• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Love God, and love one another!

    Share your love for the Lord and others with us

    https://christianforums.net/forums/god_love/

  • Want to discuss private matters, or make a few friends?

    Ask for membership to the Men's or Lady's Locker Rooms

    For access, please contact a member of staff and they can add you in!

  • Wake up and smell the coffee!

    Join us for a little humor in Joy of the Lord

    https://christianforums.net/forums/humor_and_jokes/

  • Need prayer and encouragement?

    Come share your heart's concerns with us

    https://christianforums.net/forums/prayer/

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

The Idea of Two Gospels

RichardBurger said:
francisdesales said:
Faulty logic based on the worship of rational thought...

One can know that something exists, some basic ideas about something, but it doesn't follow that introducing some knowledge to someone means they are now experts and know everything about it...

Case in point. People married for quite a long time, they think they know their spouses very well.

And then they are proven wrong. Happens all the time. We are dealing with relationships and a transcendant Being, not the color of an apple... Even when people reveal something about themselves, it doesn't mean we know everything about them.

Funny how you focused on that one part and totally ignored the others.

Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began. In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began.

THINGS made known. Doesn't say EVERYTHING made known. What is made known is that God would save man through a suffering servant, turning out to be His Only Son. The Scriptures do not talk about the level of knowledge that knows the "mind of God" to the degree you try to pretend existed or exists even now...

If I tell you that the starting QB for the New Orleans Saints will be Drew Brees, does that mean you know everything about the New Orleans Saints? About how he will play, what plays he will run, what he will execute???? Hardly. It is something revealed - but it doesn't follow that this (or the revelation made to the prophets) was all-encompassing. That is poor logic.

RichardBurger said:
Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known.

Even Peter and Paul didn't know everything about God and His plan. For example, Paul thought the world was coming to an end when he wrote to the Thessalonians and Corinthians. This is nearly 30 years after his conversion experience - he STILL didn't know everything. No one knows everything but God. Why are you even pressing this issue, it is utterly ridiculous to claim that any Christian knows all about the mind of God.

RichardBurger said:
Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.

How about rationalizing the other two.

How about realizing that the Crucifixion occured for more than one reason?
 
RichardBurger said:
Those troublesome words "BUT NOW."

Romans 6:22
22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.
NKJV

Romans 7:6
6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
NKJV

Ephesians 2:13
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
NKJV

Hebrews 8:6
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
NKJV

Hebrews 11:16
16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.
NKJV

What's so troubling about "but now"???

How is any of this relevant to a Christian knowing everything about God???

Nothing. Not a lick. It is just self-worship, plain and simple. No one knows fully the mind of God. I would posit that you don't even know the mind of "Richard Burger" to the degree that you claim to know the mind of God...
 
All I have done is to show what I see in the scriptures and because of it you all are upset and now want to vilify me, personally, with false statements. It is hard to go against the religious brainwashing that most all have been raised with.

My purpose is to preach the freedom that the children of God have in Jesus Christ by showing that salvation in this dispensation is entirely the work of Jesus on the cross. I have glorified His work on the cross, not myself as someone claimed. I have said I have no religion and that is something most cannot stand because they love their religions. Religion is ALL about what men do for God. Religion can not save anyone. True Christainity is not about what men do for God. True Christianity is about what God has done for men but men do not want to give God the credit and glorify His work. They want to glory in their own religious activatives.

Men glorify their works in religion. That is all they want to talk about. --- Vilify me if you must, the religious have always done that. They did it to Jesus, Stephen, and Paul and the religious will do it to me. If you are not being condemned by the religious then you are not proclaiming the truth in Christ.

Sorry that I am so blunt but I find it necesaay because of the tone of some of the replies.

I find it amazing that the religious will say we are no longer under the Law of Moses and not see that that is a big change from one gospel to another. But when I consider that the relgious are not really sure about the works they must do I understand that they really don't see this wonderful change.

It is a true statement that Satan wants men to be religious and lost.
 
RichardBurger said:
Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began. In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began. Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known. Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.


There are many issue I could address. My time is very limited, so for now I want to mention one thing about Romans 16:25.
25 Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal,
26 but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith:

If you pay attention to the mystery that has been kept in silence from verse 25, notice where it was revealed, or "manifested" in verse 26. Verse 26 specifies that it was revealed in scriptures of the prophets. This of course can only refer to the writing prophets of the OT. No NT prophet was a writer of scriptures.

