If James was preaching in essence a different gospel from Paul, why did Paul go to Jerusalem to have decided which Jewish laws gentiles be asked to follow?
You've asked a reasonable question. In answer, let's go to scriptures:
Galatians 2:7
But contrariwise, when they saw that
the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as
the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Notice the grammar. The Lord could have inspired it to be written:
'The gospel of the uncircumcision unto me and to the circumcision unto Peter,' if they were one and the same, but they were not.
Why?
Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that
the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For
I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Paul persecuted the believing Jews on the basis of what he had been informed about from men, but what he preached to Gentiles and the body of Christ, he received it from no other man, but from Christ Himself. This shows conclusively that what he preached to Gentiles waS NOT WHAT HE LEARNED from the twelve apostles.
To say otherwise is to contradict the scriptures and many a professing believer does just that these days.
What business would it have been of theirs? James suggestion was accepted by the council, and sent in a letter via Paul to the gentile churches. Paul said, Peter, James and John were known as the pillars of the church, he did not say a different church.
When we read scripture for what it says, we see that Paul adopted more than one means by which he established his apostleship in the face of some who cast shadows upon his authority to preach. Paul's gospel included preaching to Jews that they should forsake the Law and to not circumcize their children...something the believing Jews clearly were opposed:
Acts 21:20-21
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou
seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21 And they are informed of thee, that
thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
See that? I encourage you to read the context to see for yourself that Paul did not defend himself against that accusation because it was absolutely true, as recorded in other of his epistles.
So, it makes perfect sense that Paul would seek out the twelve for verification of his apostleship and to verify his teaching to those under his preaching that they were not required to follow the Mosaic Law. The Judaizers were not in error except for when they tried to preach the Kingdom Gospel of the twelve to those under Paul's Gospel and ministry. Therein is why Paul said:
Galatians 1:8-9
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received,
let him be accursed.
Paul wasn't saying the Kingdom Gospel was false, but was and is ANOTHER gospel, and when that gospel is preached to those under his gospel, those doing so are to be accursed. Notice that the accursedness only applied when that other gospel was preached UNTO YOU. That is a direct address to those under his gospel and preaching. Again, they could not be one and the same, otherwise it would have made no sense to establish that wedge of division between the two groupings. Paul only preached to those who had not yet been under the preaching of the twelve:
Romans 15:20
Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel,
not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
I chatted to a young Israelite on the internet years ago. He said he followed as much as possible of Torah/Mosaic law, but it had nothing to do with his acceptance before God, that was through Christ alone. That would make his acceptance before God the same as ours wouldnt it.
Is that a question or a statement. I'm Israeli who was once among the Messianic Jews, but I have long since walked away from them because of their strong adherence to Torah and the traditions. Some groupings are more adamant than others about that, but I could not in good conscience continue with them.
I think you need to draw the distinction between intermittent doubts most believers may go through in their lives and a complete abdication of faith
I think discernment is needed
If you asked nearly all christians if you had to be sinless to be saved they would repond ''No'' for thewy know they are not without sin(1John1:8)
However, if you asked nearly all christians if you could live a wanton lifestyle of sin, or live a life described by Paul as a slave to sin, they would also respond ''No'' (1John3:9)
Personally for example, I've never met any christian who would believe such a person was saved as I previously described to you if they kept on and on living like that over a period of months let us say after they claimed to have gotten saved.
Judgment for salvation rests ONLY in the Hands of the Almighty, not yours, mine or anyone else. If we see a brother in sin, we are to restore them in loving rebuke and exhortation, not tell them that they've strayed from God and are no longer saved. Those who engage that kind of Satanic mindset against others are themselves tools in the hands of the enemy of our souls.
MM
