Gospel Confusion...

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Galatians 1:11–12 (KJV)
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ
How Do These Two Verses Prove Two Different Gospels?
Galatians 1:11–12 is Paul’s declaration that the message he preached was not the same as any message previously given in Scripture—including Jesus’ earthly preaching and the gospel preached by the Twelve concerning the Kingdom soon to come because it was at hand.

Paul clearly stated “the gospel which was preached of me
This clearly distinguishes his gospel from every other gospel source. If there were only one gospel in the Bible, Paul would never need to speak of “the gospel preached by me.” He would simply say “the gospel.” This phrase alone implies a unique, identifiable message entrusted to him.

Paul’s gospel did NOT come from any human teacher:
“not after man”
“neither received it of man”
This eliminates:
  • the Twelve apostles
  • the Jerusalem church
  • Jesus’ earthly ministry (because that was “of man” in the sense of earthly witnesses)
Paul is saying:
“No man on earth taught me what I’m preaching—not Peter, not James, not John, not anyone.” That means Paul’s gospel cannot be merely a continuation of the gospel taught by Christ in His earthly ministry or by the apostles before Paul’s conversion.

Paul received his gospel ONLY “by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

This makes Paul’s message:
  • directly revealed from the ascended Christ
  • new in content
  • not previously known (compare Gal. 1:23; Eph. 3:1–9)
Jesus did not reveal this gospel during His earthly ministry; He revealed it after His ascension, specifically and exclusively to Paul. This proves Paul is preaching something that had to be revealed, something hidden until then. A gospel that must be revealed later cannot be the same as the gospel already preached in Matthew–John.

Since I was accused of my earlier post typed on the fly, I figured I may as well get something from CHATGPT since perhaps THAT will speak to the younger folks of today.

MM
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inquisitor
Galatians 1:11–12 (KJV)
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.​
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ
How Do These Two Verses Prove Two Different Gospels?
Galatians 1:11–12 is Paul’s declaration that the message he preached was not the same as any message previously given in Scripture—including Jesus’ earthly preaching and the gospel preached by the Twelve concerning the Kingdom soon to come because it was at hand.

Paul clearly stated “the gospel which was preached of me
This clearly distinguishes his gospel from every other gospel source. If there were only one gospel in the Bible, Paul would never need to speak of “the gospel preached by me.” He would simply say “the gospel.” This phrase alone implies a unique, identifiable message entrusted to him.

Paul’s gospel did NOT come from any human teacher:
“not after man”
“neither received it of man”
This eliminates:
  • the Twelve apostles
  • the Jerusalem church
  • Jesus’ earthly ministry (because that was “of man” in the sense of earthly witnesses)
Paul is saying:
“No man on earth taught me what I’m preaching—not Peter, not James, not John, not anyone.” That means Paul’s gospel cannot be merely a continuation of the gospel taught by Christ in His earthly ministry or by the apostles before Paul’s conversion.

Paul received his gospel ONLY “by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

This makes Paul’s message:
  • directly revealed from the ascended Christ
  • new in content
  • not previously known (compare Gal. 1:23; Eph. 3:1–9)
Jesus did not reveal this gospel during His earthly ministry; He revealed it after His ascension, specifically and exclusively to Paul. This proves Paul is preaching something that had to be revealed, something hidden until then. A gospel that must be revealed later cannot be the same as the gospel already preached in Matthew–John.

Since I was accused of my earlier post typed on the fly, I figured I may as well get something from CHATGPT since perhaps THAT will speak to the younger folks of today.

MM

No chapgpt please. We can discuss it based on the bible. Who's accussing you of what?

And what's your questions please? Is to help me to better understand where you're coming from.
 
So what are the two gospels?

The Gospel of the Kingdom
Preached by:
  • John the Baptist
  • Jesus in His earthly ministry
  • The Twelve apostles before Paul
It proclaimed:
  • The King is here
  • The Kingdom promised to Israel is at hand
  • Israel must repent, believe in Jesus as Messiah, and be baptized
  • The Kingdom would come to earth (Matt. 4:17, 10:5–7) with some standing within earshot of Jesus told by the Lord Himself that some of them would see ALL those things prophesied by the Lord scheduled to come about within their lifetimes...but that did not happen...
This gospel was Israel-centered, prophecy-based, and earthly in scope.

