The Gospels and the Mystery

[phil36]

It isn't "paul onlyism"; it is gospel-ism and is the gospel itself. The reverse is unhealthy, unscriptural and untenable.

I may have misunderstood your point but you sound like your saying paul onlyism is gospelism wich is the gospel.


I would disagree with you. Paul onlyism aka hyper-dispensationalism is unhealthy, unscriptural and untenable....

The reverse is the good news taught by the whole of scripture revealed at the right time in the advent, life, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus who ascended into heaven and now reigns as king of Kings and Lord of Lords. The mystery has been revealed in these last days (new covenant era) in Christ and by Christ.

 

[Bruce_Leiter]

When we look at the Gospel as preached by the twelve, and the Gospel given to Paul to be preached to Gentiles and Jews alike, it becomes quite clear, apart from over-spiritualizing everything one reads, that the two messages are not one and the same:

The Kingdom Gospel preached by Christ and the twelve:

Proclaimed repentance and water baptism for salvation (Acts 2:38)
Proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom ([URL='Matthew 4:17, Acts 3.19)
Saved and commissioned within Israel’s borders (Matthew 16:13, 16-17)
Taught in Christ’s earthly ministry
Ministered to Jews only (Matthew 10:5, Galatians 2:7-9)

The Gospel of Grace received and taught by Paul:

Proclaimed “believe” alone for salvation (Romans 4:5-6, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4)
Proclaimed the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24)
Saved and commissioned outside Israel’s borders (Acts 9:3)
Was taught in Christ’s heavenly ministry (Galatians 1:1, 11-12)
Ministered primarily to Gentiles because of Jewish rejection (Romans 11:13, Galatians 2:7-9)

Paul was not taught by the twelve:

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

So, Paul was instructed by Christ Jesus, not other men in the mystery, which is the body of Christ, that was hidden in God, not the scriptures or the prophets:

1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

Ephesians 3:2-7
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Not given to the twelve, but only to Paul, who then preached it to all others from that point onward. Paul already knew that the eleven were preaching, but THAT is the reason he persecuted them, and killed them. If Paul was only preaching what the others had already been preaching, then all the scriptures stating otherwise make no sense.

1 Corinthians 2:7-9
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

See that? Not even Satan and his demons knew of the Gospel of Grace that would be extended to the Gentiles until after it was revealed to, and preached by Paul. They would not have pushed for the crucifixion of Christ had they known that the kingdom of the Gentiles would be greatly diminished from their clutches through Paul's Gospel. They knew of the Kingdom Gospel, but they did NOT know of the Gospel of Grace and its impact until after it was too late.

Thoughts?

MM

I suggest that you make too sharp a distinction between the two kinds of preaching and teaching. It's also the relationship between the old covenant and the new covenant. There is both discontinuity and continuity between the two in both cases.

 

[rogerg]

So, no, Peter still was speaking of water baptism later in that same chapter, just as he commanded in Acts 10:

To have meaning, spiritual baptism by the Holy Ghost has to occur first. Water baptism is to recognize and commemorate the spiritual -it is only a sign - just like circumcision of the heart is what matters with physical circumcision having no spiritual significance- it too is only a sign to commemorate what has happened spiritually. If the spiritual doesn't occur first, then the doing of the earthly brings no spiritual significance with it.

[Act 1:5 KJV] 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

[Rom 4:11 KJV] 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:

[Rom 2:28-29 KJV]
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

 

[phil36]

If you had only the knowledge of these men, would that be enough for salvation today?

1. Abraham
2. Moses
3. David
4. Disciple pre-resurrection

I have just seen this post and thought it was interesting. so here is my answer.

Yes.. "IF" I was living in the time of

1. Abraham
2. Moses
3. David
4. Disciple pre-resurrection

SinceI/we don't live in those times we don't need hypothetical conditionals. We have Christ. And in him both Jew and Gentile are the one new man.

 

[rogerg]

I may have misunderstood your point but you sound like your saying paul onlyism is gospelism wich is the gospel.


I would disagree with you. Paul onlyism aka hyper-dispensationalism is unhealthy, unscriptural and untenable....

The reverse is the good news taught by the whole of scripture revealed at the right time in the advent, life, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus who ascended into heaven and now reigns as king of Kings and Lord of Lords. The mystery has been revealed in these last days (new covenant era) in Christ and by Christ.

