Hello and testimony

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[musterion]

Greetings in Christ,

I sent the following in an email to the owner of this site but then found this board to post it on. It's taken me years to identify, understand and process what went on as a very young Christian at my GMC church. I do not consider my own experience to have been cultic in the usually accepted sense. The experiences others had in other GCM churches may well have been but I now consider mine to have been merely unfortunate, totally unnecessary and - at bottom - resulting from spiritual immaturity and biblical ignorance on the part of my church's staff, for which I and others suffered. I'm sure it will sound very familiar to most of you.

I do not consider myself bitter but I am still very disturbed by some things that went on and, as far as I've been able to tell, STILL go on elsewhere within GCM circles. The reason I'm not bitter is because I now know that in the intervening years of great confusion, stress and pain, God was using that time (per Romans 8:28) to grow me into a stronger, more mature and more discerning Christian than I ever could have been had I'd stayed with GCM.

Thanks in advance for listening...any and all comments welcome.


I was saved in a GCM college church plant in the mid '90s but by the grace of God outgrew it and left within a few years. I am writing this only to detail some problems which, as far as I can tell from the great distance of both time and growth in discernment, remain problems with some of the people I knew who still abide within GCM circles.

1. At the end, they behaved like mercenary hirelings. This is the one thing above all that still galls me. The GCM church plant team left my college only a few years after arriving. While I had already cut most of my ties with the GC church by this time, and so was largely indifferent to the move, many younger members - who naturally relied solely on the church team for all fellowship and instruction - were shocked to tears and sobbing when the unexpected announcement of the ministry team's moving away was abruptly made at an evening service. The leadership team decided to leave...and that was that. No discussion, no forewarning, it was just a done deal. However, they promised that before they left, they'd find "good church homes" for the now-orphaned sheep THEY had brought to Christ but were now going to abandon. I don't know how that turned out for any of them and, to tell the truth, I'm not sure I want to know.

2. Doctrinal mixed bag. The pastor had a heart for the lost but doctrinally was a mixed bag which resulted in nothing but confusion and YEARS of spiritual and mental agony for me. Despite being one who truly hungered and thirsted to be righteous before God, within a few years I was reduced to despair, despondency, apathy and temptations to suicide. By God's grace I know now this was mainly for one reason: the pastor (and he's hardly alone in this) never taught exactly who and what a new believer has become in Christ...likely because he himself did not know of it. For just one example, I came out of a life of grave sins comparable to any Corinthian. Like the Corinthians, I still struggled with besetting sins of my old life. The pastor, however, did not come from such a pagan background as I did, so I know he was unable to relate to much of my post-salvation struggles - I cannot fault him for this, I state it only as a fact. Anyway, to help me, he thought nothing of recommending contradictory books on sanctification - for example, one by Calvinist A.W. Pink and others by more dispensationally-oriented "free grace" type writers. He never saw the contradictory nature of the books' basic assumptions, so he never considered the potential years of discouraging confusion they would implant in the heart of such an ignorant young believer like myself. Which is exactly what happened. However...

3. Shameful confession to others of deep abiding sins was promoted as a means of victory over besetting sin. Of course it didn't work because, as stated earlier, the believer's identity and position in Christ and subsequent need to reckon himself dead to sin and alive to God in His Spirit was never, ever explained nor emphasized, much to my deep, lasting regret).

4. Faddism. The ministry team grabbed on to numerous hyped-up theological fads. Spiritual disciplines, Lordship salvation, binding Satan, pre-wrath rapture, purpose-driven church tactics, seeker sensitive, rock music to attract unbelievers are the ones I can recall off the top of my head.

5. Financial support = God's call. It was strongly and unmistakably implied that the ability to raise financial support for ministry was evidence that God desired for you to be in ministry. Inability to raise support showed He didn't want you in ministry.

6. Lack of discernment of false gospels. The pastor -  who is still admired within GCM as  a whole - approved a member's marriage to a devout Roman Catholic. The gospel this pastor preached from his own tract contradicts the Roman Catholic system of salvation, so one of them must be wrong. Yet in approving the marriage, he was approving the yoking together of a believer with - according to his gospel tract - an unbeliever.

7. Blindness to carnality. Perhaps this incident was a one-off but it bears mention because of where it happened. Sometime in the late '90s there was a BIG gathering at either Ball State or OSU of GCM people from all over the nation. Everyone drove in, including us. Just before the morning 'worship' service they had a male/female mud football game. So there I am, standing and trying to worship the Lord while right in front of me is a long line of a dozen college girls in wet, mud-plastered shorts and t-shirts, eyes closed and lifting hands, swaying and bouncing to the beat not three feet in front of me. I was not yet secure enough in my walk with God to walk out and rebuke the staff - today you BET I'd do so then and there - so all I could do was stare at the ceiling.

In Christ, I do love the people I knew despite no longer having contact with them. I cannot say if what I experienced in my GC church was or is systemic throughout GCM. But since they did (and presumably still do) recruit from within the ranks of college students, I can only assume many on staff are still babes in Christ and so are totally unqualified for ministry to souls according to the Pauline requirements. In other words, I would not be surprised to learn the situation is not improved, if not worse.

Having followed my former pastor's ministry from a distance, I can say that even though it is now approaching 20 years later, and even though he is no longer a college pastor, he is still largely spooning out the same spiritually shallow milk like "How to determine God's will for your life" and "What the Bible says about homosexuality."  The truly deeper things of Christ - the meat which Paul said is only meant for strong, mature believers - appears sparse if not absent from his ministry and that is to be lamented...but at least it explains a lot of the agony I went through as a babe in Christ.

In Christ,

L.D.

[EverAStudent]

Greetings and welcome to the forum, Musterion.

It is sad that GC pastors remain so blind as to not become aware of the necessity to learn the excellence of good biblical interpretive techniques and to teach those same techniques to their congregations (see Ephesians 4).  As you noted, sermons do not get much shallower than to try to teach on a misdirected subject like "How to determine God's will for your life."

Thanks for sharing your story.

[Huldah]

Welcome to the forum. Your post echoes what so many here have experienced. You're far from being the only person to suffer depression or even suicidal temptations following your time at GC. I've heard from more than one source that some have even required inpatient psychiatric help after their time in GC. One has to wonder if the leadership has any idea of the damage they've done over the years. Anyway, I'm glad you're out, I'm glad you're still following the Lord, and I'm glad you've joined us here on the forum.

[musterion]

Thank you both for the warm welcome, and the grace of our Lord and Savior to you all!

I have to wonder about the GMC administration itself...the men at the top. Given the many sad stories they surely know about...I mean beyond those they more or less apologized for way back when...I wonder just how serious are they about seeing people grow into Christlikeness. Just before I left, the pastor suddenly veered off into pre-wrath rapture territory and announced it in a sermon. No one saw it coming and I may have been the only person who had actually read up enough to know what it entailed. I don't want to start a debate about it here but I was and still am firmly pretrib, which I mention only because, up to that point, the pastor had been as well.