The Gospel of the Grace of God (Paul’s gospel)
Revealed only to Paul first:
  • salvation by grace through faith alone
  • the cross as the full payment for sin
  • no works, no baptism requirement
  • Jew and Gentile placed into one new man and the Body of Christ
  • a heavenly calling
    (1 Cor. 15:1–4; Rom. 2–5; Eph. 3:1–9)
This gospel was not foretold in prophecy.
It was a mystery, hidden until revealed to Paul first.

Galatians 1:11–12 proves two gospels because:
  1. Paul’s gospel was unique (“the gospel preached by me (not, "me and the other twelve)”).
  2. Paul did not receive it from any earthly source, including the apostles.
  3. Paul received it directly from the risen Christ, meaning it was a new revelation.
  4. You cannot have a "new gospel" unless an earlier gospel existed.
Thus the Bible contains:
  • The prophetic, kingdom gospel to Israel, committed to the Twelve.
  • The mystery, grace gospel to the Body of Christ, committed to Paul.
MM
 
No chapgpt please. We can discuss it based on the bible. Who's accussing you of what?

And what's your questions please? Is to help me to better understand where you're coming from.

Good question. How about the verses in question in the above posts, which is Galatians 1: 11-12.

1) Paul persecuted believing Jews across Israel on the basis of what he had learned from other men concerning the gospel preached by Peter and the other ten (in Acts 2).

2) The gospel preached to Paul that was revealed to Paul ONLY by Christ directly, that could not be the same as that preached by Jesus or the twelve throughout the four gospels.

The contention put forth by some is that there's only one gospel all throughout, even though one required water baptism and the other did not.

Does that answer your question?

MM
 
  • Like
Reactions: tourist
Good question. How about the verses in question in the above posts, which is Galatians 1: 11-12.

1) Paul persecuted believing Jews across Israel on the basis of what he had learned from other men concerning the gospel preached by Peter and the other ten (in Acts 2).

You must determine the time period, in Acts 2, Paul already a born again. There's no prosecution against Christian. Correct me if I'm wrong.

His prosecution against Christian is before from the road to Damascus. He was blinded the light from heaven during his road to Damascus. There he met Jesus personally the first time. His second meeting with Jesus is in the Arabia desert 🏜, there he received the revelation from Jesus personally for 3 years. All Apostles so to speak received 3 years of training from Jesus.

You're in the wrong footing my friend.


2) The gospel preached to Paul that was revealed to Paul ONLY by Christ directly, that could not be the same as that preached by Jesus or the twelve throughout the four gospels.

The contention put forth by some is that there's only one gospel all throughout, even though one required water baptism and the other did not.

Does that answer your question?

MM
 
Churchianity's deadness can be blamed upon, to a great degree, the loss of the life-giving power of the gospel Paul preached and the failure to walk in the identity and calling of the Body of Christ.

Here are some helpful, biblical reasons why churchianity seems so dead to many, especially through the portal of Paul's teaching in his epistles.

Churchianity Preaches a Mixed or Confused Gospel

Paul warned against adding law to grace because of such a mixture tending toward the killing of spiritual life. Some people experience warm feelings after attending one of those things that confuses many by blurring the lines of distinction between the gospels, thus failing to rightly divide the word of truth, but its a false warm fuzzy because of the failure of their false teaching pastors in establishing the distinctions between biblical truths, some of which apply to us and many that do not, all while helping them feel good about falsehoods that some propagate with gusto in conversations in person and in forums like this.
  • “Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:3)
  • “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” (Gal. 5:9)

A church that erroneously preaches:
  • Grace plus works,
  • Faith plus performance,
  • The Kingdom gospel mixed with Paul’s gospel,

…will always remain lifeless, because law and/or works of personal effort for salvation and an alleged retention of salvation produces bondage, not life. That is a ditch filled with the sewage of indifference and apathy for any desire to seek out the truth. The powers and principalities of the air are more than happy to assist professing believers remain in that ditch of sewage-based doctrines of men and tradition.

