfilling the Lord’s giving him the keys to the kingdom (Matt. 16:19) of his preaching he told Israel that what he was offering was what all the prophets had spoken since the world began (Acts 3:21), and in vv 24-15 he said all the prophets from Samuel forth had spoken of those days of what he was speaking.   

In Gal. 2:2 Paul was sent up to Jerusalem by the Holy Spirit to explain to them “…that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.” After he explains his gospel, they realize a distinction in his gospel to the Gentiles as something they did not understand before and different from what they were preaching to the Jews.

  In Gal. 2:2, 7-8, Paul said:

…I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,…when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles).

To be noticed, Paul did not say, the gospel was committed to me, for the Gentiles, and to Peter for the Jews. What he said was, “the gospel for the Jews,” and “the gospel for the Gentiles,” two different gospels.

J B, your claim that there is no difference in Paul and Peter’s gospel is as reasonable as saying Paul was never sent to Jerusalem.

I am forced to the belief that it really doesn’t make any difference what I say or show from the Scriptures, but that you are just determined that I am wrong and no amount of persuasion from me or anyone will change anything. But I am glad you challenged me. It keeps things fresh in my mind even if that is all it does.

Thanks for your input Brother.

May the Lord bless

pilgrim

[JB Horn]

• 

Hello pilgrim

To be noticed, Paul did not say, the gospel was committed to me, for the Gentiles, and to Peter for the Jews. What he said was, “the gospel for the Jews,” and “the gospel for the Gentiles,” two different gospels.

Actually that is what he did say.

Galatians 2:7
But contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel
 James, Cephas, and John, were so far from blaming or correcting anything in the apostle's ministry, or adding anything to it, that they highly approved of it; and as a token of their agreement with him and Barnabas, gave them the right hand of fellowship: the reasons of their so doing are inserted here, and in the following verse, and in the next to that: the reason here given is, because
they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto
me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was to Peter;
by "the uncircumcision and circumcision" are meant the Gentiles and Jews; see ( rom 2:26 rom 2:27 ) ( 3:30 ) by the Gospel of the one, and the Gospel of the other, two Gospels are not designed, for there is but one Gospel, and not another. Paul did not preach one Gospel unto the uncircumcised Gentiles, and Peter another to the circumcised Jews; but the same Gospel was preached by both, and is so called with respect to the different persons to whom it was preached by these apostles. The Apostle Paul was ordained a minister of the Gentiles, and he chiefly preached among them, though not to them only. Peter was principally employed among the Jews, though also as he had opportunity he sometimes preached to the Gentiles: however, the subject of both their ministrations was the Gospel, which is said to be "committed" to them, as a trust deposited in their hands, not by man, but by God; the management of which required both prudence and faithfulness, and which were eminently seen in these good stewards of the mysteries of God. This being observed by the apostles at Jerusalem, they came into an agreement that one part should discharge their ministry among the Gentiles, and the other among the Jews.

This what Barnes has to say about Gal 2:7.

The gospel of the uncircumcision—The duty of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised part of the world; that is, to the Gentiles Paul had received this as his unique office when he was converted and called to the ministry (see Acts 9:15 ; 22:21 ); and they now perceived that he had been specially intrusted with this office, from the remarkable success which had attended his labors. It is evidently not meant here that Paul was to preach only to the Gentiles and Peter only to the Jews, for Paul often preached in the synagogues of the Jews, and Peter was the first who preached to a Gentile Acts 10 ; but it is meant that it was the main business of Paul to preach to the Gentiles, or that this was especially entrusted to him.
As the gospel of the circumcision—As the office of preaching the gospel to the Jews.
Was unto Peter—Peter was to preach principally to the circumcised Jews. It is evident that until this time Peter had been principally employed in preaching to the Jews. Paul selects Peter here particularly, doubtless because he was the oldest of the apostles, and in order to show that he was himself regarded as on a level in regard to the apostleship with the most aged and venerable of those who had been called to the apostolic office by the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus.

Galatians 2:7 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter was for the circumcised.

Galatians 2:7 (Amplified Bible)
But on the contrary, when they [really] saw that I had been entrusted [to carry] the Gospel to the uncircumcised [Gentiles, just as definitely] as Peter had been entrusted [to proclaim] the Gospel to the circumcised [Jews, they were agreeable]

Blessings
JB

[pilgrim]

• 

JB
On my last post I asked you to correct your omission of my qualification remarks to what I see as the heresies and mistakes of the ancient and modern church. Without those qualification remarks it is made to appear that I am advocating the very things that I am trying to correct.

In your last post you did not even mention my request, much less make necessary correction by adding my qualifying remarks. Once again I ask you to do so, so that the readers will understand that I am not advocating those things. Below I will again repeat my request as listed earlier
 
Your post was titled, "Confusion in the Body of Christ" the title of my original post.

Then on Feb. 11th you quote from my original post where I say:

Quote
The Christian assembly has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.
That God has forever abandoned ethnic Israel as his chosen people.
The assembly is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom promised to Israel.
The incorrect division of the Old and New Covenants.
The New Covenant (Testament) began with the Lord’s birth and earthly ministry.
The Lord revealed the present assembly during His earthly ministry.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is the same as the Paul’s Gospel of Grace.
The 11 apostles of the Lord with Peter established the present assembly.
The assembly began with the preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost.
The assembly is the last dispensation ending with the final judgment and end of the world.

But you leave off with what I said preceding the above, which was:

Following are listed in loose order the basic theological mistakes and heresies created from the allegorical method of teaching from which came the total fracturing of Christianity.

Without which, You seem to think that those are my position and belief’s and I am sure that many of the readers will also think the same. Let me make it very clear, I was listing the problems that I have been trying for years to correct and prevent some of the confusions listed.

Would you please edit and preface my remarks with the above listed in bold italic?

pilgrim

[JB Horn]

• 

Hello pilgrim

In Reply #7 the word assembly was and still is in bold. It is your post that removed the code for the hi-lite. When I ask you for what you meant by the word church you gave me assembly all I did was replace your definition to show you the problem with it. For now on when you cut and paste my post please do it accurately and you will avoid these kind of problems.

If you read farther down in post #7 you will see this.

Because of your explanation I am going to make the assumption that your use of the word Church or assembly is in reference to the Body of Christ and the Head being our Lord Jesus. Even though it doesn't fit well in all of your statement.

I'll give you the last word pilgrim.

Your brother in Christ
JB

[philer]

• 

I think i can sum up the issue with this jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
basing his beliefs upon his own heart not upon GOD or his WORD,then we see 300 plus religions generated . And keep in mind not outside the will of GOD or his plan but meant to be part of it,Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. The truth is hard to know,and not what most mankind wants to believe or can understand . if most did find it,then it would have said "most there be that find it" . again this is not what many wish to see or understand but it is the way it is. Truth and understanding is not gained by desire , many of those who belong to these 300 plus believe they are right and desire the truth though when hearing they do not believe or know it because they cannot understand it . i know these are hard words. but does explain it in part,although not thoroughly, i am excluding the really hard part here to be brief.