All of the apostles (including Paul) proclaimed the identical gospel message, for there is but one gospel – a gospel of grace alone, bestowed as a gift from an exceedingly merciful and gracious God through Christ, freely and in its entirety given to those whom He had aforetime chosen to receive it. Is that what you are saying too?
Symbols employed by Christians, like water baptism, are acceptable when recognized as symbolic rather than spiritually efficacious. Christ alone is the Savior, not man; thus, only Christ has the power to save. The act of water baptism, for example, or any other like actions taken by man, cannot do so.

[Rom 11:6 KJV]
6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

[Eph 2:5, 8 KJV]
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved ...
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

 

[Musicmaster]

I understand what you have been saying. That is why I asked you a couple if questions before I made a longer post.

I don't think you have understood the point I was making, that is, Peter, John and Paul et al preach the one, the
same and only gospel.

That much I understood, but what I was wondering about are the differences where they are not one and the same. Some have tried to tell me that 1 Corinthians 15 is just an overview, which leads to the idea that Paul, then, we guilty of giving to them only part of the saving Gospel...as if works complete or perfect one's justification. All of that completely undermines the unmerited nature of the Grace that has been bestowed upon us through faith. Our salvation is also referred to as a "gift," and yet there are many factions out there who also claim works as the merit for salvation, all of which nullifies it being a gift and that it is unmerited. I ask them what part of this that they don't understand, and they continue to argue senselessly, as if Paul was mealy-mouthed, and incapable of saying what he meant:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Where it's true that Paul couched this stand-alone argument within the context of Israel not being cast away, it remains true that some statements/arguments within a given context can and do exist as true outside the home context within which it was seated. Some things a simply empirical, all-encompassing if you will. Grace is what it is, standing alone in the dryness of the desert without the watering of works. It is without need for that watering, and yet anyone who knows anything about such things as desert cacti understands that even just a little water can kill the plant, allegorically speaking. Grace is without need for anything from us apart from faith:

Ephsians 2:5-9
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

That is so self-explanatory, and yet there are those who think they can add to it some work from the Kingdom Gospel what Paul never stated, as the apostle to the Gentiles. It's true that Peter, for a very short time, preached to Gentiles, but Paul's assignment was absolutely to the Gentiles after having experienced rejection from fellow Jews.

We Israelites are indeed a stiff-necked people...as a people. His-story bears this out...

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

The idea of my allegedly "conflating" a point, such as water baptism, as being some overly big deal, that too is merely an opinion that minimizes a difference that violates the concept of grace and of a gift. To say that the different apostles only taught variations of one gospel is to erase a vastly important aspect of scripture...namely that salvation is of the Jews.

Where it was through Israel the Gentiles obtained salvation because salvation was of the Jews, that ceased when Israel was cut off. Jews and Gentiles no longer had access to salvation that was of the Jews. There had to be a change whereby Gentiles were "brought in" by some other means than the nation that had absolutely failed the Lord...failed to be a light and salt unto the world; set apart for the work of being the conduit through which salvation to the world was found, by way of the Blood of Christ. We failed, and so Jews and Gentiles needed some other means through which to obtain salvation, and grace alone through faith became that one and only means.

The legalistic ideas out there that one can somehow merit salvation by way of any work on the part of an individual, apart from faith, that absolutely will never work out for anyone.

MM

 

[Sipsey]

The idea of my allegedly "conflating" a point, such as water baptism, as being some overly big deal, that too is merely an opinion that minimizes a difference that violates the concept of grace and of a gift. To say that the different apostles only taught variations of one gospel is to erase a vastly important aspect of scripture...namely that salvation is of the Jews.

Where it was through Israel the Gentiles obtained salvation because salvation was of the Jews, that ceased when Israel was cut off. Jews and Gentiles no longer had access to salvation that was of the Jews. There had to be a change whereby Gentiles were "brought in" by some other means than the nation that had absolutely failed the Lord...failed to be a light and salt unto the world; set apart for the work of being the conduit through which salvation to the world was found, by way of the Blood of Christ. We failed, and so Jews and Gentiles needed some other means through which to obtain salvation, and grace alone through faith became that one and only means.

The legalistic ideas out there that one can somehow merit salvation by way of any work on the part of an individual, apart from faith, that absolutely will never work out for anyone.

MM

The Jews looked forward to a Savior, we look backwards to our Savior.

 

[Musicmaster]

The Jews looked forward to a Savior, we look backwards to our Savior.

Which is not at all the point being made here.

MM

 

[fredoheaven]

Who says water baptism is an element of the gospel? The two absolutely differ. More hype is that water baptism is no longer with us or no longer valid. While I believe water baptism does not save us, it is in fact part of the GC. That GC is to preach the gospel, then baptize those believers, and teach all that Christ commanded. The theory of hyper dispy of course will insist that the doctrine of Christ is no longer available to us. this day.