So I asked him in all sincerity (perhaps naively) if he was trying to test the flock's discernment with this, to see if we'd be Bereans and test what he was saying? No...it turns out he was quite serious. In fact, he was a little offended by my asking the question. He didn't patiently offer to explain to this young believer why he changed his mind on this vital eschatological point. He simply and flatly said that if I hadn't studied something out, as he claimed to have done,* I should seek to do so before questioning it. That was the next to last communication we had...I won't at this time get into the final one, as it nailed down for me beyond any doubt just how undiscerning the man is.

The reason I bring it up is that Christ inspired Paul to present the taking away of the Church as a reason for constant hope, joy and even cheerfulness...yet everyone I know who has ever gone prewrath - and that's more than a few people - has instead become somewhat hardened, brittle, even cool and detatched (which only follows from now living in fear that you and your loved ones will have to endure at least some of the horrors of the book of Revelation before Christ takes you home). Such a doctrinal shift WILL have an effect on your life, your thinking and your ministry and so will certainly affect the babes in Christ who are in your congregation, who rightly or wrongly look to you for edification.

I'm not a knee-jerk fan of seminiaries but does GCM realize the power they've placed into the hands of largely untrained men? Or does it know but not care? IF it does know, does that not suggest GCM is really in the business to make merchandise (2 Pet 2:3) of vulnerable young minds their teams seek out on college campuses? I dare not judge anyone's heart in terms of salvation but sometimes I really have to wonder what the true motivation of GCM as a whole really was, at least when I was subject to it.

*I think his study consisted primarily of buying into Van Kampen's thick book, which was very popular at the time. I clearly recall seeing it many times in his 'to be read' pile on his desk. I now wonder if GCM as a whole slid that direction...  

[EverAStudent]

GC was always somewhat eclectic in their theology, and it is hard to generalize a specific doctrinal framework accross the denomination.  

You asked if GC leadership was (and is) serious about causing Christians to grow in faith (per the Ephesians 4 mission statement for the organized local church).  Well, due to their untrained origins and inclinations they simply do not really know what it means for themselves to grow into maturity.  They were never trained, really trained, how to master hermeneutics.  So, not knowing about hermeneutics themselves how could they train others?

But mostly consider this:  The denomination was always called 'Great Commission.'

In their perspective the church is NOT about training Christians how to intrepret the Bible and to disprove bad theology (per Ephesians 4), it is largely about being trained in their version of evangelism, which is how they tend to interpret the Great Commission.  

So, the answer seems to be: They are serious about evangelistic campaigns and do not know enough to recognize their lack or to seek after the deeper things of doctrine and theology or to pass those missing blessings along to the congregation.  They are stuck in their willing ignorance.  

By the way, when I say "deeper things" I have no interest in stirring up ideas of mysticism and hidden mysteries.  Rather "deeper things" is all about the systematic and disciplined study of the biblical interpretive arts, linguistics, and accurate historical analysis. 

[musterion]

Good point, and your closing caveat was totally understood. I just don't see how a denomination (that's more or less what it is) can be so evidently ignorant from the top down and survive as long as it has without complete and utter corruption which, for all its faults, I don't believe it has yet attained.

Since you sort-of mentioned it, the mystery body of doctrine revealed to Paul (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:8-9) is precisely the topic of the last conversation I ever had with the pastor. He acknowledged that while it was revealed directly to Paul (that cannot be argued since that's what Paul said), he insisted the doctrinal content thereof was "an open secret" - a direct quote! - which Peter, James and John were already aware of. Any lexicon demonstrates the ignorance of his contention, as do Paul's claims, so it was at that point I knew he and I had nothing else to discuss.

[EverAStudent]

By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,
(Ephesians 3:4-6)

The mystery revealed to Paul, at least as Paul understood it, is specifically "that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body ... In Christ Jesus through the gospel."  

And Paul states that this same mystery was revealed through Christ to to all "His holy apostles and prophets."  Surely Peter and John, being apostles (and James being a prophet), were principal among those of whom Paul referred when he said the same mystery had already been revealed to the apostles and prophets.    

Since you sort-of mentioned it, the mystery body of doctrine revealed to Paul (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:8-9) is precisely the topic of the last conversation I ever had with the pastor. He acknowledged that while it was revealed directly to Paul (that cannot be argued since that's what Paul said), he insisted the doctrinal content thereof was "an open secret" - a direct quote! - which Peter, James and John were already aware of. Any lexicon demonstrates the ignorance of his contention, as do Paul's claims, so it was at that point I knew he and I had nothing else to discuss.

So I confess, I am not certain what your disagreement was with the pastors.  I am not trying to be dense, but I did not see the break in understandings.    

[musterion]

The mystery revealed to Paul, at least as Paul understood it, is specifically "that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body ... In Christ Jesus through the gospel."  

Please, my friend, be very careful what you assert as to what Paul understood, since there are a few facts you're not accounting for. First, Paul also says it was given to him "to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God" (Ephesians 3:9). That means the content of the mystery revelation was given THROUGH him, not through anyone prior to him, ever - not even by Christ Himself during His time on earth.

See also Romans 16:25. Paul's meaning is unmistakable.

Second, that Gentiles would be saved was old news going as far back as Genesis. But that Jews and Gentiles would be fellow heirs - equals in Christ - was unprecedented in all Scripture before this...hence Peter's reluctance to go see Cornelius and the shocked reaction of the other Jewish believers when they heard Peter had done so. Which brings me to your next point...

And Paul states that this same mystery was revealed through Christ

Where does the passage you quoted say it was revealed through Christ? If you meant, 'revealed BY Christ THROUGH His Spirit' then you're correct. But if you mean to imply the mystery had been revealed by Christ during His earthly ministry, or to Peter or anyone beside Paul after He ascended, then you are incorrect. I cannot tell which you meant, however.

to to all "His holy apostles and prophets."  Surely Peter and John, being apostles (and James being a prophet), were principal among those of whom Paul referred when he said the same mystery had already been revealed to the apostles and prophets.  

 

Perhaps, but even granting that, it was revealed to them verbally by Paul at his meeting with them (which Paul describes in Galatians). Note it was then they learned - from Paul - of the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, which was not the Gospel of the Kingdom committed unto them (which was to none but the Jews even unto the early Acts period) but the Gospel of the grace of God, under which terms Jews and Gentiles were equally lost before God and could only come to Him individually by faith in Christ.

An alternative view is that the apostles and prophets were Paul and his associates, namely Barnabas (Acts 14:14) who were apostles and did have the gift of prophecy.

In either case, the initial mystery revelation was committed by God solely to Paul, and it was from him that Peter, James and John learned of it.

So I confess, I am not certain what your disagreement was with the pastors.  I am not trying to be dense, but I did not see the break in understandings.    

You're not dense. The simple fact that the Greek word for mystery allows no wiggle room. It means, in Paul's usage, exactly what he said: he had been given a revelation of what God had always planned to do but only now was revealing to man. That my pastor denied this plain meaning (both of the Greek and of what Paul himself plainly stated) showed him to be willing to twist and deny the Word of God as it suited him, and was enough for me to cut ties with him.

[EverAStudent]

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.
(Romans 16:25-27)

I guess before we wander into unprofitable terrority, it would be best to have you articulate what you think the specific content was of the mystery which no one else had ever spoken or taught before it was revealed to Paul who then taught it and which by the time Romans 16:25-27 was written had already been manifested (declared and shown) "to all the nations." 

[musterion]

Sorry, I was away for a few days.

what...specific content...of the mystery [had] no one else...ever spoken or taught before it was revealed to Paul who then taught it[?]

First, why would you say believers discussing God's Word would be unprofitable? I am truly confused by your statement, and not a little disturbed by it. Please explain?

Second, to answer your question, I will for now focus on just one point of it and let Paul speak for himself. He said by inspiration of Christ that the Gospel he preached was not taught to him by any man but was revealed to him by Christ Himself. It was this same Gospel that Paul was sent to make Peter, James and John aware of, meaning the Gospel he preached - which, significantly, he referred to as "my Gospel" - was not the Gospel of the messianic Kingdom (aka 'the Gospel of the circumcision') with which they had previously been entrusted. Both Gospels have Christ at their centers but present Him in different aspects, thus the terms of salvation are very different in each.

But again, all this is obvious from a plain reading of Scripture. Paul's Gospel - which we can correctly refer to as "salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone, without works of any kind to obtain or maintain salvation" - was a SECRET hidden in God before He chose to reveal it to and through Paul. It was clearly, therefore, not the Gospel preached during Christ's time on earth nor during the early Acts period when the Kingdom offer was still being made to Israel (Acts ch. 7 is the crisis point)...see the terms of salvation repeatedly and consistently preached throughout the Gospel accounts as well as the early Acts period.

That Paul called it "my Gospel" in no way glorifies Paul the man, by the way, but only his office, which by inspiration Paul exalted. I seek to do the same.

So the point is, my former GCM pastor did not merely deny these plain facts of Scripture but actually sought to twist the plain, unarguable meaning. When he did so, it was a sign to me of exactly those whom Peter warned about in exactly the context of Paul's revelation.

[EverAStudent]

Discussing God’s Word can be unprofitable when the dialogue becomes a quarrel, or if the parties involved are not careful to understand the point or definitions the others are using and thus talk across each other rather than with each other.

It does appear that we are far apart on this topic.  I have read what you have written several times and then cross-referenced your points with the relevant Scripture.  I would conclude that we seem to have obvious interpretive differences.

Rather than argue my points it might be sufficient for me to just point out where I see the differences of interpretation:

1) “which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:5-6)

I interpret this passage as Paul’s acknowledgment that the mystery was made known (revealed) to all the apostles and prophets by the Spirit of God and not via Paul.  Moreover, I interpret this passage to illustrate Paul understood that this mystery was revealed not starting with him but starting with the “generation” in which Paul was living--the same generation in which Jesus, Peter, and Barnabas also lived.  
 
2) The mystery itself, as I understand the passage, is that Gentiles are also fellow heirs of salvation and thus fellow members of Christ’s body, and thus fellow partakers of the Holy Spirit of promise.  In previous generations (the generations before Christ) the Gentiles had to become Jewish converts to demonstrate or exercise their participation in salvific faith, but with Christ and in Christ they could attain salvation merely through faith without first converting to Judaism.  

3) Paul never claimed to be the original exclusive recipient of this mystery.  The text simply does not say or even imply this.  Paul was amazed that he was chosen and appointed to share in that ministry along with the rest of the apostles and prophets, but he did not own any teachings that the others did not also previously obtain directly from Jesus.

4) Before Paul was saved Jesus had already given all the other apostles the commission to go to the Gentiles and preach His gospel to them when He said, “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations [Jewish and Gentile], baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

5) Peter was taught by the Holy Spirit to bring the Gentiles to salvation in Christ before Peter had ever met Paul, “All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.” (Acts 10:45)

6) From Peter’s missionary actions with the Gentiles all the apostles, prophets, and Jewish Christians in Judea understood that Gentiles were fellow partakers of Christ, “Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.” (Acts 11:1)

7) Some Jewish Christians at first opposed the conversion of the Gentiles to Christ, but eventually (before Peter even met Saul-- later called Paul) Peter and the others persuaded the Jews that “…‘God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.’” (Acts 11:18).  

8 ) As I understand the text, after Peter persuaded the Judean Jewish Christians that Gentiles were also fellow partakers of salvation in Christ, only then and mostly due to Peter’s teaching, did the following happen:

“But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks [Gentiles] also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord.” (Acts 11:20-21)

Now this “large number” of Gentiles “who believed and turned to the Lord” did so before Saul (who became Paul) even started his ministry and before Paul ever met with or spoke to the other apostles.  

The fact that a large number of Antioch Gentiles had been converted to Christ by “men of Cyprus and Cyrene” before Paul came onto the ministry scene indicates to me that Paul was not the first nor only man to receive the revelation of the mystery of the Gentiles being fellow partakers in Christ.

9) After the men of Cyprus and Cyrene converted large numbers of Gentiles to Christ in Antioch the prophet named Barnabas also went to Antioch because the Jerusalem church wanted to support this evangelistic effort among the Gentiles.  There Barnabas participated in bringing “considerable numbers” of Gentiles to the Lord.  

Without a doubt in my mind it is clear that the combination of Jesus’ commission to go to all the Gentile nations and the prophecy of the Holy Spirit led Peter to not only understand fully the mystery but also to act upon it and to persuade others of it.  Later Paul certainly shared in the ministry of making that revelation manifest, but the mystery was not only not given to Paul alone, but to all the apostles and prophets in Christ before him.

10) Only after Jesus told all the apostles to go to all the Gentile nations to make disciples, and only after Peter was instructed by the Holy Spirit to make Gentiles into fellow partakers of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and only after Peter convinced the Jewish believers in Judea to evangelize the Gentiles, and only after the men of Cyprus and Cyrene and Barnabas saw “large and considerable numbers” of Gentiles come to the Lord did Barnabas seek, find, and bring Paul to meet with the apostles.  

When it came to revealing that the Gentiles were fellow partakers in Christ Paul was a tag along, a johnny-come-lately.  Large and considerable numbers of Gentiles had already become a part of the body of Christ and Antioch was already a hotbed of Gentile church growth.  Paul would do his share of evangelism to be sure, but he was not the first to catch that vision.  

11) We also differ on understanding why Paul received his instruction in the gospel not from other men but from revelations from Christ.  While I do comprehend that you feel that what Paul was taught by Christ was somehow new or different from what Christ taught to the earlier apostles, there is nothing in any text to indicate this.

If I am not mistaken and Paul was given a revelation of the same gospel as were the twelve, then why was this done in this manner?  Why did Christ reveal the entire gospel to Paul over a period of three years if not to reveal something new to Paul?  The anwer…because Jesus had called Paul to be an apostle, similar to the twelve, but Paul was as yet untrained and unqualified.  Jesus had taught all the rest personally.  So, for Paul to be a qualified apostle, Jesus had to also teach to Paul the same gospel for three years that He had already revealed to the other apostles for the three years He had been on earth.

Paul’s gospel was not a new gospel.  Paul’s gospel was not different than the gospel Jesus taught to the others.  Paul’s gospel was not superior or different in any way from Peter’s gospel of Christ.  There is only one Christ, one Spirit, and one gospel.  The only “difference” was that Paul was last and least to receive it, and he had to get it delivered via prophetic revelations in order to get the same teachings as were delivered to all the other apostles.  Only Jesus can commission, teach, train, and establish a true and qualified apostle.  

Regarding salvation itself, has not the means of salvation always been to have faith in the God of salvation to whom we repent and He grants forgiveness?  Did the Law and animal sacrifices ever actually confer salvation on anyone?  Was not salvation always by faith in a merciful Savior God?  Is not the message of Hebrews 11:2 that even though the Old Testament believers did not know the mystery of the Gentiles one day coming to the same salvation in the Messiah as they had, yet those Old Testament believers still obtained salvation from faith alone and not from the Law?  

Well, that is my interpretation of the Scriptures regarding the matter of Paul’s gospel.  As I said, I suspect we differ dramatically on this issue.  Nonetheless, I hope it is not an occasion for friction between us.

Peace to you.

[musterion]

I hope you don't mind that I have replies for each point you raised. I will post them this afternoon after we return from church. I hope you'll consider them over an open Bible for there are several vital questions raised by your responses which you should ask yourself over the Word, but which you clearly haven't asked. I hope you'll allow me to point them out for your prayerful consideration.

And I do appreciate the overall respectful tone of your posts. I do not see where we ever had anything approaching a quarrel, which I dislike, nor will my reply later engender any. At least I don't think it needs to.

Continued grace to you...later...

[musterion]

Sorry for the delay, life got in the way. The reason for all the blue bold is explained at the bottom.

Discussing God’s Word can be unprofitable when the dialogue becomes a quarrel, or if the parties involved are not careful to understand the point or definitions the others are using and thus talk across each other rather than with each other.

I agree 100% but I not think that was an issue with us here and I regret you seem to think it is. Discussion, deep analysis, even debate, yes. But I do not quarrel.

It does appear that we are far apart on this topic.  I have read what you have written several times and then cross-referenced your points with the relevant Scripture.  I would conclude that we seem to have obvious interpretive differences.

Even if you PM me, I'd welcome your specific citations of error because, as you say, one of is dead wrong in his interpretations and so in serious error. One of us will answer for it the Bema. That makes it worth discussng in depth, does it not?

Rather than argue my points it might be sufficient for me to just point out where I see the differences of interpretation:

1) “which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:5-6)

I interpret this passage as Paul’s acknowledgment that the mystery was made known (revealed) to all the apostles and prophets by the Spirit of God and not via Paul.  

Your interpretational argument isn't with me, it's with Paul. The following is from Galatians 2. Please note the bold:

1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated TO THEM that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,. . .
. . .
6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

Note the progression of events:

1. Paul is sent by the Holy Spirit to Jerusalem to tell the disciples of his Gospel.

2. They added nothing doctrinally to Paul but, on the contrary, he informed them of his Gospel - "my gospel, the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery" (Romans 16:25). His Gospel is part of the mystery revelation and he was sent to inform them of it.

3. Peter, James and John saw "BY THE SPIRIT" (Eph 3:5) the uniqueness of Paul's ministry AFTER Paul told them of it verbally, at the behest of the Spririt (v. 1).

4. As a result of this divinely witnessed pact and as far as Scripture reveales, the disciples confined their ministry to Israel and Peter never left Israel. Paul, on the other hand, goes forth with the Gospel of grace for unsaved Jews and Gentiles alike, even unto Rome.

In all love and humility I say this: For your interpretation to be true, Paul must have been in error when he wrote in his letters - more than once - that the mystery WAS revealed unto him. Was confirmation of its validity witnessed unto the other apostles by the Holy Spirit? Absolutely - it had to be so. But it was given to Paul first and only. Paul - by inspiration of Christ, I remind you - said so repeatedly and unmistakably.

Moreover, I interpret this passage to illustrate Paul understood that this mystery was revealed not starting with him but starting with the “generation” in which Paul was living--the same generation in which Jesus, Peter, and Barnabas also lived.  

Again, your interpretation is at odds with Paul's plain statements. It's as if what he said is in your way and so you're trying to interpret your way around him. Note Ephesians 3:

8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make ALL [Jews and Gentiles alike] see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ

The meaning could not be plainer: the body of doctrine Paul claimed as his own revelation from Christ was not - COULD not - have been revealed by or to anyone else in all redemptive history, else Paul's entire ministry as described in his own words is founded on a lie. Will you insist it was known to Peter and the others?

Also note that whenever Paul refers to MAKING KNOWN the revelation of the mystery he speaks in the plural, as his associates labored with him, but when speaking of RECEIVING the mystery, he always speaks in the singular. Test and see.

2) The mystery itself, as I understand the passage, is that Gentiles are also fellow heirs of salvation and thus fellow members of Christ’s body, and thus fellow partakers of the Holy Spirit of promise.  In previous generations (the generations before Christ) the Gentiles had to become Jewish converts to demonstrate or exercise their participation in salvific faith, but with Christ and in Christ they could attain salvation merely through faith without first converting to Judaism.

True! However, don't miss the implications of seeing that much: None of what you cited there is found in the O.T. nor in the four Gospel accounts (which is still O.T. ground) nor even in Acts 2. Example: Paul's Gospel was that "Christ was raised again for our justification" (Rom 4:25), exalted far above all to become "Head over all things to the Church which is His Body" (Eph 1:22-23), that we have been "raised together with Him" and made to "sit together in heavenly places" (Eph 2:6) and to "walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). Jews and Gentiles were now joint heirs to a NEW, unprecedented promise, and ALL of this is available to any by simple faith in Christ without works of any kind.

Yet Peter preached NONE of this at any point in the Acts period. Why not? Christ Himself preached none of it during His ministry. Why not?

3) Paul never claimed to be the original exclusive recipient of this mystery. The text simply does not say or even imply this.  Paul was amazed that he was chosen and appointed to share in that ministry along with the rest of the apostles and prophets, but he did not own any teachings that the others did not also previously obtain directly from Jesus.

1) Paul DID claim to be the first, exclusive recipient of the mystery. Argue with him, not me:

1 Timothy 2:7: "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle..."

2 Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle..."

[Preacher = Gr. kerux: an advance herald sent to announce something new, which he likewise did for Peter et al in Gal 2]

Why didn't Peter ever refer to himself as the kerux?

"For I neither received it FROM MAN, neither was I taught it, BUT BY THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST" (Gal 1:12).

Does Peter ever claim such comprehensive revelation regarding Gentiles?

"According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder [lit., chief architect] I have laid the foudation and another builds thereon. But let every man take heed HOW he builds thereon" (1 Cor 3:10).

Why wasn't Peter the masterbuilder?

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made 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:

2) Did any apostle prior to Paul lay claim to receiving the revelation of the mystery that Paul preached?

3) If the body of mystery truth had been revealed (presumably) to Peter and the others, why did Christ send Paul to tell them of it?

4) If the Gospel of the grace of God - which Paul tied to the revelation of the mystery - was not actually 'news,' why was Paul be allowed by the Spirit to repeatedly call it "my gospel" when, by your interpretation, he wasn't the first to preach it? How was this not erroneous if not deceptive, if your interpretation is correct?

4) Before Paul was saved Jesus had already given all the other apostles the commission to go to the Gentiles and preach His gospel to them when He said, “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations [Jewish and Gentile], baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

True! But as far as Scripture reveals, none of them ever made it out of Israel with that Christ-given commission. Do you know why they did not?

5) Peter was taught by the Holy Spirit to bring the Gentiles to salvation in Christ before Peter had ever met Paul, “All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.” (Acts 10:45)

So many questions you're not even seeing as needing to be asked...allow me, please:

a) Why did God need to send Peter the sheet vision when Peter already had the 'great commission'?

b) Upon his arrival at Cornelius' home, why did Peter voice his legal reluctance at even seeing him, since the 'great commission' sent him and the others unto the Gentiles? Peter was not a bigot as such, for to be so would be to disobey Christ...so why his reluctance?

c) Why were Peter and his associates amazed to witness what happened in Cornelius' house? According to your point #4, this should have been expected...but they didn't. Can you explain what it was they found shocking?

d) When asked (Acts 11:1-3) by the Jewish believers to justify why he even went to this Gentile, Peter did not say "What are you, dense? Because our Lord TOLD us to go unto them, that's why I went!" (which would have ended the argument right there, IF that was the answer). They knew of the G.C., so why did they have a problem with him going, and why did Peter not claim the 'great commission' as his defense?

e) Re: the "great commission," why did Christ send Paul forth as the preeminent apostle to the Gentiles when, as you correctly point out, He'd already commissioned Peter and the others to go unto all nations? Peter and the others were never disobedient to the Lord, so there must have been another reason ("division of labor" is the wrong answer, btw). What was it?

f) Why, as far as Scripture reveals, is there no record in Scripture of any of the circumcision apostles ever going unto any Gentile again, but rather agreed to confine their ministry to Israel in favor of acknowledging Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles (Gal. 2:2,7,9)?

The answers to all these questions are in your Bible!

6) From Peter’s missionary actions with the Gentiles all the apostles, prophets, and Jewish Christians in Judea understood that Gentiles were fellow partakers of Christ, “Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.” (Acts 11:1)
7) Some Jewish Christians at first opposed the conversion of the Gentiles to Christ, but eventually (before Peter even met Saul-- later called Paul) Peter and the others persuaded the Jews that “…‘God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.’” (Acts 11:18).

These two can be answered with the same point, which I mentioned above: Peter and the others humbly accepted what God was doing among the Gentiles - the tongues proved it - but they still did not understand why.  Can you explain the controversy and confusion they all had at this point?

As I understand the text, after Peter persuaded the Judean Jewish Christians that Gentiles were also fellow partakers of salvation in Christ, only then and mostly due to Peter’s teaching, did the following happen:

“But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks [Gentiles] also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord.” (Acts 11:20-21)

Now this “large number” of Gentiles “who believed and turned to the Lord” did so before Saul (who became Paul) even started his ministry and before Paul ever met with or spoke to the other apostles.  

The fact that a large number of Antioch Gentiles had been converted to Christ by “men of Cyprus and Cyrene” before Paul came onto the ministry scene indicates to me that Paul was not the first nor only man to receive the revelation of the mystery of the Gentiles being fellow partakers in Christ.

You are half right on this. The "men of Cyprus and Cyrene" were saved Jews who while in Antioch shared Christ with Gentiles (while many others still spoke of Him with 'none but Jews only,' which is a significant fact). Saved Jews learned of what happened with Cornelius and, while it was yet unexplained, shared Christ with other Gentiles. BUT, that does not indicate that the mystery had been revealed for - once again - Paul claimed that he alone received that revelation and everyone else heard it from him. That is the point you still have not dealt with: Paul's repeated claim of having exclusively received it.

Also consider that Acts 8:4 says the Jews who were scattered abroad after the stoning of Stephen "went everywhere preaching the Word." Here we are told that they had been "preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." This scattering took place approximately ten years before the events in Antioch. This means that all during this period, none but Jews were evangelized. There's a reason for that and it wasn't Jewish bigotry. Do you know what it was?

9) After the men of Cyprus and Cyrene converted large numbers of Gentiles to Christ in Antioch the prophet named Barnabas also went to Antioch because the Jerusalem church wanted to support this evangelistic effort among the Gentiles.  There Barnabas participated in bringing “considerable numbers” of Gentiles to the Lord.

The church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:22) sent Barnabas to look into the situation. However, the reason they sent him to Antioch was that it had come to their ears that Gentiles--having neither circumcision, nor the law nor (as far as the record shows) even the required water baptism--had come to trust Christ and were saved. This puzzled them, just as Cornelius had. What was happening (which we now know only because Paul later wrote of it, for the Acts account itself does not tell us) is first the salvation of Cornelius and now the salvations in Antioch were showing the beginning of the breakdown of the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles - but no one yet knew of it, nor would they realize it until Paul was given leave to explain it, as he did in his letters.

We must be very careful not to read into historical accounts of Scripture later revelatory developments which, at the time of the accounts, Scripture plainly says were unknown.

Without a doubt in my mind it is clear that the combination of Jesus’ commission to go to all the Gentile nations and the prophecy of the Holy Spirit led Peter to not only understand fully the mystery but also to act upon it and to persuade others of it.  Later Paul certainly shared in the ministry of making that revelation manifest, but the mystery was not only not given to Paul alone, but to all the apostles and prophets in Christ before him.

a) Did Peter give any indication at the time of these events that he understood the mystery? Did he appeal to it as the reason he went to Cornelius? No.

b) You can read the mystery into the historical accounts before Paul said it was even given if you wish - that's between you and Christ, for Scripture says what it says - but you still have to deal with (1) Paul's exclusive claims that he received it and (2) Peter's utter absence of claims to having received it. My brother, if you can explain those two points with plain, black and white Scripture, you will have largely carried this discussion.

10) Only after Jesus told all the apostles to go to all the Gentile nations to make disciples, and only after Peter was instructed by the Holy Spirit to make Gentiles into fellow partakers of Christ and the Holy Spirit,

Please show from Scripture where in the Acts account the Holy Spirit said this to Peter.

and only after Peter convinced the Jewish believers in Judea to evangelize the Gentiles,

Please show from Scripture where in the Acts account Peter convinced them to do this, or even tried.

When it came to revealing that the Gentiles were fellow partakers in Christ Paul was a tag along, a johnny-come-lately.

No. Paul is the one who Christ chose to explain WHY they were now fellow partakers. No one before him - not even Peter - knew the reason for it, only that it was happening.

Col 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you [Gentiles], to fulfill the word of God

This goes back to the question I've posed several times now: given the G.C., why did God even need to give Paul a separate commission unto the Gentiles? The answer to that question is THE key to understanding the Scriptures.

Large and considerable numbers of Gentiles had already become a part of the body of Christ and Antioch was already a hotbed of Gentile church growth.  Paul would do his share of evangelism to be sure, but he was not the first to catch that vision.  

With that much I'll agree. He was just the first to have the reasons for it explained to him by Christ. Again...you may dispute that if you wish but your dispute is with Paul's inspired, unmistakable statements, not with me. I'm just reading them and taking them literally.

11) We also differ on understanding why Paul received his instruction in the gospel not from other men but from revelations from Christ.  While I do comprehend that you feel that what Paul was taught by Christ was somehow new or different from what Christ taught to the earlier apostles, there is nothing in any text to indicate this.

This is the first you've acknowledged that Paul did in fact receive separate instructions. As to why I believe it was new revelation, it's because PAUL REPEATEDLY SAID IT WAS UNREVEALED. That is what musterion means. In any case, I've already addressed this above (I know you've not read it yet but I hope you will). The shortest reason I can give you apart from "it's what Paul said" - for if you perchance (I don't know yet) won't accept the indisputable meaning of the Greek then nothing I can say will matter - is this:

If, as you believe, the mystery was an 'open secret' that Peter already was fully up on, then the burden of proof is on you to show why Peter in Acts never could explain why Cornelius got saved halfway through his sermon (Peter hadn't even gotten to the Pentecostal "meat" yet), nor why believing Jews prior to Antioch had been going far and wide but preaching Christ "to none but Jews only."

The reason: they were still operating on old instructions from Christ that had not yet been superceded by Christ, but soon would be (Gal 2:2-9).

If I am not mistaken and Paul was given a revelation of the same gospel as were the twelve, then why was this done in this manner?

You are mistaken because Galatians 2:2-9 shows it wasn't the same Gospel.

Why did Christ reveal the entire gospel to Paul over a period of three years if not to reveal something new to Paul?

I know you're being rhetorical but as Yoda might say, just answered your own question, you did.

The answer…because Jesus had called Paul to be an apostle, similar to the twelve, but Paul was as yet untrained and unqualified.  Jesus had taught all the rest personally.  So, for Paul to be a qualified apostle, Jesus had to also teach to Paul the same gospel for three years that He had already revealed to the other apostles for the three years He had been on earth.

You still have not explained WHY Paul was even called to be the preeminent apostle to the Gentiles when Peter and the others had already been commissioned with going unto them (and again, the usual answer of 'division of labor' is inadquate).

Paul’s gospel was not a new gospel.  Paul’s gospel was not different than the gospel Jesus taught to the others.

I will happily provide you a list of a half-dozen distinctive and irreconcilable differences between the two gospels but for now, let me just ask this:

Do you believe Peter preached the same Gospel that Paul called "my Gospel" on the day of Pentecost?

Do you believe he was preaching Paul's Gospel to Cornelius?

Why do we find nowhere in the early Acts period Peter preaching or acting upon what we now know to be exclusively Pauline doctrine, if Peter in fact received the mystery first?

Paul’s gospel was not superior or different in any way from Peter’s gospel of Christ.

Yes, it was superior and very different. It opens a window onto an unconditional fulness, completeness and security of the believer in Christ unlike anything seen in the four Gospel accounts. It also is much simpler in its terms...could not BE any simpler, actually.

There is only one Christ, one Spirit, and one gospel.

True, there is but one Spirit and NOW there is but one Gospel - Paul's. But contrast 2 Cor 5:21 with Romans 16:25 to see just how big of a distinction Paul - by inspiration! - drew regarding Christ.

The only “difference” was that Paul was last and least to receive it, and he had to get it delivered via prophetic revelations in order to get the same teachings as were delivered to all the other apostles.

You have offered zero Scriptural evidence to support this assertion, or many of your assertions. Do you realize that? If you post Scripture I will responsd, if response is needed, with Scripture. But I prefer you stick to Scripture.

Regarding salvation itself, has not the means of salvation always been to have faith in the God of salvation to whom we repent and He grants forgiveness?

Depends...what did Peter preach on the day of Pentecost? What did John preach when he came out of the wilderness? What did Christ Himself tell people they had to do to be saved? What did Paul tell the jailer? Compare each of these and see what you come up with.

Did the Law and animal sacrifices ever actually confer salvation on anyone?

Without faith? No. But could someone at that time have been saved by standing on faith alone, WITHOUT the required works of the Law? Say a Jew said to the priests, "I'm going to take my stand on faith in God alone - I'm done with the Temple sacrificial system, thanks." Forget the priests...how would GOD have viewed that person? How would Christ have viewed that person if he had said those words to Him?

Was not salvation always by faith in a merciful Savior God?

Essentially, yes. Instrumentally, no. Salvation was always by faith in whatever that merciful Savior God said at specific times in human history; on what He said to believe or to do, which has varied from age to age.

Is not the message of Hebrews 11:2 that even though the Old Testament believers did not know the mystery of the Gentiles one day coming to the same salvation in the Messiah as they had, yet those Old Testament believers still obtained salvation from faith alone and not from the Law?

Wait...how did the O.T. saints not know of the mystery but Peter and the others did? Since you're drawing a clear distinction here, can you PLEASE show FROM SCRIPTURE where Peter or anyone before Paul laid claim to having received it? Only one example will suffice because your asserting it to be so doesn't cut it.

And btw, those O.T. saints still had to observe the Law. Bottom line they were saved by faith, but still, no choice. Keep the Law or perish.

Well, that is my interpretation of the Scriptures regarding the matter of Paul’s gospel.  As I said, I suspect we differ dramatically on this issue.  Nonetheless, I hope it is not an occasion for friction between us.

It is certainly no occasion for friction apart from iron being sharpened. All I ask at this point is that you take the time to go back through what I've written and concentrate on replying FROM SCRIPTURE to the points I've put into bold, blue text.  Continued grace to you...

[EverAStudent]

I not think that was an issue with us here and I regret you seem to think it is.

I never said it was an issue, I said I wanted to know your definitions clearly so that the discussion did not become an unprofitable quarrel.

as you say, one of is dead wrong in his interpretations and so in serious error

I never said one of us is dead wrong or in serious error.  That may end up being the case, but I did not say it.  I did say that we held significantly different interpretations of the relevant Scriptures.  This continues to be my perception.

Your interpretational argument isn't with me, it's with Paul.

Paul and I have no interpretational argument.  As far as I know I agree with all he has written.

1. Paul is sent by the Holy Spirit to Jerusalem to tell the disciples of his Gospel.

Of course the second trip by Paul to Jerusalem at least seventeen years after his conversion is a relatively late event in the life of the church and the life of Paul.  After having persecuted the church Paul is confronted by the living Lord, in person, and commissioned to begin his journey to being an apostle, similar to the Twelve, but not as eminent.  Paul, after his conversion, immediately went to Arabia and then back to Damascus where he spent three years while Jesus trained Paul in all that Jesus had also trained the Twelve earlier.  Jesus did this for Paul via three years of isolation from all other church leaders and via revelation.

“But when God…was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.” (Galatians 1:15-18)

Jesus trained Paul in isolation from the rest of the church for three years because the apostles had come to accept that the criteria to be a qualified apostle was that a man had to be personally trained by Jesus in the gospel.  "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us [training us]-- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." (Acts 1:21-22)

Only by being trained by Jesus for three years would Paul meet the apostolic criteria that the Twelve had explained to Luke in Acts 1:21-26.  Specifically, an apostle could only be a man who was: 1) chosen by Jesus, 2) trained by Jesus from the time of His baptism through His sacrifice, and 3) was an eyeball witness that Jesus was risen from the dead.

It is good to calibrate these events against the biblical timeline starting with the events of Acts 9.  According to Acts 9:1 the man named Paul was not yet a Christian, though he was about to be converted and to begin his three years in isolation being trained by Jesus.  Acts 9 and 10 also tell us that WHILE Paul was in isolation for three years Peter was already evangelizing the Gentiles.  Peter had not yet met Paul, for Paul had not yet left Damascus where Paul was still evangelizing mostly Jews and being trained by Jesus.

While Paul was still in Damascus Peter’s efforts to evangelize the Gentiles inspired other evangelists to go to the Gentiles and eventually the men of Cyprus and Cyrene evangelized the Gentiles in Antioch where “large numbers” of Gentiles believed and turned to the Lord (Acts 11:20-21).

During his three years alone in Damascus Paul spent his time evangelizing primarily to Jews (“in the synagogues”--Acts 9:20, “confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus”--Acts 9:22).

So, after his three years evangelizing the Jews in Damascus Paul “went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.  But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.” (Galatians 1:17-28)

But note, when Paul first got to Jerusalem after his three years in isolation the disciples and apostles would not meet with him, not even Peter at first (Acts 9:26).  Paul simply had no authority or standing with the Twelve and had acquired for himself a terrible reputation as a murderer.  

So Barnabas grabbed the initiative and “took hold of him [Paul] and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he [Paul] had SEEN the [risen-from-the-dead] Lord…talked to Him, and how at Damascus he [Paul] had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus” for three years (Acts 9:26-27.  

Now remember, this meeting is the “after three years” meeting, and Paul said he did not meet with the other apostles, only Peter, James, and Barnabas (Galatians 1:18-19).  After that two weeks Paul went back to Syria and Cilicia for fourteen more years where he remained “unknown by sight to the churches of Judea” and to the other apostles (Galatians 1:18-2:1).

In fact, Paul only spent fifteen days in Jerusalem meeting with Peter and evangelizing the Jews before a murder threat against him forced him to flee to Caesarea and then to Tarsus (Acts 9:28-30).  Using Tarsus as his home town base, over the next fourteen years Paul spent his time preaching faith in Christ in Syria and Cilicia.  

What was Paul actually preaching in Syria and Cilicia?  “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." (Galatians 1:23).  Paul preached “the faith,” the same gospel he once tried to destroy.

Those believers who heard Paul and heard of what Paul was teaching found it was the same message, the same faith, as the one to which they were converted.  They did not mention any new message.  During this time he converted Titus and Titus’ family to the faith.

Only after preaching the faith in Damascus/Syria, Tarsus/Cilicia for fourteen years by himself did Barnabas finally come and find him and escorted Paul back to Jerusalem.  

Paul said a revelation or prophecy from God told him to go to Jerusalem.  Paul does not tell us any other detail about what the prophecy said, or why the revelation said to go to Jerusalem except that he should go to Jerusalem.  

To assume that the prophecy to go to Jerusalem also contained a new form of “gospel mystery” along with a command to go to Jerusalem is simply an assumption that is unsupported by textual evidences.  All Paul said is that the revelation commanded him to go to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-2).

When Barnabas, Titus, and Paul arrived in Jerusalem it was Paul’s opportunity to meet for the first time with the other apostles who had remained in Jerusalem, such as John.  This meeting was taking place more than seventeen years after Paul’s roadside conversion.  What was the meeting about?

The Twelve apostles wanted to examine and test Paul to see if the gospel he had been presenting to the Jews and Gentiles in Syria and Cilicia was indeed the same orthodox gospel they had been presenting in Judea and Antioch.  We know they were testing Paul because of Paul’s use of the word “communicated” or “submitted” and his explanation of how the meeting was private to protect his own reputation as an evangelist in case the apostles determined his message was wrong and that Paul had been running (evangelizing) in vain.

Paul “submitted to them the gospel which [he] preach[ed] among the Gentiles” (Galatians 2:2).  “Submitted” is only used one other time in the New Testament (Acts 25:14), and in that use it meant that a subordinate submitted a criminal case to the king so that the king could judge the rightness or wrongness of the charges in the lawsuit.  In this instance Paul “submitted” his gospel (as the “least of all apostles”) to be judged for its rightness or wrongness by the rest of the “more eminent apostles.”  

Paul wrote in Galatians 2:2 that if the other apostles of higher reputation had found Paul’s gospel message to be lacking they could have corrected him in private without fear of hurting his reputation.  Mostly they were worried that Paul was blending grace with Judaic Law, a Judaizer.  But Paul convinced them that he was not a Judaizer and had not delivered a mixed message (i.e. Paul’s message did not mix Law and Grace), for not even Titus, his Gentile convert, had been compelled to get circumcised (Galatians 2:3).

So convinced were the apostolic judges of the orthodoxy of Paul’s gospel message that those august apostles of “reputation contributed nothing” by which to improve or alter his message (Galatians 2:6).  On the contrary, not only did they make not changes to Paul’s gospel presentation but they commissioned him by entrusting him with their blessing to take the gospel to the Gentiles with the same status and stature as Peter enjoyed when he was taking the gospel to the Jews (Galatians 2:7-9).  