Institutionalized Churchianity, in General, Ignores and Even Denies Paul’s Distinct Apostleship

Paul said:
  • “I magnify mine office.” (Rom. 11:13)
  • “In me first… He might show forth all longsuffering for a pattern.” (1 Tim. 1:16)

Most of churchianity, on the other hand:
  • Preach the red letters addressed to Israel while ignoring the revelations Christ gave from heaven to Paul for the identity and edifying of the body of Christ.
  • Teach the Sermon on the Mount (kingdom law) instead of Romans–Philemon (Body truth).
  • Mix Israel’s earthly promises with the Body’s heavenly calling and destination everlasting.

Spiritual confusion leads to spiritual death in the pews and chairs that fill so many alleged "sanctuaries." They're mostly sanctuaries against TRUE fellowship, with the people relegated to pretending they're experiencing true fellowship, but only with the backs of each other's heads. This arrangement fosters separation and isolation away from truly experiencing mutual edification that, in many institutions of churchianity, has been supplemented with the band-aid "home groups" programs, the vast majority of which still fail to immerse themselves into biblical fellowship because of the people not being trained up in what that level of fellowship really entails. Instead, they generally plunge downward into the lower regions of "Bible study" they can and should do at any time on their own and/or social clubs with each individual still being as distant from one another as if they were a million miles away from each other.

There's Therefore No Clear Gospel in the Midst of the Mixture

A church that cannot clearly answer the question:

“What must I do to be saved?”

…cannot produce spiritual life.

The only gospel that saves today is:

Christ died for our sins,
was buried,
and rose again.

(1 Cor. 15:1–4)

...not by including water baptism as was preached by Peter in Acts 2.

Most churches:
  • Preach “give your life to Jesus,”
  • “Make Him Lord,”
  • “Turn from all your sins,”

…none of which is the gospel of grace and is somewhat doctrines of demons because nobody can MAKE Christ Lord given that He is Lord over all and always has been and will be, which includes ALL of humanity. The idea an individual can possess any measure of righteous virtue worthy of the Lord's attention and consideration as an addition to the sufficiency in the shed Blood of Christ, that's nothing but fleshly pride, which the Lord hates.

Nobody can retain their salvation by grace because they cannot earn their salvation by grace, which is defined as "unmerited favor." Why so many people completely miss the ramifications of those terms can only be rooted in the blinding by the enemy of our souls those who willingly give themselves over to that lie.

A foggy gospel, therefore, produces a foggy churchianity that preaches "another gospel," which is not a gospel; for the Law cannot give life today given we are saved ONLY by grace through faith alone.

Entertainment Has Replaced Edification

Much of Churchianity today often majors in:
  • Light shows
  • Emotional music
  • Motivational speeches
  • Social programs

…all the while minoring in:
  • Doctrine
  • Scripture
  • Rightly dividing
  • Sound preaching

Paul warned of this:

“They will not endure sound doctrine…
and shall be turned unto fables.”

(2 Tim. 4:3–4)

Churchianity Has Abandoned the Authority of Scripture

Much of churchianity is driven by:
  • public opinion
  • cultural pressures
  • marketing
  • psychology

…instead of biblical-based Scripture.

Without the Bible, there is no life, because the Book is where Christ’s life flows.

Churchianity Suppresses the Power of the Cross

The cross cannot help but to:
  • humble human pride,
  • expose our inabilities,
  • give all glory to Christ.

Churchianity preaches:
  • self-help
  • self-improvement
  • self-esteem

Paul said:

“The preaching of the cross… is the power of God.”
(1 Cor. 1:18)

When the cross is silenced, which characterizes much of churchianity, the power is gone.