 

[Cameron143]

Then that’s another gospel other than the d,b,r for sins. Thanks for proving my point.

There is only 1 gospel. My only point was that there was a level of understanding that a Savior was necessary.
Let's look at what Job might have understood in knowing his Redeemer lives:
1. He needs someone to pay for him in some manner.
2. That Redeemer is now alive, inferring that He was once dead.
That's verse 25. Verse 26 Job says that after his present body is destroyed that he will see God in the flesh, which means:
1. There is life after death.
2. He will receive a new body.
3. In this new body, he will see God.
4. He will dwell with God.
Verse 25 also says his Redeemer will stand on the earth so:
1. He will come in the flesh.

Sounds to me like Job understood his Redeemer would come to earth, die, that he would die, and he would dwell with God. That's pretty darn close to d-b-r to me.

 

[fredoheaven]

Sometimes, the text is said to be proof but most of the time they are out of context, making the text con you. I still believe in the right division of the word, comparing spiritual with spiritual not just a mere opinion or guesswork. God bless everyone!

 

[posthuman]

Claims in and of themselves prove nothing. I showed from scripture the differences in content within each Gospel, where you showed nothing. As an antagonist, your words don't carry any weight without evidence. What you quoted is only partial, and proves nothing for your case. Abraham did not know Christ Jesus, but his salvation was sealed because of his faith in YHWH that placed him IN Christ for salvation. So, yes, Christ is indeed the common foundation for salvation across all Gospels, but your lack of understanding about Israel and the fact that Gentiles had to become Jews to be saved, and how that relates to the differences between the Kingdom Gospel and the Gospel of Grace, they speak for themselves by way of content differences.

MM

When Christ approached Abraham at the tree of Mamre, he recognized Him and therefore immediately greeted Him.

your claim that Abraham did not know Christ Jesus - He is the LORD - is absolute Biblical illiteracy. the very first mention of bread and wine in the scripture is when Abraham and Jesus took communion together.

the scripture speaks for itself.
you have not proven what you say you have proven. you have proven instead something else, which you wished to keep hidden.

 

[CS1]

When we look at the Gospel as preached by the twelve, and the Gospel given to Paul to be preached to Gentiles and Jews alike, it becomes quite clear, apart from over-spiritualizing everything one reads, that the two messages are not one and the same:

The Kingdom Gospel preached by Christ and the twelve:

Proclaimed repentance and water baptism for salvation (Acts 2:38)
Proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom ([URL='Matthew 4:17, Acts 3.19)
Saved and commissioned within Israel’s borders (Matthew 16:13, 16-17)
Taught in Christ’s earthly ministry
Ministered to Jews only (Matthew 10:5, Galatians 2:7-9)

The Gospel of Grace received and taught by Paul:

Proclaimed “believe” alone for salvation (Romans 4:5-6, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4)
Proclaimed the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24)
Saved and commissioned outside Israel’s borders (Acts 9:3)
Was taught in Christ’s heavenly ministry (Galatians 1:1, 11-12)
Ministered primarily to Gentiles because of Jewish rejection (Romans 11:13, Galatians 2:7-9)

Paul was not taught by the twelve:

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

So, Paul was instructed by Christ Jesus, not other men in the mystery, which is the body of Christ, that was hidden in God, not the scriptures or the prophets:

1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

Ephesians 3:2-7
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Not given to the twelve, but only to Paul, who then preached it to all others from that point onward. Paul already knew that the eleven were preaching, but THAT is the reason he persecuted them, and killed them. If Paul was only preaching what the others had already been preaching, then all the scriptures stating otherwise make no sense.

1 Corinthians 2:7-9
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

See that? Not even Satan and his demons knew of the Gospel of Grace that would be extended to the Gentiles until after it was revealed to, and preached by Paul. They would not have pushed for the crucifixion of Christ had they known that the kingdom of the Gentiles would be greatly diminished from their clutches through Paul's Gospel. They knew of the Kingdom Gospel, but they did NOT know of the Gospel of Grace and its impact until after it was too late.

Thoughts?

MM

Very interesting. What are your thoughts of the Kingdom that Jesus spoke about that the dynamics of that teaching was not fully clear until His Resurrection from the Dead? As we see in the Gospels, the Disciples were expecting Jesus to rule, not die.

 

[posthuman]

Adam didn’t have what we have. He was not saved. The best outcome for Adam is to die and end up in the heart of the earth, safe from hell fire. That is not salvation as we know it today. Adam had no knowledge of the cross, the d,b,r of Jesus for sins.

