Conclusion to my post on other thread

[Ronda]

19 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

2.  Are you also prepared to acknowledge that the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is directly contradictory to the doctrinal truth that "salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is the gospel, THE ONE AND THE ONLY gospel"?

3.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that since the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is directly contradictory to the doctrinal truth that there is ONE and ONLY ONE gospel, then the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is a faulty claim?

4.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that since YOU YOURSELF made the faulty claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels," then you did indeed "mess" with the doctrine of the gospel that there is ONE and ONLY ONE gospel specifically by making that faulty claim concerning "TWO SEPARATE gospels"?

Sounds very legalistic to me? Before you light the fire under the stake... may I state what the Bible states (if that's permissible to acknowledge)? 

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;"

That wasn't MY wording, that was the Bible's wording. 

[Alimantado]

2 hours ago, Ronda said:

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;

Those were the "words" to which I was referring.."Alimantado".  And THE gospel IS grace (for this dispensation). Paul does NOT add works to it. And each person is going to have to come to their own conclusion (hopefully by being prayerfully led by the Holy Spirit in their studies and taking God's word literally and reverently) as to whether or not others (other than Paul) were adding works to the gospel of grace. I contended they were, and brought out many examples. Just one of which was: Galations 2: 14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"  Was that Paul teaching them to follow OT "rules"? No, it was Peter, and in fact, Paul was "calling him out" on it.

My point, Ronda, is that sometimes you have claimed that by adding things to grace, Peter (and others) by definition taught a different Gospel, and other times you have claimed that actually they were teaching the same gospel. Both claims can't be true at once.

You've just said that Peter added works to the gospel of grace. To clarify your beliefs for my sake, I wonder whether you'd be willing to answer the following questions very clearly and very simply:

1. Do you believe that at some point in man's history, it has been necessary for some people to be baptised in water in order to be saved?

2. Do you believe that by adding works to the gospel of grace, the complete message that Peter taught was a different gospel to the gospel that Paul was teaching?

Like I said before, it's right to bring forth scriptures and point out what we think they say, but I believe we should also be able to go from there to state in our own simple terms what our beliefs are, like a church's statement of faith.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 9:21 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 10:52 PM, Ronda said:

SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST is the GOSPEL, the ONE and the ONLY GOSPEL.

So then, Sister Ronda,

1.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that in YOUR OWN original article YOU YOURSELF said the following:

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 9:51 PM, Ronda said:

Obviously, these are not the same message. Peter told people to repent and then get water baptized, so they could receive forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit.  Yet, Paul simply taught that salvation comes by “believing on"  the Lord Jesus Christ, without preaching water baptism or repentance.

I believe all of the Bible should be taken literally as far as we can.  If words mean anything (and I revere the words of the Bible as being God's Word), Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels.

(emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

2.  Are you also prepared to acknowledge that the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is directly contradictory to the doctrinal truth that "salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is the gospel, THE ONE AND THE ONLY gospel"?

3.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that since the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is directly contradictory to the doctrinal truth that there is ONE and ONLY ONE gospel, then the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is a faulty claim?

4.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that since YOU YOURSELF made the faulty claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels," then you did indeed "mess" with the doctrine of the gospel that there is ONE and ONLY ONE gospel specifically by making that faulty claim concerning "TWO SEPARATE gospels"?

8 hours ago, Ronda said:

Sounds very legalistic to me?

Hmmmm.  Yes, you are correct.  When it comes to the doctrine of the gospel, I definitely tend to engage in "legalistic," "jot and tittle" precision.  I do this because I believe that the doctrine of the gospel it is so very, very important that is worthy of "rightly dividing" through "legalistic," "jot and tittle" precision.  However, maybe you yourself do NOT believe that the doctrine of the gospel is important enough for such a "legalistic," "jot and tittle" precision.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Actually, what I am trying to do is help you to acknowledge the direct contradiction that you have presented in your own position of belief concerning the gospel, as is revealed in the following two statements that you yourself have made:

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 9:51 PM, Ronda said:

If words mean anything (and I revere the words of the Bible as being God's Word), Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 10:52 PM, Ronda said:

SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST is the GOSPEL, the ONE and the ONLY GOSPEL. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

You see, the claim that there were "TWO separate gospels" and the claim that there was "the ONE and the ONLY gospel" are directly contradictory claims.  Yet you have claimed both of these statements as a part of your own position of belief concerning the doctrine of the gospel.  So then, which is it -- Do you believe in "TWO separate gospels," or do you believe in ONE and ONLY ONE gospel?