Holy Spirit Only Works Through Truth

Holy Spirit doesn't empower:
  • false doctrine
  • mixed doctrine
  • watered-down doctrine

Holy Spirit empowers truth rightly divided.

The Spirit’s sword is the Word of truth (Eph. 6:17).
If the Word is neglected, the Spirit is quenched.

Churchianity is Focused on Programs, Not People

Activity ≠ spiritual life.

Many churches are busy while remaining barren. Emotional, warm fuzzies about being a part of something bigger than self, that fosters a false sense of well-being in relation to the One who alone is the Giver of all life and spiritual vitality. Spirituality is not a felling, it's a state of being.

Paul never built programs; he built saints through doctrine, teaching, correction, and edification...never through entertainment and inclusions of worldly humor and rudiments of culture and secular scholasticism.

Churchianity, being full of programs, is generally empty of edification and will therefore always remain mostly dead apart from the few spirit-filled souls within them who move about in dutiful, although misguided, loyalties to what they think is something the Lord built and endorsed.

Churchianity Has Abandoned Heavenly Identity

When the Body of Christ tries to live as Israel because of some false sense of even having replaced Israel, those who dabble in that end up trying to:
  • keep a selective set of Israel’s laws,
  • claim Israel’s promises for themselves,
  • hire false teaching pastors who preach Israel’s gospel,
  • pursue Israel’s kingdom that is not at all meant for the body of Christ,

…churchianity therefore loses its identity and purpose, thus failing to align with the Bible it claims to preach.

Churchianity without identity with the Truth is churchianity without vitality.

People Aren’t Being Trained for Ministry Within Churchianity by Their Hirelings

Paul taught that every believer is a minister:

“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry.” (Eph. 4:12)

Instead, churchianity trains people to be:
  • spectators,
  • dependents,
  • supporters of the career staff, their real estate with office space, lawn care, token outreaches and missionary support,
  • customers who pay their dues as they would the Lion's Club or Moose Lodge.

Because the saints aren't growing as they should, churchianity becomes characteristically stale.

In Short, Churchianity is Dead Because it Has Abandoned Paul’s Pattern

When the body of Christ ignores:
  • Paul’s gospel,
  • Paul’s doctrine,
  • Paul’s pattern,
  • Paul’s revelation,

…it disconnects itself from the very source of spiritual life for this dispensation...a word that many Evangelicals and religionists alike hate with a passion, even though it's used in the Bible FOUR times contextually consistent with differing gospels.

MM
 
Me_Clay said:

You must determine the time period, in Acts 2, Paul already a born again. There's no prosecution against Christian. Correct me if I'm wrong.

His prosecution against Christian is before from the road to Damascus. He was blinded the light from heaven during his road to Damascus. There he met Jesus personally the first time. His second meeting with Jesus is in the Arabia desert 🏜, there he received the revelation from Jesus personally for 3 years. All Apostles so to speak received 3 years of training from Jesus.

You're in the wrong footing my friend.

=============================================

You combined your comments into a quote of my post, making it look like I'm the author of what you wrote, so I had to quote your statements apart from mine.

You missed the point. Paul was well aware of the Kingdom Gospel preached by the twelve, and that awareness was derived from what he heard from other men. Read Galatians 1:11-12 more carefully. Paul wasn't persecuting the Jewish believers on the basis of a false report. The scriptures give us no reason to believe that. He heard from other mortal men the Kingdom Gospel that was being spread among the Messianic Jews and he was set upon putting a stop to it. I agree with you that he did that before his conversion on the road to Damascus. That is part of the point in my observation, with my pointing at the ultimate point of differences in the gospels.