Adam was given a new garment made by the hand of God, covered with the innocent blood of a lamb, was given the gospel of the death burial and resurrection of the Son and believed it, was promised the way to Life and preserved against damnation.

Adam is saved by the same faith we have.

i suggest you look closer at Genesis 3 as you clearly lack understanding of it. Here is an excellent start, only about 80 hours of post-seminary level lecture and worth a thousand years.

https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/2035

 

[posthuman]

The gospel unto salvation is specifically how Christ died, was buried, and resurrected the third day. Adam had no such belief in the cross. To say so is making things up.

the Seed of the woman had His heel bitten but crushed the head of the Serpent.

that is the gospel of the birth, life, death, resurrection and return of the Messiah to save the world from sin.

it isn't my fault you don't yet comprehend that.

please listen to the lecture series i put for you bro you will not regret it.

 

[Magenta]

Isaiah knew also...

 

[phil36]

That much I understood, but what I was wondering about are the differences where they are not one and the same. Some have tried to tell me that 1 Corinthians 15 is just an overview, which leads to the idea that Paul, then, we guilty of giving to them only part of the saving Gospel...as if works complete or perfect one's justification. All of that completely undermines the unmerited nature of the Grace that has been bestowed upon us through faith. Our salvation is also referred to as a "gift," and yet there are many factions out there who also claim works as the merit for salvation, all of which nullifies it being a gift and that it is unmerited. I ask them what part of this that they don't understand, and they continue to argue senselessly, as if Paul was mealy-mouthed, and incapable of saying what he meant:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Where it's true that Paul couched this stand-alone argument within the context of Israel not being cast away, it remains true that some statements/arguments within a given context can and do exist as true outside the home context within which it was seated. Some things a simply empirical, all-encompassing if you will. Grace is what it is, standing alone in the dryness of the desert without the watering of works. It is without need for that watering, and yet anyone who knows anything about such things as desert cacti understands that even just a little water can kill the plant, allegorically speaking. Grace is without need for anything from us apart from faith:

Ephsians 2:5-9
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

That is so self-explanatory, and yet there are those who think they can add to it some work from the Kingdom Gospel what Paul never stated, as the apostle to the Gentiles. It's true that Peter, for a very short time, preached to Gentiles, but Paul's assignment was absolutely to the Gentiles after having experienced rejection from fellow Jews.

We Israelites are indeed a stiff-necked people...as a people. His-story bears this out...

MM

Hi MM,

I've read your post and most if it doesn't make sense in light of your basic argument. The reason being you use a strawman argument. You state some say works righteousness or add works to grace and then you argue Paul taught basically faith alone (justification). As if that is the issue which it isn't.

The reason yiur argument lacks teeth is the dimple fact that christians (protestants) believe sola fide. So your point is mute.

Unless of course you maybe believe Jesus's message was works salvation? And pauls was sola fide etc. Maybe you could clarify at some stage?

It would still be nice to hear your respnse to my original post #125.

 

[phil36]

All of the apostles (including Paul) proclaimed the identical gospel message, for there is but one gospel – a gospel of grace alone,

Hi rogerg,

That is basically what i was saying in post #125. Its all by grace. One gospel for all people. And its taught in all the NT. The good news being Christ himself (advent, life, death, resurrection etc)

Sola Scriptura
Sola fide
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Soli Deo Gloria.

When dealing with hyper dispensationalist / paul onlyist. We can't jusy say saved by grace alone as they will agree with that statement. The answer we can give which is the truth... What is the Gospel.. Its nature, necessity and purpose etc. And knowing, ultimately that, the one true gospel starts with the person of Christ.

Anyhow rogerc, looks like we are on the same side. In post #125 i wasn't referring to how the gospel is appropiated, i was discussing some aspects of what it is.

 

[rogerg]

Hi rogerg,

That is basically what i was saying in post #125. Its all by grace. One gospel for all people. And its taught in all the NT. The good news being Christ himself (advent, life, death, resurrection etc)

Sola Scriptura
Sola fide
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Soli Deo Gloria.

When dealing with hyper dispensationalist / paul onlyist. We can't jusy say saved by grace alone as they will agree with that statement. The answer we can give which is the truth... What is the Gospel.. Its nature, necessity and purpose etc. And knowing, ultimately that, the one true gospel starts with the person of Christ.

Anyhow rogerc, looks like we are on the same side. In post #125 i wasn't referring to how the gospel is appropiated, i was discussing some aspects of what it is.

I totally agree with your post and great to hear, phil36 - sorry for any misunderstanding.