Edited January 9, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 hours ago, Ronda said:

Before you light the fire under the stake... may I state what the Bible states (if that's permissible to acknowledge)? 

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;"

That wasn't MY wording, that was the Bible's wording. 

Indeed, the statement of Galatians 2:7 is the most foundational passage for you to support your "two separate gospels" position.  However, since you honor the very words of Scripture so highly, I wonder if you are willing to consider the Holy Spirit inspired explanation for the statement of Galatians 2:7, that God the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to include in Galatians 2:8, and that grammatically is actually a part of the very same sentence as Galatians 2:7?

Edited January 9, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[No Nicolaitans]

8 hours ago, Ronda said:

²⁰ Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

²¹ The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I respectfully see your reasoning, brother "NN". However, I believe he (Peter) likens it to Noah (wherein 8 souls were saved by water) as to his  (Peter's) own version of being saved (in part) by water (water baptism). I believe that's why he brought forth the comparison. Had it just been that one chapter... I may have considered that Peter was saying otherwise, but taken with the other (of his -Peter's) statements (some of which I brought out), and the fact that Paul admonished him for compelling the "Gentiles to live as do the Jews", I conclude that Peter was adding water baptism as a contingency of salvation.  I also understand (now) that I am in the minority here, but be that as it may, I can't "unsee" what I "see". So I respectfully disagree.

I also (now) understand your own hesitancy in bringing forth the topic, as I now think I should have just kept my study to myself, even though it has made an amazing difference in my life... and which is why I truly wanted to share it... but since I haven't been here even a year yet (on OB),  I don't know what has/hasn't been covered previously in total.  Thank you for the amiable discourse, even though we disagree.

I certainly appreciate your attitude towards me despite our differences. Thank you

9 hours ago, Ronda said:

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;

Those were the "words" to which I was referring.."Alimantado".  And THE gospel IS grace (for this dispensation). Paul does NOT add works to it. And each person is going to have to come to their own conclusion (hopefully by being prayerfully led by the Holy Spirit in their studies and taking God's word literally and reverently) as to whether or not others (other than Paul) were adding works to the gospel of grace. I contended they were, and brought out many examples. Just one of which was: Galations 2: 14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"  Was that Paul teaching them to follow OT "rules"? No, it was Peter, and in fact, Paul was "calling him out" on it.

**Emphasis added by NN**

Sis. Ronda, Galatians 2:14 is another one of the verses that you adhere to as proof that Peter taught a different gospel (faith + works). However, this contradicts your previous belief statement; in which, it wasn't a gospel of faith + "the works of the law". You indicated that it was a gospel of faith + good works. Here, you say that Peter was teaching them to obey the Old Testament "rules" which would be faith + the works of the law rather than faith + good works.

If you read the preceding verses of Galatians 2, you will see the words "dissembled" and "dissimulation".

This means that Peter acted hypocritically. What is a hypocrite?

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

It wasn't that he was teaching "another gospel", he gave in to peer-pressure and was being a hypocrite...pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he didn't actually possess, and those actions belied Peter's his beliefs.

Was Peter wrong? YES! Was Peter teaching another gospel? NO! Peter was a hypocrite. Does that verse say that Peter was telling them to obey the law to be saved? NO...NO...NO. He was telling the Gentiles to live like Jews. Sadly, that still happens in many churches today. "If you're a Christian, you ought to do this, you shouldn't do that." Commands that often are based upon Old Testament law...and no...I'm not a hyper-grace believer...that Christians can live any way THEY choose because we live under grace. Just wanted to make that clear.

Did Paul ever do anything similar? Yes...

Acts 21:18-26
18   And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
19   And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
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.
22   What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23   Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24   Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25   As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
26   Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
 

Paul gave in to that peer-pressure...

You also mention Peter had to be told three times (in his dream) that the Gentiles were to be considered clean. It was only one vision. In the vision, the Lord never revealed the actual message behind the vision. In that one vision, the Lord repeated it three times...without revealing the actual purpose of the vision. Peter had to discover it himself. Right afterwards, he was presented with the opportunity to lead Gentiles to the Lord, and he quickly and rightly applied the meaning of the vision to that opportunity. Sounds like very intelligent reasoning by someone open to the Lord's leading rather than someone who "didn't get it".

One vision.

How many times did Paul have to receive his revelations? We don't know, but what we do know is that he spent three years in the desert receiving those revelations. Did the Lord ever have to repeat any of them during those three years? We don't know. Perhaps he did; perhaps he didn't. A lot can happen in three years though.