Paul's gospel was not, therefore, based upon what he knew the twelve were preaching to Israel because what Paul preached was not given to him by any man, as Galatians 1: 11-12 clearly stated to us. What Paul preached was revealed directly to him from Christ, which clearly differentiates it from what was preached by the twelve, and was so powerful that:

1 Corinthians 2:7-8
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.

Satan had Gentiles in his back pocket, so to speak. They were his before the Gospel of Grace came into being. This, therefore, contributes to the fact that Paul preached a unique Gospel that, although still was rooted into the foundation of the shed Blood of Christ for sin, it still was unique in that it did away with any requirement for self effort AND included Gentiles partaking without having to join with Israel for salvation and sharing in the promises and blessings given to Abraham:

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

This became possible because of this:

Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Given that salvation therefore CAME unto the Gentiles clearly reinforces for us the understanding that they did not, in times past, have it available to them apart from joining with Israel as the portal through which the Lord had chosen as the nation of His priests before the middle wall of partition came down with the fall of Israel.

So, no, Paul's gospel to the Gentiles was not the Kingdom Gospel of the twelve. They were not one and the same in every respect and in their inclusions.

MM
 
The pathetic question that I've been asked by a couple of people, asking why I follow ONLY Paul, that begs the question.

How can anyone follow ALL that is taught within scripture?

We can't.

Nobody can.

Consider when Jesus told the healed leper to go and offer up the offering at the temple commanded by Moses, showing himself to the chief priest, we can't follow that command from the Mosaic Law, and yet some will claim we must follow differing gospels. That absolutely is indefensible and contrary to rational and doctrinal continuity with the Bible they all claim to believe. Parroting what "pastor" taught without comparing their "pastor's" false teachings against scripture, that's a failure in one's duty to take proper responsibility for what they claim to believe.

Even the twelve were zealous for the Law, as is stated in scripture.

MM
 
James 5:14-15
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The single gospel gang has a problem here. This clearly is not operable today. Those who think it is, prove it! I'd really like to see it.

The singular gospel claim rests upon a foundation of consistency, even though Paul's Gospel of Grace isn't exactly the same as that preached by the twelve as if evidenced in the texts of scripture...but there are those who believe otherwise, contrary to the evidence.

So, why aren't the singular gospel gang practicing this part of James' teaching? Some will thrown out the convenient claim that the Lord doesn't operate that way. That is throwing consistency out the window they claim is still ongoing today...those things spoken to Israel and Israel alone, not Gentiles.

So, if the Kingdom Gospel is the same as that preached by Paul, then why didn't Paul preach the anointing with oil for healing. James said not one word about that phenomenon disappearing over time that some will claim in order to try and force a level of continuity between and upon the two gospels that doesn't exist, pretending they're one and the same.

MM
 
I’ll add to your challenge for those claiming only one gospel. Compare the following and answer the question, has the end of the world come? Why not?

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

vs

Colossians 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world;
and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Regardless of what may be misleading or confusing in all of these scriptures you posted about one or two Gospels the fact is there is only one gospel explained in the text of the Bible nowhere do we find a second explanation I would therefore conclude that since it is somewhat relative with God , heaven, a kingdom, Paul's "my" gospel that the wording was simply a matter of choice for the author and not intending to suggest a second gospel


And just so everybody's on the same page my understanding of the Gospel is Jesus died and was resurrected for our sins to open heaven to us
 
  • Like
Reactions: TruthDefender
James 5:14-15
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The single gospel gang has a problem here. This clearly is not operable today. Those who think it is, prove it! I'd really like to see it.

The singular gospel claim rests upon a foundation of consistency, even though Paul's Gospel of Grace isn't exactly the same as that preached by the twelve as if evidenced in the texts of scripture...but there are those who believe otherwise, contrary to the evidence.

So, why aren't the singular gospel gang practicing this part of James' teaching? Some will thrown out the convenient claim that the Lord doesn't operate that way. That is throwing consistency out the window they claim is still ongoing today...those things spoken to Israel and Israel alone, not Gentiles.

So, if the Kingdom Gospel is the same as that preached by Paul, then why didn't Paul preach the anointing with oil for healing. James said not one word about that phenomenon disappearing over time that some will claim in order to try and force a level of continuity between and upon the two gospels that doesn't exist, pretending they're one and the same.