The point is that I see little difference between the verse that speaks of the gospel being revealed, and this passage which speaks of the fresh giving of a previous revelation (not new in kind as in a different gospel).
 
RichardBurger said:
All I have done is to show what I see in the scriptures and because of it you all are upset and now want to vilify me, personally, with false statements. It is hard to go against the religious brainwashing that most all have been raised with.

My purpose is to preach the freedom that the children of God have in Jesus Christ by showing that salvation in this dispensation is entirely the work of Jesus on the cross. I have glorified His work on the cross, not myself as someone claimed. I have said I have no religion and that is something most cannot stand because they love their religions. Religion is ALL about what men do for God. Religion can not save anyone. True Christainity is not about what men do for God. True Christianity is about what God has done for men but men do not want to give God the credit and glorify His work. They want to glory in their own religious activatives.

Men glorify their works in religion. That is all they want to talk about. --- Vilify me if you must, the religious have always done that. They did it to Jesus, Stephen, and Paul and the religious will do it to me. If you are not being condemned by the religious then you are not proclaiming the truth in Christ.

Sorry that I am so blunt but I find it necesaay because of the tone of some of the replies.

I find it amazing that the religious will say we are no longer under the Law of Moses and not see that that is a big change from one gospel to another. But when I consider that the relgious are not really sure about the works they must do I understand that they really don't see this wonderful change.

It is a true statement that Satan wants men to be religious and lost.
I really get tired of the "I'm right, everyone else is following the anti-christ" nonsense on this board. :nono
 
toddm said:
RichardBurger said:
All I have done is to show what I see in the scriptures and because of it you all are upset and now want to vilify me, personally, with false statements. It is hard to go against the religious brainwashing that most all have been raised with.

My purpose is to preach the freedom that the children of God have in Jesus Christ by showing that salvation in this dispensation is entirely the work of Jesus on the cross. I have glorified His work on the cross, not myself as someone claimed. I have said I have no religion and that is something most cannot stand because they love their religions. Religion is ALL about what men do for God. Religion can not save anyone. True Christainity is not about what men do for God. True Christianity is about what God has done for men but men do not want to give God the credit and glorify His work. They want to glory in their own religious activatives.

Men glorify their works in religion. That is all they want to talk about. --- Vilify me if you must, the religious have always done that. They did it to Jesus, Stephen, and Paul and the religious will do it to me. If you are not being condemned by the religious then you are not proclaiming the truth in Christ.

Sorry that I am so blunt but I find it necesaay because of the tone of some of the replies.

I find it amazing that the religious will say we are no longer under the Law of Moses and not see that that is a big change from one gospel to another. But when I consider that the relgious are not really sure about the works they must do I understand that they really don't see this wonderful change.

It is a true statement that Satan wants men to be religious and lost.
I really get tired of the "I'm right, everyone else is following the anti-christ" nonsense on this board. :nono

Agree. This is the what happens when someone paints themselves into a corner. Naturally, they can't possibly be wrong - and even if someone posted a verse to prove them wrong, it will fall back onto the same old complaints and proclamations. What is hilarious is that other Scriptures that show he is wrong are not even addressed or mentioned. :shrug

of course, "religious people" are mouth-breathing neanderthals who find the need to seek out "church of one" people and attack them on bulletin boards... :crazy

Oh, sorry, it appears to be other way around. :chin
 
toddm said:
RichardBurger said:
All I have done is to show what I see in the scriptures and because of it you all are upset and now want to vilify me, personally, with false statements. It is hard to go against the religious brainwashing that most all have been raised with.

My purpose is to preach the freedom that the children of God have in Jesus Christ by showing that salvation in this dispensation is entirely the work of Jesus on the cross. I have glorified His work on the cross, not myself as someone claimed. I have said I have no religion and that is something most cannot stand because they love their religions. Religion is ALL about what men do for God. Religion can not save anyone. True Christainity is not about what men do for God. True Christianity is about what God has done for men but men do not want to give God the credit and glorify His work. They want to glory in their own religious activatives.

Men glorify their works in religion. That is all they want to talk about. --- Vilify me if you must, the religious have always done that. They did it to Jesus, Stephen, and Paul and the religious will do it to me. If you are not being condemned by the religious then you are not proclaiming the truth in Christ.

Sorry that I am so blunt but I find it necesaay because of the tone of some of the replies.

I find it amazing that the religious will say we are no longer under the Law of Moses and not see that that is a big change from one gospel to another. But when I consider that the relgious are not really sure about the works they must do I understand that they really don't see this wonderful change.

It is a true statement that Satan wants men to be religious and lost.

I really get tired of the "I'm right, everyone else is following the anti-christ" nonsense on this board. :nono

But you certainly have made it a point that you are right and I am wrong haven't you. You have condemned yourself because you obviously think you are right and I am wrong and you make a great issue of it. Talking about getting tired! I am tired that most on this thread have begun writing in an offensive tone. They just can't stand it that my belief in the scriptures is not the same as theirs. They just don't want me to believe as I do. They want me to believe as they do and if I don't they must put me down so that my message of what I believe will not be heard. But they don't want that to happen to them. Sounds just like the religious that have perscuted the children of God in the past and yet again in this age.
 
RichardBurger said:
But you certainly have made it a point that you are right and I am wrong haven't you.

Of course. We disagree with you. Is it now politically incorrect that when someone says something you find incorrect, you are not supposed to correct them or at least discuss how the other is incorrect???

RichardBurger said:
You have condemned yourself because you obviously think you are right and I am wrong and you make a great issue of it.

Who is condemning whom? Perhaps you should look to the posts! It is us 'religious' who are condemned, according to you. No one is condemning you, just pointing out that you are wrong and explaining why, using common sense, Scriptures and logical argument.

Let's look at an example of one of your wonderful rejoinders...

Men glorify their works in religion. That is all they want to talk about. --- Vilify me if you must, the religious have always done that. They did it to Jesus, Stephen, and Paul and the religious will do it to me. If you are not being condemned by the religious then you are not proclaiming the truth in Christ.

Sorry that I am so blunt but I find it necesaay because of the tone of some of the replies.


Good gravy, THAT explains it all!!!

Ya' all who don't agree with Richard here is the "debil". Probably plays "foosball", too. That's for the DEBIL, too... :crazy

Note the touch of self-righteousness in a pitiful attempt to associate oneself with Jesus and Stephen and other martyrs... :shame

RichardBurger said:
Talking about getting tired! I am tired that most on this thread have begun writing in an offensive tone.

You took the words right off my keyboard. Quit complaining, it is you who are writing in an offensive tone... you claim to know everything God knows, coming here with that nonsense that all people who are religious are the devil.. Utter nonsense. I find that offensive and crazy talk.

Here is an early example of your dear writing style, no doubt taken from the annals of "how to win friends and influence others..."

What is clear is that the religious on this forum never deal with the scriptures I give that supports what I say. It is as if they are blinded to them.

Oh, Richard. You are so loving!!! How could those crazy religious nut cases treat you like that - I mean, like, you know, like quoting Scriptures and stuff, how dare they, don't they know about you being always right...

where's the kool-aid, sign me up...

What a bunch of baloney. I addressed everything you wrote. It is ironic that you IGNORE what I wrote...

:screwloose

You got a serious drama issue...

Don't come into an apologetic forum if you can't handle being told you are wrong without blowing a gasket and crying that your antagonist is led by satan. THAT is getting tiring here...
 
Adullam said:
Browbeating post above! Ego on the loose!
It seems Joe got a bit fired up there.

Simmer down and take some deep breaths, Joe. :gah
 
RichardBurger said:
Free said:
RichardBurger said:
I see that the gospel of grace is not a religion. It is about a covenant relationship with God in the heart based on belief in God‘s work on the cross. It is a relationship of Father to son. It is a relationship of belief, faith, trust, and confidence in our heavenly Father and His work on the cross. If you have this relationship God does not require anything else.
Although you state "the gospel of grace is not a religion," the beliefs that follow which you use to back up that very statement mean that it is a religion.

And no, I do not think the "gospel of the kingdom" and the "gospel of grace" are two different gospels.

Oh but I do!

Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began. In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began. Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known. Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.
As toddm pointed out, the key to resolving your supposed conundrum is in the respective original audiences of these two apostles.

Peter was preaching the one and only Gospel to the Jews, so he could show how the characteristics of the promised Messiah, made known to the Jewish people through their prophets, were fulfilled in Jesus. In contrast, Paul was preaching the same Gospel to the gentiles who did not have the benefit of the Jewish prophets. Therefore, even the need for the redemption of mankind through a promised Messiah was hidden from them.

Further, the rejection of Jesus by the Jews and his resulting crucifixion is not the same as the work Jesus accomplished on the cross. The first is the work of man, the second is the work of God. It is perfectly logical to repent of your works while taking comfort in the work of God.

"But now" only serves as a marker between the promise of the Cross and it's fulfillment.
 
Sinthesis said:
As toddm pointed out, the key to resolving your supposed conundrum is in the respective original audiences of these two apostles.

Peter was preaching the one and only Gospel to the Jews, so he could show how the characteristics of the promised Messiah, made known to the Jewish people through their prophets, were fulfilled in Jesus. In contrast, Paul was preaching the same Gospel to the gentiles who did not have the benefit of the Jewish prophets. Therefore, even the need for the redemption of mankind through a promised Messiah was hidden from them.

Further, the rejection of Jesus by the Jews and his resulting crucifixion is not the same as the work Jesus accomplished on the cross. The first is the work of man, the second is the work of God. It is perfectly logical to repent of your works while taking comfort in the work of God.

"But now" only serves as a marker between the promise of the Cross and it's fulfillment.
Ahhhhhhh.....just taking a nice big breath of sound interpretation of Scripture. Very refreshing indeed. Nice post.
 
Vic C. said:
It seems Joe got a bit fired up there.

Simmer down and take some deep breaths, Joe. :gah

If I had a dollar for every clown that said "you must be from satan because you disagree with me", or something like that, I'd be rich. Couple that with "oh, your religious, no wonder you are from satan", then you'd have the repetoire of some of the comments here lately...

I get tired of hearing such ridiculous comments, and I have found that such responses nips them in the bud. It was meant to be funny and sarcastic, relax...

I apologize for my rampant ego, I can't take it anywhere... ;)

Regards
 
Nobody is trying to "vilify" you Richard.

The twin gospel idea isn't something new that you could have just come up with. As far as its history that I'm aware, it's an idea that began within certain Dispensationalist movements back in the 1800's. And lately there's been a resurge among those heeding the doctrines of Stam.

One of the reasons why it's dangerous is because if there actually were two separate Gospels, one for Israel and another for Gentiles, then it would mean Christ's Body of believers aren't really 'one' body like our Lord Jesus and His Apostles taught, especially Paul. It would mean the examples of the first Christian Churches in the Book of Acts don't mean anything, since they were comprised up of both believing Jews and Gentiles together, as one body.

It's important to remember there was an element of converted Pharisees among believers in Jerusalem per the Book of Acts that were trying to bring in Pharisee traditions as a requirement for Gentiles being saved in Christ Jesus (Acts 15). Paul even rebuked Peter in Galatians when he quit sitting at table with Gentile brethren simply because Peter's Jewish brethren were visiting from Jerusalem. Paul mentions those Judaizers that spied on the Gentile brethren to see if they had been flesh circumcised or not.

And per our Lord's Letters to the seven Churches in Revelation 2 & 3, some in those Churches had taken the idea of Christ's Grace to such liberal limits that they were using it to support freedom in committing laviscious acts. That can easily happen when liberal elements in the Church preach that we Christians are no longer subject to God's law.
 
veteran said:
Nobody is trying to "vilify" you Richard.

The twin gospel idea isn't something new that you could have just come up with. As far as its history that I'm aware, it's an idea that began within certain Dispensationalist movements back in the 1800's. And lately there's been a resurge among those heeding the doctrines of Stam.

One of the reasons why it's dangerous is because if there actually were two separate Gospels, one for Israel and another for Gentiles, then it would mean Christ's Body of believers aren't really 'one' body like our Lord Jesus and His Apostles taught, especially Paul. It would mean the examples of the first Christian Churches in the Book of Acts don't mean anything, since they were comprised up of both believing Jews and Gentiles together, as one body.

It's important to remember there was an element of converted Pharisees among believers in Jerusalem per the Book of Acts that were trying to bring in Pharisee traditions as a requirement for Gentiles being saved in Christ Jesus (Acts 15). Paul even rebuked Peter in Galatians when he quit sitting at table with Gentile brethren simply because Peter's Jewish brethren were visiting from Jerusalem. Paul mentions those Judaizers that spied on the Gentile brethren to see if they had been flesh circumcised or not.

And per our Lord's Letters to the seven Churches in Revelation 2 & 3, some in those Churches had taken the idea of Christ's Grace to such liberal limits that they were using it to support freedom in committing laviscious acts. That can easily happen when liberal elements in the Church preach that we Christians are no longer subject to God's law.

Why do you have it in your head that I am saying there are two gospels IN EFFECT during this age of grace? I have never said that. One has fadded away and been replaced.
2 Cor 3:9-11 (NKJ)
9 For if the ministry of condemnation (the Law) had glory, the ministry of righteousness (grace) exceeds much more in glory.
10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels.

11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

Heb 7:18-22 (NKJ)
18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,
19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

I don't think you all read what I write you just read enough to say it's wrong and that is your sole purpose, to say I am wrong.
 
Your argument is about two gospels. One for Israel and another (through Paul) to the Gentiles. Doesn't matter whether you're saying a previous gospel for Israel is now dead, that's still preaching the idea of two gospels.

But you are even wrong about the gospel to Israel being now dead...showing you have not understood what Promise it was that Abraham believed from the start...

Rom 4:8-16
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

In Galatians, Apostle Paul says those of Faith are the children of Abraham. Those in Christ Jesus have believed the same Faith as Abraham did.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

When did Abraham believe? Before God gave him the covenant of flesh circumcision, or after? The Promise by Faith through Abraham was reckoned FIRST, before the covenant of flesh circumcision.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Abraham received the sign of circumcision ONLY AFTER he had first believed the Promise by Faith. And this so he would be the father of all those who believe. That means all those who have believed on The Saviour Jesus Christ, i.e., Christians.

Does that sound like a different Gospel than what Christians have believed today? It isn't different, as Apostle Paul is showing here.

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Is Abraham spiritual father to Israel also, even though they may be circumcised too? Yes when they believe by Faith like Abraham did, and not by the law. This is The Gospel of Jesus Christ, even though Paul's talking about an OT event with Abraham's Faith.

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
(KJV)

So what's Apostle Paul doing saying things to Gentiles like Abraham being the father (spiritual) of us all, if that's not the same Gospel?

Gal 3:13-14
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
(KJV)

There it is... Paul proclaiming that the blessing of Abraham involves the very SAME Gosepl that Paul preached to the Gentiles!

Here's Christ's declaration of that Promise given in Abraham's day...

John 8:56-58
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"
58 Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
(KJV)
 
RichardBurger said:
It was said:

""Religion" is a means of man worshiping God. I do not see that as contradictory to the Gospel of Grace, since we are called to obey God - and God desires that we have faith in Him and SEEK HIM OUT - which means via "religious" means. For some reason, "religion" has taken on a new meaning for some people. "Religion" as defined does not necessitate that a person has no relationship with God, that is fallacy and presumes that everyone sitting in a pew is merely sleeping robots going through the motions. "Religion", by definition, is a person seeking a relationship with God.

You have just given the dictionary meaning of religion. It is definded as "WHAT MAN DOES FOR THE GOD OF THEIR IMAGINATION. --- So, to you, your Chritianity is "WHAT YOU DO FOR GOD."

Well that means I am right. True Christainty is not what man does for God. It is what God has done for man. But you resist that idea because you love your religion.
Hmmm

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
(James 1:27 KJV)
Religion doesnt seem to be such a bad thing after all.
Seems that there IS something man 'does for' God...even if indirectly.




.
 
Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.

Dear Richard:
Thank you for your reply in Christ where we are by God's grace!

I appreciat what you are saying. I would like to point out that Peter in Acts 2:23 said:

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain..." KJV

So, Peter is saying that Jesus's crucifixion was the will of God.
Does this agree with what Paul is saying?
 
Earth Salvation said:
Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.

Dear Richard:
Thank you for your reply in Christ where we are by God's grace!

I appreciat what you are saying. I would like to point out that Peter in Acts 2:23 said:

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain..." KJV

So, Peter is saying that Jesus's crucifixion was the will of God.
Does this agree with what Paul is saying?

Yes. Only God (Jesus) could pay for the sins of mankind.
 
Back
Top