I think Peter should be commended for his quick and rightful interpretation of a vision; in which, the Lord didn't reveal its true meaning...rather than condemning him. Especially when we have no idea if Paul's revelations had to be repeated to him or not.

[swathdiver]

9 hours ago, Ronda said:

I haven't been reading books other than the KJV Bible

I do not leave my house for any reason other than medical necessity

I don't "follow" Ruckman or the others you mentioned
 

Well, as to your first, maybe it's the sermons you're listening to online, like Peacock.

As for the second point, I am usually in the same boat, however, I am a member in good standing with a New Testament Church of the kind that Jesus Christ built and died for during his earthly ministry.  We are supposed to be members of a local church and if Christ died for the church, don't you think it important enough to be united with one?  To be outside the Body of Christ when we're supposed to be members of a local, New Testament Church, is not of God, it is sin Ma'am.

I'll take you at your word but if you examined what they preach, what the protestants preach, there's little difference.  Kinda like a Democrat saying they aren't socialists.

Please read 2 Timothy Chapter 3 prayerfully.

[Jordan Kurecki]

^{Galatians 1:8} 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.

 

If Peter's Gospel was different than Paul's, then Peter is accursed.

[Ronda]

 

If we do revere jot and tittle precision, should we not recognize that Paul was given mysteries (Not revealed to another beforehand)?:
And that in several cases Paul admonishes us (the church age believers) to follow him and what he, himself, calls "my gospel"?
Why would he call it his "gospel" (in specific) if it was the exact same message as the others were teaching?
I don't think it's because he was an egomaniac... I think it's because he (with the Holy Spirit's guidance) is showing us the difference in that precise wording.

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,"

Romans 2:16 "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

And what was this thing Paul called "my gospel"? (And why would he feel the need to separate it from what others were preaching by claiming it as "my gospel":

Acts 20:24 "24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God."

The core of his gospel message is the SAME as the others;

1 Corinthians 15:1 "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;"
    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:"

BUT the differences are that Paul expounds on grace, continuously, and that in the message of the church age mystery given to him (which was not given previously).

Paul explaining (as he does elsewhere as well) that he is the apostle to the Gentiles, ordained by God Himself:

1 Tim 2:7 "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity"

Ephesians 3: "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,"
    2 "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:"

2 Tim 1:11 "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

Unto Paul it was given the mystery of the church, the bride of Christ:

Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself."
29 "For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:"
30 "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."
31 "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."
32 "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

Colossians 1:25 "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;"
26 "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:"
27 "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory"

The church age is this current age, the age of grace.  
Paul is the apostle to whom is appointed (by God) to preach to this dispensation.
Paul was also given the mystery of the rapture (which is also only relevant to the church age) But I won't expound since that's a different topic.

These mysteries were not revealed to ANY of the others previous, they were given to Paul for us (the church age) to follow.
So why would I (as a member of the body of Christ, during the church age) continue to follow the previous teachings of the previous apostles/disciples when I've been told to follow Paul, since he was given the information regarding this church age/age of grace?
Why would I follow the teachings of Peter, James, and Hebrews who (to me) is clearly shown they are written to a Jewish audience? 
I've given several verses which show me that the presentation of the gospel was different between Paul in comparison to the previous apostles/disciples...

20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

However, since you honor the very words of Scripture so highly, I wonder if you are willing to consider the Holy Spirit inspired explanation for the statement of Galatians 2:7, that God the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to include in Galatians 2:8, and that grammatically is actually a part of the very same sentence as Galatians 2:7?

BUT even if you (personally) believe it's the exact same message...  in bringing out Gal. 2:8... did not the Holy Spirit direct the wording to show that Peter was the apostle to the circumcision (Jews)?, or do you believe there was no difference in audience at all? 
If so, why would the jot and tittle wording be so precise as to show to whom each apostleship was given?

Galatians 2:8 "(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)"

And that also, James, Cephas, and John would go unto the circumcision (Jews)? And Paul to the heathen (Gentiles)?

Galatians 2:9 "9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

If they were going to the same people groups the message would be the same. However, since they were clearly teaching different people groups, it's clear (to me) the message was different.
If it were the same message and presentation in all aspects, then why did they decide to go to different people groups? (And more importantly, why did God choose who would go to which people group)?
Why wouldn't they have just all went to ALL people groups.. why the need for a division? (if it was the exact same message and presentation)?

I believe God inspired the Holy Spirit to put (into the same chapter only a couple verses apart) part of the answer. I believe it shows that the message was clearly different (not just that Peter was being a hypocrite):

Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
    12 "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."
    13 "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation."
    14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

The remainder of the chapter shows Paul expounding on the message of grace.