MM
I believe it was James who stated that Paul's writings were scripture and the scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit it is all the same gospel so my belief would be if you actually see two different modus operanda by what is being preached you must have missed something

I don't know you well enough to know if the point of the question is to discredit Paul or not but a lot of people have tried to use this type of thing to do just that and to downplay Paul largely people who believe that they should be under the Mosaic law still because Paul stands strongly in the way of that form of theology
 
James 5:14-15
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The single gospel gang has a problem here. This clearly is not operable today. Those who think it is, prove it! I'd really like to see it.

The singular gospel claim rests upon a foundation of consistency, even though Paul's Gospel of Grace isn't exactly the same as that preached by the twelve as if evidenced in the texts of scripture...but there are those who believe otherwise, contrary to the evidence.

So, why aren't the singular gospel gang practicing this part of James' teaching? Some will thrown out the convenient claim that the Lord doesn't operate that way. That is throwing consistency out the window they claim is still ongoing today...those things spoken to Israel and Israel alone, not Gentiles.

So, if the Kingdom Gospel is the same as that preached by Paul, then why didn't Paul preach the anointing with oil for healing. James said not one word about that phenomenon disappearing over time that some will claim in order to try and force a level of continuity between and upon the two gospels that doesn't exist, pretending they're one and the same.

MM
I know what people healed after the elders laid hands-on them announting then with oil. Baptism Pentacoasals do this. I believe there are even lutherans to do that as well and probably Anglicans?

Do elders in 2 gospel churches not pray the prayer of faith?

I would imagine believing that some of the epistles in the New Testament don't apply to them could hinder their faith.
 
The pathetic question that I've been asked by a couple of people, asking why I follow ONLY Paul, that begs the question.

How can anyone follow ALL that is taught within scripture?

We can't.

Nobody can.

Consider when Jesus told the healed leper to go and offer up the offering at the temple commanded by Moses, showing himself to the chief priest, we can't follow that command from the Mosaic Law, and yet some will claim we must follow differing gospels. That absolutely is indefensible and contrary to rational and doctrinal continuity with the Bible they all claim to believe. Parroting what "pastor" taught without comparing their "pastor's" false teachings against scripture, that's a failure in one's duty to take proper responsibility for what they claim to believe.

Even the twelve were zealous for the Law, as is stated in scripture.

MM
I agree with what you wrote.

There is no doubt that Paul wrote the doctrine of the church.

Paul clearly stated the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

Paul most strongly emphasized the power of the Holy Spirit.

The fruit, gifts, and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Your up against 2,000 years of theologian's opinions and you lose.
 
James 5:14-15
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The single gospel gang has a problem here. This clearly is not operable today. Those who think it is, prove it! I'd really like to see it.

The singular gospel claim rests upon a foundation of consistency, even though Paul's Gospel of Grace isn't exactly the same as that preached by the twelve as if evidenced in the texts of scripture...but there are those who believe otherwise, contrary to the evidence.

So, why aren't the singular gospel gang practicing this part of James' teaching? Some will thrown out the convenient claim that the Lord doesn't operate that way. That is throwing consistency out the window they claim is still ongoing today...those things spoken to Israel and Israel alone, not Gentiles.

So, if the Kingdom Gospel is the same as that preached by Paul, then why didn't Paul preach the anointing with oil for healing. James said not one word about that phenomenon disappearing over time that some will claim in order to try and force a level of continuity between and upon the two gospels that doesn't exist, pretending they're one and the same.

MM
Our small fellowship does anoint with oil. We pray for the sick. And often, people are healed. I've been healed several times, including from a potentially fatal bout of pancreatitis. Even one of the treating doctors was amazed. She told me that my wife's prayer for healing was answered to the letter.

Some people believe healing is possible and some do not.

Paul did not mention healing. He did say why some get sick and die. I don't know that it means anything other than it was not a subject that came up. Paul was in effect raised from the dead after being stoned. Peter quoted Isaiah, "By His stripes you were healed".

Healing is a difficult issue. There are reasons why people get sick and why some are healed and some are not. It's fundamentally a spiritual issue.

