Galatian Conundrums

I was actually directing that to Grandpa.

Since you also believe that Jesus and Paul preach different gospels, I don't see how you can disagree with that.

OK maybe I misunderstood you or misworded my own post.

I think you know where I stand, but just to clarify

What I disagree with is the Jesus words and/or the law is done away, abolished, non binding, etc.

I believe Jesus words alppy to all of those who want to follow God.

After having this long debate, I begin to see two main groups who disagree with mid Acts dispensationalism.

One group is one that believed that it has always been by grace thru faith in Christ, apart from works ever since the fall of Adam. This is the covenant theology doctrine. For example, they believe that, even during the 4 gospels, believing in Jesus alone is sufficient for salvation.

To back up this doctrine, they simply quote verses that "seem" to imply that belief in Jesus is all that is required, for example the ever popular John 3:16, and ignore all other verses when Jesus talked about following the Law of Moses, or simply interpret all those passages in the light of Pauline doctrine,

Another group is like you, one who insist that everyone must try their best to keep the Law, along with belief in Jesus.

To back up this doctrine you would make sure to quote the OT, all the verses in the 4 Gospels that Jesus talked about following the Law, as well as all the passages in 1 John that emphasize the same doctrine.

SO the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus did not know the "whole" truth only Paul? What about Jesus did He know the "whole" truth?

Yes, as I have told Rick previously in this thread, Peter did not realize the Law was over until after God in Acts 10 started to save Gentiles independent of Law and circumcision.

So if you agree with this, again, this showed that what Peter preached in Acts 3-4 cannot be the same gospel of grace given to Paul.

But I know you are going to stick to your guns here so let us agree to disagree.

I don't see any contradiction between Peter and Paul.

I see Paul explaining a lot more things in a lot more detail because Paul understood more about the law. And because he understood more about the law he understood more about Grace.

Peter was a fisherman trying to explain to experts in Judaism who Christ is. He wasn't ready to get into theological debates about whether the law of moses was over, especially considering what that would have done financially and emotionally to all the Jews who believed.

But God helped him to see the bigger picture.


Its pretty interesting that Peter is the spokesman to the Jews and Paul is the spokesman to the Gentiles. Only God would have chosen to do it that way. Anybody else would have obviously used Paul to explain to the Jews and Peter to the Gentiles.

And then Paul would have been killed instantly.

Your being facetious . you want to take this down a dark path then go ahead . Let me know when you get back and we can get serious.

After having this long debate, I begin to see two main groups who disagree with mid Acts dispensationalism.

One group is one that believed that it has always been by grace thru faith in Christ, apart from works ever since the fall of Adam. This is the covenant theology doctrine. For example, they believe that, even during the 4 gospels, believing in Jesus alone is sufficient for salvation.

To back up this doctrine, they simply quote verses that "seem" to imply that belief in Jesus is all that is required, for example the ever popular John 3:16, and ignore all other verses when Jesus talked about following the Law of Moses, or simply interpret all those passages in the light of Pauline doctrine,

Another group is like you, one who insist that everyone must try their best to keep the Law, along with belief in Jesus.

To back up this doctrine you would make sure to quote the OT, all the verses in the 4 Gospels that Jesus talked about following the Law, as well as all the passages in 1 John that emphasize the same doctrine.

After having this long debate, I begin to see two main groups who disagree with mid Acts dispensationalism.

One group is one that believed that it has always been by grace thru faith in Christ, apart from works ever since the fall of Adam. This is the covenant theology doctrine. For example, they believe that, even during the 4 gospels, believing in Jesus alone is sufficient for salvation.

To back up this doctrine, they simply quote verses that "seem" to imply that belief in Jesus is all that is required, for example the ever popular John 3:16, and ignore all other verses when Jesus talked about following the Law of Moses, or simply interpret all those passages in the light of Pauline doctrine,

Another group is like you, one who insist that everyone must try their best to keep the Law, along with belief in Jesus.

To back up this doctrine you would make sure to quote the OT, all the verses in the 4 Gospels that Jesus talked about following the Law, as well as all the passages in 1 John that emphasize the same doctrine.

When you are teaching someone you begin with what they know and start from there. It might look like two messages, but that is because the starting position is different. Jews and Gentiles are very different in this regard, but whoever you are talking to, the message will always converge on Jesus, and when you get there it will be the same message.

I don't see any contradiction between Peter and Paul.

I see Paul explaining a lot more things in a lot more detail because Paul understood more about the law. And because he understood more about the law he understood more about Grace.

Peter was a fisherman trying to explain to experts in Judaism who Christ is. He wasn't ready to get into theological debates about whether the law of moses was over, especially considering what that would have done financially and emotionally to all the Jews who believed.

But God helped him to see the bigger picture.


Its pretty interesting that Peter is the spokesman to the Jews and Paul is the spokesman to the Gentiles. Only God would have chosen to do it that way. Anybody else would have obviously used Paul to explain to the Jews and Peter to the Gentiles.

And then Paul would have been killed instantly.

When you are teaching someone you begin with what they know and start from there. It might look like two messages, but that is because the starting position is different. Jews and Gentiles are very different in this regard, but whoever you are talking to, the message will always converge on Jesus, and when you get there it will be the same message.

You mean you believe that Peter already knew in acts 2 that the law of Moses was no longer required for the Jews?

No.

I mean Peter was not skilled enough in Scripture, in the law of Moses, to make that determination.

It wasn't until God revealed to him what He revealed in Acts 10 that it became clear to him.


But what Peter did know, is that Salvation is in Christ and in no other. Which does not contradict anything Paul says.

As I have already stated, he was talking to Jews only. Obedience to the law was already assumed.

No one including Jesus, told him anything about being dead to the law. It has nothing to do with how skilled he is

I disagree with your last sentence.

He said that Salvation is ONLY in Christ in Acts 4. If he was skilled enough to understand what that meant and what the impact would be, he would have known, as Paul did, that he would have to be dead to the law so he could be alive to Christ.

By Acts 15 he was ready to start making statements like that. Because of what God showed him in Acts 10.

He didn't realize he already pretty much said it in Acts 4.

Okay if you insist that Peter already knew earlier, I rest my case

You are the one, actually, that showed me that Peter didn't have it all nailed down to begin with.

You called it a progressive revelation, I think.

Which, for Peter, that was a correct term, I think.


For Paul, because of his knowledge of scripture and law, he seems to have his theology all squared away. He doesn't back down from something he said previously. He, more or less, describes the same things over and over in different ways.

You are making an irrelevant point since both are about Jesus.

One requires keeping of the Law, and the other, you are dead to the Law. If you want to insist its still the same message, so be it.

So in the end, you do agree with me. Alright then