Gal. 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
    17 "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid."
    18 "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor."
    19 "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God."
    20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
    21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

19 hours ago, Oὐ Νικολαΐτης said:

This means that Peter acted hypocritically. What is a hypocrite?

In my studies... I (personally) don't think that the Holy Spirit brought this out just to show Peter was being a "hypocrite" and getting his "come-uppance" (or whatever term we could use)
I do believe (personally) that it shows a different message being presented, and an important factor (to me) is that Peter wasn't teaching the GENTILES the same way Paul was teaching the GENTILES.
Why? Because (as the first part of the chapter shows) Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles (not Peter). 
Since I am not a Jew (the first reason among many), why would I (myself) follow Peter's (and the previous others) teachings?
I also (personally) recognize that Paul was given mysteries directly pertaining to the church age and body of Christ, which scripture show had NOT been revealed to the previous (including Peter). Gal. 1:1 shows me that the gospel Paul preached was given by (direct) revelation of Jesus Christ. He states he did not receive it of man (from NO man... not Peter and the others)

20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Hmmmm.  Yes, you are correct.  When it comes to the doctrine of the gospel, I definitely tend to engage in "legalistic," "jot and tittle" precision.  I do this because I believe that the doctrine of the gospel it is so very, very important that is worthy of "rightly dividing" through "legalistic," "jot and tittle" precision.  However, maybe you yourself do NOT believe that the doctrine of the gospel is important enough for such a "legalistic," "jot and tittle" precision.

Galatians 1:11 "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."

I also (personally) recognize that the dispensation of the gospel is committed unto Paul. (THIS dispensation, the church age/age of grace) 

1 Corinthians 9:16 "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!"
    17 "For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me."

Ephesians 3:1 "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,"
    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)"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I believe the Holy Spirit, through wording of scripture , shows exactly... in jot and tittle precision... that Paul was appointed (by God) as the apostle to this dispensation, and he taught what he called "my gospel" and further defined that gospel as the gospel of grace (as shown in verses above).
And for any who haven't reached a conclusion (not just in this, but in ALL things scriptural)... I don't recommend any video or book/website/tv program, or even sermon to listen to. (How would you know if what a person is stating is true unless you know what the Bible says about it)?
Don't take my word for it, don't take mankind's word for it... search out the scriptures yourself, prayerfully asking the Lord to lead you with the Holy Spirit, without presupposition.

 

When witnessing to the unsaved, I give the gospel of grace by faith in Jesus Christ alone. I won't use any tract (or other media) which adds in any type of works to salvation (including baptism). Isn't that the most important thing we (as believers) have to do in our lifetimes? Give the gospel of grace by faith in Jesus Christ to the unsaved?

20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, which is it -- Do you believe in "TWO separate gospels," or do you believe in ONE and ONLY ONE gospel?

The ONE and only gospel (which is relevant TODAY until the pre-trib rapture of the church) is the gospel Paul taught of grace by faith in Jesus Christ. Yes, the others taught the same ONE and only gospel (in part) of grace by faith in Jesus Christ, but I believe (as I've stated a multitude of times) that others (Peter, James, et al) ADDED to the one true gospel (for this dispensation) with baptism and other works, which are not to be added to salvation as a contingency for this dispensation. (which is where we disagree) Thereby I believe Peter did teach the same core gospel (so he's not in violation of Gal. 1:8-9)  BUT he (Peter) added to it works (which should not have been done for this dispensation to the GENTILES) The Bible itself calls it a different gospel (as I've attempted to show many times as well) in Gal. 2:7-8.

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;

⁸ (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

The Bible itself calls them 2 separate things: "the gospel of the uncircumcision" committed to Paul, and "the gospel of the "circumcision" committed to Peter.  So you tell me... Were there 2 separate things being taught to each respective people group (Jews/Gentiles, circumsized/uncircumsized)? If your answer is "no", then why does the Holy Spirit call it by 2 separate names here? Why not just "the gospel"? Instead of "the gospel of" ? And also, why does (in many verses shown above) Paul call what he teaches "my gospel"? Why doesn't he just call it "the" gospel in all references? Why does the Holy Spirit make a differentiation in wording if it's all the same thing as the others teach? And why does the Bible state repeatedly that Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles?  And that Why do Paul's epistles make it so clear that he was given direct revelation by Jesus Himself if the message he teaches is the exact same as the others? Why does the Bible tell us "a dispensation of the gospel" is committed unto Paul (1 Cor. 9:17) if it's the exact same dispensation that Peter and others had been teaching? This dispensation he calls the "dispensation of grace" (Eph 3:2).  I (personally) believe God led the Holy Spirit to make these precise differentiations so we could see that they were not all teaching the exact same message (in it's entirety)  to the same people groups. I suppose we can go back and forth on this discussion for quite some time. I am not likely to change any minds. I stated before, I can't "unsee" what I "see" in the differences of the messages taught. We can argue til the cows come home. What is most important (to me) is giving the one true gospel for this dispensation to the unsaved, and that is the gospel of grace by faith in Jesus Christ.

