Paul And The Final Gospel

[Jim Parker]

The church started on the day of penecost, but Peter had no idea at the time God was placing believing sinners in Christ.

Since Peter had just been Baptized in the Holy Spirit, he knew what God was doing.

Peter preached the cross, but no man knew at that time what God's eternal plan was.

On what scripture do you base that opinion?

When you read paul, you get the mind of Christ, that is where it is found.

Are you saying that Peter did not have the mind of Christ after having been filled with the same Holy Spirit as was Paul?
Please explain why the Holy Spirit would teach Peter and Paul two different Gospels; what scripture supports that opinion?

 

[Free]

Paul is clearly referencing Isaiah's Gospel found in chapter 53 of Isaiah because the Commentaries, a.k.a. the New Testament, had not been inspired at that time.

It sounds like you are saying the NT books were not inspired at the time Paul wrote.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The only way to be truly apart of a family is to be born into it. There is adoption, and it is actually used to describe our position in God's Family - once apart of a different family, but now apart of God's. But being "born again" was used to describe the transition of our position and our state, not of our own works, but God's.

I do not think you can correctly use the term "regenerate" to describe what "happens" to a person who hears the Gospel and believes as far as his relationship to God's Family. Regenerate seems to refer to a "re" "generating" of a state. When a person believes the Gospel he is a totally new creation, not a "re-generated" one. Regenerate or regeneration can only be truly used to describe what happens to our flesh, not our spirit. Regeneration is often something referred to as a co-experience.

Unlike the new birth, we have a part in regeneration.

What part of you is being 'birthed' that did not exist berfore?

 

[Jim Parker]

It sounds like you are saying the NT books were not inspired at the time Paul wrote.

The Gospels, James' letter, Peter's letters, Jude's letter, John's letters and Revelation had not been written at the time that Paul was writing. So those NT books did not even exist at the time when Paul was writing his letters.

Paul used the OT scriptures to explain the Gospel and it is not reasonable to assume that he considered his letters to be the "inspired" equivalent of "inspired scripture" as we use that concept today.

(Many do not consider the Apocrypha to be inspired in spite of the agreement between teachings found there and in the NT.
For example; compare Wisdom of Sirach 16: 12-14
"As great as His mercy is, so also is His rebuke, and he will judge a man according to his works. A sinner will not escape with his spoils and the patience of a godly man will not fare badly. He will make a place for every act of mercy. Each will find out according to his works."

with Ro 6:2-10

"(God) will render to each one according to his deeds; eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."

Apparently what we consider "inspired" today and what was thought to be "inspired" in the 1st century in the Eastern Mediterranean are not the same.)

The point: We need to be careful about what we mean when using a word. What we mean when we use the word "inspired" today in the USA is not a perfect equivalent of what was meant by the word "inspired" (θεόπνευστος theopneustos) in the ancient middle east.

iakov the fool

 

[Nathan]

What part of you is being 'birthed' that did not exist berfore?

The part that did not belong in anyway, shape, or form to the Family of God - the Body of Christ. No one, apart from the new birth, is apart of that. So, it does not "exist".

If you want to read into that more, I would specifically say that the new birth is when that which did not exist(our spirit) is born(come to life) by His Spirit. John 3:6

 

[Jim Parker]

If you want to read into that more, I would specifically say that the new birth is when that which did not exist(our spirit) is born(come to life) by His Spirit. John 3:6

That is NOT what John 3:6 says.

I have three words for you to consider: "Remedial Reading Class."

 

[th1b.taylor]

It sounds like you are saying the NT books were not inspired at the time Paul wrote.

I don't know that I would go that far but what I did say and thought I had worded it precisely is that they did not have the books to study one another's writings. I don't understand why you would attempt to add to what I said though.

edit: Reading back I see I did not record all I was thinking. But I find nowhere that God was inspiring their writings or that they were writing before His death and Paul and Luke certainly were not.

 

[Soul man]

Since Peter had just been Baptized in the Holy Spirit, he knew what God was doing.

On what scripture do you base that opinion?

Are you saying that Peter did not have the mind of Christ after having been filled with the same Holy Spirit as was Paul?
Please explain why the Holy Spirit would teach Peter and Paul two different Gospels; what scripture supports that opinion?

Acts 2:38-40
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Great sermon but it is not the in Christ message that God Brings through Paul.
Nowhere after Pauls revelation does he tell a sinner to repent, he tells them to believe.

Peter and Paul absolutely preached a different message for a time, Gal. 2:7-8

7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Like I said before when you look at the different in Peters Penecost message, and his epistles, they are very different. Peter had grown in his understanding is different. He talks about being born of the incorruptible seed.
Paul withstood Peter to his face because he was to be blamed at one point.
The scriptures are really straight forward if we read them like there written.
We are not trained to do that.

 

[Jim Parker]

Nowhere after Pauls revelation does he tell a sinner to repent, he tells them to believe.

Jesus said to repent AND believe the Gospel. (Mat 1:15) Repent and believe have both always been the Gospel.

Your notion that, according to Paul, repentance is not necessary for the believer makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You can't believe if you don't repent. You have to change the old way of believing and acting to the new way of believing and acting.

Rom 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
That's what repentance is.

Rom 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
2Co 7:9 Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance.
2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.
2Ti 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

Peter and Paul absolutely preached a different message for a time, Gal. 2:7-8 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

sigh
Paul brought the ONE AND ONLY GOSPEL to the Gentiles while Peter brought the ONE AND ONLY GOSPEL to the Jews.
They were not different Gospels.

If that's what your pastor is preaching, find another church.
If that's what your reading, throw that book in the trash.
If that's what your favorite TV preacher is preaching, change the channel.
"Two Gospels" is a load of fertilizer.

The scriptures are really straight forward if we read them like there written.
We are not trained to do that.

We? You and the mouse in your pocket? THAT "we"?
Speak for yourself.
For 2000 years there has been ONE and ONLY ONE Gospel.
Now you come preaching some new wind of doctrine that was never preached before.
It's crap.
Get rid of it.

 

[Nathan]

Forest through the trees?

You cannot believe without repenting.

 

[Nathan]

That is NOT what John 3:6 says.

I have three words for you to consider: "Remedial Reading Class."

I did not mean to imply, or try to interpret John 3:6 in my post. Simply gave it as a point of reference to give a general point to look at.

I'm not sure what you meant however.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The part that did not belong in anyway, shape, or form to the Family of God - the Body of Christ. No one, apart from the new birth, is apart of that. So, it does not "exist".

If you want to read into that more, I would specifically say that the new birth is when that which did not exist(our spirit) is born(come to life) by His Spirit. John 3:6

So, are you claiming that our spirit does not exist until we are born again/regenerated/saved?

 

[Soul man]

Jesus said to repent AND believe the Gospel. (Mat 1:15) Repent and believe have both always been the Gospel.

Your notion that, according to Paul, repentance is not necessary for the believer makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You can't believe if you don't repent. You have to change the old way of believing and acting to the new way of believing and acting.

Rom 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
That's what repentance is.

Rom 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
2Co 7:9 Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance.
2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.
2Ti 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

sigh
Paul brought the ONE AND ONLY GOSPEL to the Gentiles while Peter brought the ONE AND ONLY GOSPEL to the Jews.
They were not different Gospels.

If that's what your pastor is preaching, find another church.
If that's what your reading, throw that book in the trash.
If that's what your favorite TV preacher is preaching, change the channel.
"Two Gospels" is a load of fertilizer.

We? You and the mouse in your pocket? THAT "we"?
Speak for yourself.
For 2000 years there has been ONE and ONLY ONE Gospel.
Now you come preaching some new wind of doctrine that was never preached before.
It's crap.
Get rid of it.

The repentance scriptures you quote are for believers, not sinners, you're mixing scripture.
We have a difference of interpretation , no need to attack.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The repentance scriptures you quote are for believers, not sinners, you're mixing scripture.
We have a difference of interpretation , no need to attack.

repentance is for everyone sinner and saint alike.....there is no difference.....we are all sinners.....Romans 3:23

 

[Nathan]

So, are you claiming that our spirit does not exist until we are born again/regenerated/saved?

It is not alive. Existence can be interpreted different ways, so I'm hesitant to say a simple yes or no to your question.

However, the three things you mention together are three distinct parts of The Faith. Interestingly enough, they do show themselves in that order. Not that they cannot happen all at the same time.

 

[Nathan]

repentance is for everyone sinner and saint alike.....there is no difference.....we are all sinners.....Romans 3:23

This may be way off topic, but I've always been interested in this.

The Bible lists those two, "sinner" and "saint" as different. Do you believe they can be one in the same? What about the ones listed as "righteous"?

 

[Nathan]

The repentance scriptures you quote are for believers, not sinners, you're mixing scripture.
We have a difference of interpretation , no need to attack.

What do you believe repentance is? As in, if you were defining it(in simple terms please) to a person new to all of this.

 

[civilwarbuff]

This may be way off topic, but I've always been interested in this.

The Bible lists those two, "sinner" and "saint" as different. Do you believe they can be one in the same? What about the ones listed as "righteous"?

Again, Romans 3:23....simple and straight forward.....all means just that.....all.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It is not alive. Existence can be interpreted different ways, so I'm hesitant to say a simple yes or no to your question.

The spirit is not alive?....you have scripture to support that, right?.....like when does it become alive?....who it becomes alive in and under what circumstances/conditions?....

 

[Nathan]

Again, Romans 3:23....simple and straight forward.....all means just that.....all.

Thanks, but maybe I didn't word my question clearly? Maybe I can ask in a different way.

Why does Jesus differentiate between sinners and righteous if they are one in the same?