The gospel is fundamentally the gospel of the Kingdom of God. Lord Jesus told us what is in Luke 4:18. He also demonstrated kingdom power throughout His ministry. Paul preached God's kingdom. So did Peter.
 
I believe it was James who stated that Paul's writings were scripture and the scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit it is all the same gospel so my belief would be if you actually see two different modus operanda by what is being preached you must have missed something

I don't know you well enough to know if the point of the question is to discredit Paul or not but a lot of people have tried to use this type of thing to do just that and to downplay Paul largely people who believe that they should be under the Mosaic law still because Paul stands strongly in the way of that form of theology

I don't think I missed anything given the differences:

Acts 2:38
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.

1 Corinthians 15:2-4
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

If you will, notice what's missing: Paul, under the Gospel of Grace after the fall of Israel, said nothing here, nor in any of his other epistles, about the necessity for water baptism for the remission of sins. This major difference speaks loud volumes, does it not, to a difference in the gospels?

So, cessationism, in and of itself, fails to account for this allegedly having ceased as if the Church no longer had need of them, other than to say that the Lord chose a different direction with the fall of Israel as the portal through which Gentiles had to enter for salvation:

Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Do you these things?

The twelve, who ministered to Israel, gave these commands with the ensuing promises for the stated outcomes and yet none of this is practiced as a matter of routine today nor historically among professing believers...excluding the Charismatics and their claims that are contrary to any real evidence, especially given that they still have to learn the languages of the other nations and people where they evangelize.

Additionally, I too was once of the opinion Paul was guilty for the sin of omission to not mention the necessity for water baptism for the remission of sins in his gospel message. Holy Spirit, however, dealt with me on that front after I delved deeper into his mission and the Gospel under which he operated. Many in here believe what I once believed as an indictment against Paul, but that philosophy simply fails the acid test of truth and consistency, even when I claimed Paul was merely summarizing. The claim of summarization fails in the arena of integrity for him to have left out such a crucial element of the Gospel of Grace given to him by Christ.

What are your thoughts on all the above?

MM
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillG
I know what people healed after the elders laid hands-on them announting then with oil. Baptism Pentacoasals do this. I believe there are even lutherans to do that as well and probably Anglicans?

Do elders in 2 gospel churches not pray the prayer of faith?

I would imagine believing that some of the epistles in the New Testament don't apply to them could hinder their faith.

Are you saying that happens all the time? Those verses I quoted leave no room for doubt that those things should happen all the time they are applied.

If you would, please explain why those same Charismatics and those from the other religions who can allegedly still operate upon those things stated in Mark, why do they ALL still have to go to learn the languages of other nations to evangelize them?

MM
 
I agree with what you wrote.

There is no doubt that Paul wrote the doctrine of the church.

Paul clearly stated the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

Paul most strongly emphasized the power of the Holy Spirit.

The fruit, gifts, and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Your up against 2,000 years of theologian's opinions and you lose.

Opinion is indeed a powerful force, even among those who have all manner of letters attached to their names from Bible Cemeteries andtheological universities.

So, I remain waiting to see the evidence of those commands and promised outcomes stated to the twelve under the Kingdom Gospel.

MM
 
Our small fellowship does anoint with oil. We pray for the sick. And often, people are healed. I've been healed several times, including from a potentially fatal bout of pancreatitis. Even one of the treating doctors was amazed. She told me that my wife's prayer for healing was answered to the letter.

Some people believe healing is possible and some do not.

Paul did not mention healing. He did say why some get sick and die. I don't know that it means anything other than it was not a subject that came up. Paul was in effect raised from the dead after being stoned. Peter quoted Isaiah, "By His stripes you were healed".

Healing is a difficult issue. There are reasons why people get sick and why some are healed and some are not. It's fundamentally a spiritual issue.

The gospel is fundamentally the gospel of the Kingdom of God. Lord Jesus told us what is in Luke 4:18. He also demonstrated kingdom power throughout His ministry. Paul preached God's kingdom. So did Peter.
FYI:
Paul didn’t die, only the stoners thought he was dead when they dragged him out of the city.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb