Replies

I will say this: Paul calls his "MY GOSPEL" several times in his Epistles. IF there is a "MY GOSPEL", then there MUST have been more than ONE gospel.

That, which was addressed before but seemingly ignored, is the type of reasoning that must be resorted to defend this notion of two gospels, that of Peter and Paul. To reiterate and add,

Paul actually only uses the term "my gospel" thrice, (Rm. 2:16; 16:25; 2Tim. 2:8) but perhaps that counts as "several," yet he also thrice refers to it as "our gospel," (2Cor. 4:3; 1Ths. 1:5; 2Ths. 2:14)

Moreover, Paul never states there was another gospel except one that makes one accursed (Gal. 1:6-9) which means Peter was in Acts 2 if why you hold is true.

Moreover, where Paul uses "my gospel" there is nothing manifestly distinctive about it from that of Peter, who also preached Christ as judge and the gospel as reveled with the scriptures of the prophets supporting, and in fact the most specific thing "my gospel" includes is the "that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel." (2 Timothy 2:8)

Peter and Paul both preached the gospel was to not only the Jews but to those who were afar off, as the Lord commanded, even if yet ignorant of what all this would mean.

And they both preached receiving forgiveness and the Spirit by, by faith, and trying to make repentance a work indicts Paul as well, as that is how he describes His gospel, (Acts 20:21; cf. 26:20) for one cannot believe unless there is repentance, from unbelief to faith, and in essence what that basically will mean.

And when it was time to personally engage in that universal call, God did not send Peter to Paul to learn about grace, but he gave him a disturbing vision about what to eat. (Acts 10) Had Paul enlightened him as to the new status of Gentiles as full fellowheirs with them, then the vision would not have been needed.

And the gospel Peter then preached to Gentiles was still that of repentant faith, which was confessed in baptism.

But while Peter understood that God purified all such hearts by faith, to Paul however was revealed the theological fulness of the new covenant, and the mystery by which "the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." (Ephesians 3:6)

Please put on your thinking caps here.

Indeed, prayerfully. Another gospel would be a false one, but Peter and Paul preached the same essential gospel, and thus affirmed each other.

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners: of whom I am chief. HOWBEIT FOR THIS CAUSE I obtained mercy (WHAT CAUSE?), that IN ME FIRST Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, FOR A PATTERN

Yes, as the foremost or chief (prōtos) sinner then Paul gets foremost, chief place (prōtos) as an example of the longsuffering of Christ. Not as one with a new gospel.

Hereafter WHAT? indeed. With so much depending on one word you would think those doing so would look it up and see how it is used. Go find where else "mellō" (G3195) is rendered "hereafter" in the KJV you are using (which is all i myself use, if not uncritically) out of the 82 times it is used.

In reality there is only one word listed, "mellō," which is the word for "should" (25 times), or "could" (17), "would" (9), "will" (6), etc. Nor is here even any word for "to them which," while "mellō" " is a strengthened form of G3199 (through the idea of expectation); to intend, that is, be about to be, do, or suffer something." (Strongs) .

Yet I do not say it should not be rendered "should hereafter" but even then it is in the sense of that God's ad hoc grace to Paul serves as encouragement to those who came after Paul, not because a new different gospel was preached other than that of repentance and faith, which is confessed, which both Peter and Paul preached.

.it is impossible to understand how anyone can read this portion of Scripture without seeing that God began a new program/dispensation with the conversion of Saul.

Rather, Paul's ministry is part of the expansion that began with the rejection of Christ and thus Him being a "ransom for many" (Mk. 10:45) by His death, including the Gentiles, even if you (i think it was you) think Peter was ignorant of that before Paul came along. And which expansion formally began with Peter preaching salvation by grace after the Lord revealed to him the new status of Gentiles, even if you think Paul had to do that.

The important question here though is: Did Paul consider HIMSELF as separate and distinct from the 12 or the same? The question is answered in I Cor. 15:5. When Paul says that the resurrected Christ was "seen...of the twelve". He considered them a separate and distinct group than himself.

Only in time, as the context provides, "as of one born out of due time." (v. 8) Making this to signify Paul preaching a different gospel, that of grace versus the "Kingdom Gospel," is another example of reading into the text.

they perceived THE GRACE THAT WAS GIVEN to Paul and gave him the right hands of fellowship, agreeing to confine their ministry(The Gospel of the Circumcision, the Kingdom Gospel)to the circumcision

Despite your frequent shouting caps the contextual reality is that the grace given to Paul was that "he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles." (Galatians 2:8) Besides that, there is nothing said of a "Gospel of the Circumcision" versus "the Kingdom Gospel," which is read into the text, but only that they understood their respective mission fields, to which they preached the same gospel in fellowship with each other.

And which gospel of redemption by faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus was preached in Acts 2, and which Peter theologically affirms in writing "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," (1Pt. 1:1) rather than agreeing to confine their ministry to Jews, though that was their basic mission field, while Paul also preached to Jews even after he warned them of overall judgment, for as he himself exampled, this was not inclusive of all.

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18)

Repentant faith in the Christ who did so, by contrite sinners is the gospel message both preached, included John who knew it from the Lord before Paul. And showing this has become redundant, and taking much time.

>>Paul actually only uses the term "my gospel" thrice, (Rm. 2:16; 16:25; 2Tim. 2:8) but perhaps that counts as "several," yet he also thrice refers to it as "our gospel," (2Cor. 4:3; 1Ths. 1:5; 2Ths. 2:14)<<

We need to be very careful when discussing issues like this. I always step back and pray and study when something just doesn’t seem to match. That is exactly what I did after reading your paragraph above. You have used those verses to attempt to contradict what smvoice has said. But let’s look at those verses more closely to make sure that we have diligently “searched the scripture” to find truth.

You claim that Paul uses “my gospel” in the first three verses but then uses “our” gospel in the other three verses you cite. That does seem to be a contradiction doesn’t it. So I went to the original Greek text in an attempt to “search the scripture” to see what the truth of the matter might be.

In your first three examples the Greek word is the first-person pronoun meaning my or mine. In the next three examples you cited the Greek word use is the first-person pronoun meaning my or mine exactly as it was in the first three examples you cited. In the original Greek text there is no differentiation between the first three verses you cited or the second three verses you cited.

Paul, in all three verses is saying the same thing. He is using the first person pronoun of my or mine.

It’s very dangerous to become haughty or attempt to project an attitude of superiority in discussions like this. Especially if it leads to attempts to “put down” or “denigrate” the persons views we are having a difference of opinion with.

I believe we are all brothers and sisters in Christ here so let’s have respect and “search the scriptures” diligently in an attempt to understand “if what they teach” is true.

In the above example we can see that using the English translation alone may not be in and of itself the best way to “search the scriptures” and using an attitude of superiority or haughtiness from that perspective does not foster oneness in Christ.