I do appreciate the scriptural discussions here. I belong to many Bible study groups. I do like that here (on OB) there are many who DO read and DO study the Bible!!! There are far too many groups (actually the majority of them) which have many members, but few members actually participate in the discourse with scriptural reference.
Many of the groups are most concerned with worldly things, and I'll see a lot of discussion on worldly things, but far fewer discussion is made on actual Bible study discussion... (and especially on facebook groups) I see many of those who do comment are not using scripture but what they've heard or been taught to base their respective comments on. While it's fine (in my opinion) to discuss worldly issues which may directly effect Christians in their "walk" with the Lord (such as possible laws eg. abortion/gay marriage/freedom of speech, etc. and I do often comment on those as well) ..  I think it's amazing that most Bible study groups don't have much actual Bible study going on! So I very much appreciate the discourse here on OB, where actual Bible study and discussion is happening. It's clear we all have differing conclusions on differing Bible topics, but what is unique here is that the majority of discussion is directly related to Bible study, and isn't that what we all (as born again believer's in Christ) should be making a priority? Seriously... if we have time for television, sports, hobbies, exercise, and other non-vital pursuits in life... shouldn't we have time to study the actual Bible? Okay, time to get of my soap box. Hope you all have a blessed day in the Lord.
 

[Invicta]

Acts 4:8  Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, 9  If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;10  Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.11  This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 16:28  But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29  Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
 

From that we see that the message is the same belief in Christ.  Because they use different phrases, doesn't mean it is a different message. The gospel writers often describe the same event with different phrases.  And it is absolute nonsense to suggest that John didn't write to the church, the book of Revelation was written to the (gentile) churches.

[No Nicolaitans]

I think it's best that I recuse myself from here onward. 

[Alimantado]

2 hours ago, Ronda said:

When witnessing to the unsaved, I give the gospel of grace by faith in Jesus Christ alone. I won't use any tract (or other media) which adds in any type of works to salvation (including baptism). Isn't that the most important thing we (as believers) have to do in our lifetimes? Give the gospel of grace by faith in Jesus Christ to the unsaved?

Ronda, you seem to be asking this question as if to make the point that so long as we all believe that salvation is by grace through faith alone today, it's not really a big deal if we disagree on whether salvation was contingent on works in the past.

If that's the implied statement, then I think it goes back to Pastor Markle's comments earlier: if you present a belief to a group of people that is contrary to a fundamental belief that they hold, it's likely to cause controversy.

On 07/01/2016 at 3:14 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I was attempting to explain, and thereby to help you to understand, why your article very likely could not avoid stirring up controversy.  When you come among a group who hold as a foundational truth of doctrine that there is ONLY ONE gospel for all people for all time, and that the doctrine of this gospel teaches salvation by God's grace through faith alone, not of any works, and then you present a belief that there are actually TWO different gospels for two different peoples respectively, and that while the doctrine for one of those two gospels teaches salvation by God's grace through faith alone, the doctrine for the other of those two gospels teaches salvation by God's grace and human merit througHi Sarah70, I can understand why (Sarah 70) would be trepidatious about joining a bible study such as that. "Interdenominational" is a word that throws up huge red flags for me!h both faith and works, it is almost inevitable that you will stir up controversy.

Now as to whether there should be room to agree to disagree on certain doctrines on this forum, I'll hold my hand up and say I've always been in the more 'ecumenical' camp (for want of a better word) when it comes to how this forum ought to be run, as opposed to others who have always felt it should be strictly IFB-only.

Ironically, perhaps, you've been in the more IFB-only camp, Ronda (see quote below). More than once I've seen you ask folk who have been giving a different view of eschatology why they are on a IFB forum. Thing is, whatever their views on eschatology, all those people (Genevan Preacher, Covenanter etc.) could have said--like you just did--that they believed in salvation by grace through faith alone. Arguably, differences in belief about eschatology are less foundational to IFB teachings (definitely no more foundational) than the belief that salvation has always been by grace through faith alone (which you disagree with), as John81 pointed out earlier.

On 12/09/2015 at 1:47 AM, Ronda said:

I (personally) prefer to study and have study fellowship with others who believe the same things I do, that's why I joined online baptist and consider my beliefs and understanding of God's word to be most in line with independent fundamental baptists...

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 11:04 AM, Ronda said:

The ONE and only gospel (which is relevant TODAY until the pre-trib rapture of the church) is the gospel Paul taught of grace by faith in Jesus Christ. Yes, the others taught the same ONE and only gospel (in part) of grace by faith in Jesus Christ, but I believe (as I've stated a multitude of times) that others (Peter, James, et al) ADDED to the one true gospel (for this dispensation) with baptism and other works, which are not to be added to salvation as a contingency for this dispensation. (which is where we disagree) Thereby I believe Peter did teach the same core gospel (so he's not in violation of Gal. 1:8-9)  BUT he (Peter) added to it works (which should not have been done for this dispensation to the GENTILES) The Bible itself calls it a different gospel (as I've attempted to show many times as well) in Gal. 2:7-8.

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;

⁸ (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

The Bible itself calls them 2 separate things: "the gospel of the uncircumcision" committed to Paul, and "the gospel of the "circumcision" committed to Peter.

Contradictions, contradictions.  I am quite certain that God the Holy Spirit is NOT the Source for these contradictions.

First, you indicated that there is "the ONE and only gospel," which the apostle Paul taught ("of grace by faith in Jesus Christ"), and that the other apostles taught "the same One and only gospel" ("of grace by faith in Jesus Christ").  Yet then you further indicated that the other apostles "ADDED to the one true gospel . . . with baptism and other works."  This IS a Biblical contradiction.  In his teachings on the doctrine of the gospel, the apostle Paul placed great emphasis upon the truth that the gospel of grace does NOT include any human works whatsoever at all (See Romans 3:20, 28-30; 4:1-8; 9:30-33; 11:5-6; Galatians 2:15-16; 3:10-14; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:4-7).  Indeed, in Romans 11:6 the apostle Paul under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit clearly revealed that it is spiritually IMPOSSIBLE before God to mix grace and works in the same gospel, saying, "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."  Even so, if the apostle Peter or any other apostle ADDED ANY works to the gospel, then that apostle did NOT teach the SAME gospel as the apostle Paul; and then that apostle taught a gospel that was NOT at all a gospel of God's grace.

Furthermore, with the conclusion of your statement above, you proceeded to indicate that "the Bible itself" called the gospel which Peter taught "a different gospel" than the gospel which Paul taught.  Indeed, you indicated that "the Bible calls them 2 separate things."  This IS a doctrinal contradiction within your own position of doctrine.  First, you claim that they all taught "the same ONE and only gospel;" but then you claim that "the Bible itself calls them 2 separate things."  Either they were "the same ONE," or they were "2 separate things."  However, it is self-contradictory to claim that they were both.  Now, if "the Bible itself" really does call them "2 separate things," then it is a doctrinal falsehood (even for you) to claim that they were "the same ONE."

Now then, from all that you have presented throughout your postings, it appears that you really do believe that Paul and Peter taught "two separate gospels," even as you originally presented in your original article as follows:

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 9:51 PM, Ronda said:

And again I say in summary: The contention and differences are noted in the bible for a reason. If they were teaching the same message, it surely wouldn't be difficult for Peter to understand.  Peter didn't understand all of Paul's doctrine because Peter had a different doctrine and audience (Matthew 10:5-6) and Paul had a different doctrine and audience than Peter. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

We are no longer required to be baptized (by water) to receive the Holy Spirit or for salvation. The gospel NOW is (for this current dispensation of grace) are what Paul teached:  Ephesians 2:8 "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." (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Ephesians 1:7 " In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace"

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." 
 
2 Thes 2:16 "Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace"  

This is in contrast with Peter: When the Jews asked  Peter, (emboldening originally by Sister Ronda, underlining added by Pastor Scott Markle)
 
“What must we do to be saved?,” notice Peter’s answer: “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” (Acts 2:38)

However, when the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved?,” notice what Paul and Silas declared: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31). 

Obviously, these are not the same message. Peter told people to repent and then get water baptized, so they could receive forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit. 
Yet, Paul simply taught that salvation comes by “believing on"  the Lord Jesus Christ, without preaching water baptism or repentance. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

I believe all of the Bible should be taken literally as far as we can.  If words mean anything (and I revere the words of the Bible as being God's Word), Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Furthermore, it appears that you have attempted to use "one and only one" and "one and the same" language with regard the gospel that Paul and Peter taught respectively, in order to appease the controversy that you have stirred up with the majority of the membership on the forum.

_____________________________________________

Early within the discussion of this thread, I presented the following:

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 10:56 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

First, I will present my belief that you have made a number of false steps in your "rightly dividing" of God's Word as presented above.  Indeed, I believe that you have not been completely precise concerning the wording, grammar, and context of various passages and points that you have presented.

Second, with that in mind I present a question -- Are you at all willing to consider the possibility that your understanding and/or conclusions may be faulty in any fashion, so that a gracious engagement with you on the matter might be of value; or are you determined to hold unto your position "no matter what"?

I believe that the answer to my question above has now been clearly revealed, especially considering that you have remained unwilling even to acknowledge the direct contradiction in your own claim that Paul and Peter taught "the same ONE and only gospel," yet also "two separate gospels."

[Musician4God1611]

Sister Ronda,

If you are unwilling to consider being wrong, then you are putting yourself on a level above all other humans, because all humans can be wrong.

I caution you to stop and pay close attention to what has been presented, especially since a good portion of it has been presented to you by Preachers.

And remember that "there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek", and "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Remember, "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."

And most of all, remember, "I am the Lord, I change not". 

[Ronda]

5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 In his teachings on the doctrine of the gospel, the apostle Paul placed great emphasis upon the truth that the gospel of grace does NOT include any human works whatsoever at all

Amen to that statement.

5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

then that apostle taught a gospel that was NOT at all a gospel of God's grace

Here's where we disagree. They taught the gospel of GRACE, Paul being the FIRST to teach GRACE ONLY.  Peter added in the works of baptism, James added on works as well.  You continue to contend that these verses (Acts 2:38, Acts 10:45-48, 1 Pet.3:1, James 2:14, James 2:24, et al) mean something other than what they literally SAY!!! Also, Paul had to admonish Peter for what??? For teaching grace alone???? NO!!! Paul had to confront Peter about continuing to teach WORKS along with grace to the Gentiles. Or do you deny that ever happened in Gal. 2:11-14) as well???  What was Peter even doing preaching to the Gentiles? Was he not commissioned to be the bearer of "the gospel of the circumcision" (Gal. 2:7)??? Why was Peter then preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, and not only preaching to them, but preaching works to them, which is what prompted Paul to admonish him (Gal. 2:11-14).  Wasn't Paul the one commissioned to be the bearer of the "the gospel of the uncircumcision"??? (Gal. 2:7) Why then is Peter teaching a gospel (ANY gospel) to the Gentiles? Isn't that Paul's job? And why then are some churches now STILL to this day preaching Peter's words to them? Is he the apostle to which we were exhorted to follow? 

I can't count how many verses show that Paul was given (OF GOD) to be the apostle to the Gentiles, it must be IMPORTANT information to know,  since there are so many biblical references! And didn't Jesus Himself command Paul to be the "light to the Gentiles"?  Along with Barnabus he made this statement: Acts 14:46-47   46: "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."  47: "For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth."

1 Tim 1:1 "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope"

Titus 1:3 "But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour"

Galatians 1:11 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."

Romans 11:13 "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office"

1 Tim 2:7 "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

So then we see, without a doubt, that Paul was commanded of God Himself to preach the word to us... the Gentiles.

Paul tells us his words are the very commandments of the Lord!!! Did he mean that or not? I contend he surely did... either he was one gutsy guy who had no fear of God, or he was telling the truth! (I, of course, believe he was telling the truth). 1 Cor. 14:37 "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

Paul then tells us to what? Follow what the disciples/prior apostles said? NO, Follow what Peter said? NO. Does he ever include these others when he tells us to follow him? NO.  Does he say "follow me AND what the others are teaching"? NO. He tells us to follow his message, his teachings, the very teaching God himself commissioned him to teach and to the very audience God commissioned him to preach to... the Gentiles:

1 Cor. 4:16 "Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me."

Philippians 3:17 "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample."

1 Cor. 11:1 "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." 2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

 

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

AGAIN, I bring these verses up to show what the Bible clearly SAID: 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."

Acts 10:45-48 "47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"
    48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

1st Peter 3:1 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

James 2:14 "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"

James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
    12 "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."
    13 "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation."
    14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Furthermore, it appears that you have attempted to use "one and only one" and "one and the same" language with regard the gospel that Paul and Peter taught respectively, in order to appease the controversy that you have stirred up with the majority of the membership on the forum.

And YES, they (Peter/James) admitted in other of their writing the gospel of grace! BUT they then added WORKS to the grace they also taught (as the verses I keep bringing forth show).  So no, I do not say the "one and only gospel" to appease anyone... I say the one and only true gospel IS of grace. But the one and only gospel OF grace does NOT present works into the mix (as Peter and James did). So yes, they (not Paul) DID, at times teach GRACE, but they also taught WORKS as the verses I've repeated here countless times SHOW! But again, you will say those verses don't REALLY mean what they actually SAY! That is the difference in the 2 messages. YES, it is the same TRUE gospel, (of grace) but what is SEPARATE about what they taught? Paul taught GRACE ONLY, and the prior were teaching grace PLUS works, they mixed in the message of the kingdom with the gospel of grace. That's what is SEPARATE about the gospels.  I'm not at all a bit confused on what the one and only true gospel is... it is grace (the very same message I give to an unsaved person)... and who taught it? Paul. Do I model my teaching after Peter and James? NO!!! Did Peter and James teach it (grace)? YES! BUT they added works to it! I wonder why it's so hard to comprehend? If you would divide by dispensations... the dispensation prior to when salvation came to the Gentiles was the Kingdom message. The gospel then became GRACE... the mystery of this gospel was given to PAUL... the church age was revealed to who? Peter, James? NO, to Paul. The mystery of the body of Christ was also given to Paul, the mystery of the rapture was also given to who? Peter? James? NO, it was given to Paul. I really don't understand why people can't see the division point here... Acts is a transitional phase. When the stoning of Stephen happened... the kingdom program was put on "pause" until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled (and I hope... SOON!) It will then be "un-paused" for Daniel's 70th week. During which time a remnant of the Jews (1/3 according to Zech 13:8-9) will be brought through the time of Jacob's trouble, brought to the knowledge that Christ was and IS, in fact, the Messiah God promised!  "they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (Zech 12:10),  when He comes back and stands upon the mount of Olives (splitting it, Zech. 14:4) they will accept Him and know He is their Messiah, the Lord Jesus!!! And at the end of the tribulation period they will then enter the millennial kingdom.

Please forgive my impassioned writing here, I cannot help but become fervent in this discussion. It's so clear for me to see... with the dispensations.  So let me respectfully put forth a question to YOU, Pastor Markle, if I may?  What role do you believe YOU will play in the millennial kingdom?  It's unfair for me to assume I know the answer to the following questions (below) ,and to be honest, I think I DID assume I knew what your answer would be, but I now do NOT assume the same thing at all... as I think we may also be looking at the millennial kingdom in the form of a different people group altogether... I come to this new conclusion because I saw you "liked" Invicta's comment in regard to the book of Revelation above). You may wonder what your eschatological standpoint has to do with my stance on the dispensation of grace... but I think it has a lot to do with it actually.

#1: Do you believe that the millennial kingdom is a period of 1000 years? #2: The millennial kingdom will be on earth? #3: The people who have gone through the time of Jacob's trouble (in human bodies, I am NOT including the tribulation martyrs/saints nor anyone killed during that time in this question... just those remaining alive in human bodies at the end of the Daniel's 70th week) and have NOT worshiped the beast, have NOT worshiped his image, have NOT taken his mark, nor the number of his name, but who HAVE accepted Jesus as their Messiah (whom they will look upon Him who've they've pierced and mourn)... these people left in human form at the end of the tribulation (with the qualifiers I gave) will be entering the millennial kingdom? #4  Will they then also be the ones who re-populate the earth (via procreation)? OR #5 do you believe some OTHER people group will re-populate the earth (via procreation)? #5 And one more question in particular, do you think glorified bodies (which we will receive during the rapture) will be capable of procreating?

Your answers to these questions will help me know where else we may stand in differences to which I would have otherwise been unaware. And your answers to these questions may also help me make sense of why you dis-believe in the dispensation of grace as I believe it to be. Because I think I see where we differ in the one, we may also differ in the other...at which point I would further see the futility (it's likely futile anyways, if you won't even attempt to see the differences in epistles and who they are written to) of even discussing the Pauline epistles and the gospel of grace in comparison... since it really has a LOT to do with my eschatological understanding of scripture as well.   I do apologize, (I am sorry for assuming I knew your stance on the millennial kingdom prior to asking as well since it's obvious to me now I was likely erroneous in my assumption that you believed the same in regard to the millennium as I did).Thank you for your time.

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Ronda
spelling