Actually, they did demand Paul do one thing differently.  The Twelve required Paul to be charitable to the poor, and this he was willing to do whole heartedly (Galatians 2:10).  

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated TO THEM that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,. . .

So, now we know that when Paul went to Jerusalem the second time (after the seventeen years) it was to submit his gospel to the eminent apostles for examination and judgment, which Paul passed with flying colors, suffering no necessary changes to his message.  Not only that, but they conferred upon him the same right hand of fellowship and status as a missionary which had earlier been conferred on and extended to Peter.  

1. Paul is sent by the Holy Spirit to Jerusalem to tell the disciples of his Gospel.

Not quite, Paul is sent to Jerusalem to have his gospel message submitted to and tested by the more eminent apostles.

2. They added nothing doctrinally to Paul but, on the contrary, he informed them of his Gospel - "my gospel, the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery" (Romans 16:25). His Gospel is part of the mystery revelation and he was sent to inform them of it.

Partly correct.  The Twelve added nothing to Paul’s gospel presentation, finding nothing lacking in it.  This is not surprising as the same Jesus who taught Paul for three years also had taught them for three years.  

Nowhere does Paul’s account say, “and the Twelve learned a new thing about the gospel from me.”  Instead Paul wrote that in the generation in which he lived the Holy Spirit had revealed to all the apostles and all the prophets the mystery of the Gentiles being fellow heirs in Christ (Ephesians 3:5).  

Also, nowhere does any Bible passage say this, “The mystery of the Gentiles being fellow heirs in Christ was revealed to no one but me and I had to reveal it to everyone else.”  Instead Paul says that he was amazed that God included him in on that mystery at all which the Holy Spirit (not Paul) had already “revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” (Ephesians 3:5).

3. Peter, James and John saw "BY THE SPIRIT" (Eph 3:5) the uniqueness of Paul's ministry AFTER Paul told them of it verbally, at the behest of the Spririt (v. 1).

This is essentially correct.  They saw that Paul was called to be an apostle to the Gentiles, NOT that Paul’s gospel was in any way different than theirs or Peter’s.

4. As a result of this divinely witnessed pact and as far as Scripture reveales, the disciples confined their ministry to Israel and Peter never left Israel. Paul, on the other hand, goes forth with the Gospel of grace for unsaved Jews and Gentiles alike, even unto Rome.

This is factually inaccurate.  Assuming you meant “the Twelve apostles” instead of “disciples” the statement is still factually wrong.  For example, we know that the apostle John left Israel and was eventually imprisoned on Patmos (Revelation 1:9).  Extant letters between early Christians do document the missionary initiatives of numerous of the apostles.  Of course these letters are not themselves Scripture, excepting Revelation, but there is little wisdom in denying the value of extra-biblical historical writings given we know that places where Paul and John did not go were also heavily evangelized by someone, and those letters often identify the evangelists.

In fact, we still do not know for a certainty who it was that evangelized the Gentiles in Rome and formed them into a church.  Paul wrote he was pleased the church had been formed but lamented he had not been there to help start up the church.  Paul would only get there later in chains as a prisoner, not as a founding apostle.  Though Scripture is silent on the matter credible writings of early pastors do credit Peter with having gone to Rome to help set up its first small church.

In all love and humility I say this: For your interpretation to be true, Paul must have been in error when he wrote in his letters - more than once - that the mystery WAS revealed unto him.

You have misstated me on this point.  I have always maintained that Paul too received the SAME revelation of the mystery as did all the other apostles AND prophets.  You have maintained as your thesis that Paul first and only received the revelation that Gentiles were fellow heirs of salvation in the Messiah, the Christ.  

But it was given to Paul first and only. Paul - by inspiration of Christ, I remind you - said so repeatedly and unmistakably.

And yet you have not quoted any Bible text that says Paul was the first and only one to receive the revelation of the mystery.  In fact, Paul himself said all the other apostles AND prophets of his generation got the same revelation and that he, being the last man to be appointed an apostle, was the last to get the revelation.

“and last of all, as to one untimely born, [Jesus] appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” (1 Corinthians 15:8-11)

Mark carefully what Paul says, “Whether then it was I or the other apostles, so we preach and so you believed.”  Sounds like the same preaching, same content, same gospel, same outcome.

To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles…

This is perhaps the most important thing I can add to this conversation.  Paul said “to me.”  He did NOT say, “To me alone.”  To make your case you have to ADD to the passage something Paul does not say.  

There is no debate that Paul was made an apostle to the Gentiles.  Nor is there any debate that Paul was to preach the mystery that everyone who believes (Jew and Gentile) are made fellow heirs of Jesus Christ, the Creator.  

So also was Peter to do that, which Peter did in fact do even before Paul had left his three years of isolation from Damascus (see Acts 9-11).  And so did the men of Cyprus and Cyrene who converted “large numbers” of Gentiles to be fellow heirs in Christ, also again they did this while Paul was still in Damascus.

Will you insist it was known to Peter and the others?

Paul said it, not me, “By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:4-6).

Again, I will point out that Paul credits all the apostles AND prophets with also having received this mystery revealed via the Holy Spirit and not via himself.  To make this passage say that Paul alone was the only one who received this mystery via the Spirit you must insert into the biblical text the words “alone” or “only,” words that simply are not there.

None of what you cited there is found in the O.T. nor in the four Gospel accounts (which is still O.T. ground)

“Hyper-dispensationalism” is the theological term for the idea that the four Gospels are not part of the New Covenant but are a part of the Old Covenant (i.e. covenant being another word for testament or contract).  It is not a mainstream doctrine.  It changes the historical mode of salvation from faith in a saving God to various forms of Law and works until it is assumed that Paul comes in at the last second and sets the entire record of salvation straight.  Paul then is hailed as the only author of Scripture whom has the gospel for the world.  

Hyper-dispensationalism tends to ignore that Hebrews 11 is an apologetic that explains that the only mode of salvation in every epoch of history was that of faith in a saving God, the Creator.  Hebrews 11 makes the point that faith in any age was the gospel message.  Hebrews 11 demonstrates that Paul’s gospel had to be the same as Jesus’ gospel.

However, don't miss the implications of seeing that much: None of what you cited there is found in the O.T. nor in the four Gospel accounts (which is still O.T. ground) nor even in Acts 2. Example: Paul's Gospel was that "Christ was raised again for our justification" (Rom 4:25)…”

Your assertion is that nowhere in the four Gospels will we find the truth that Jesus’ sacrifice was for our justification because Paul was the first in history to know this.  Such an assertion misses these Gospel truths:

"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people, and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant…To give to His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God…”(Luke 1:68-78)

for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28)

And in the same way  He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. (Luke 22:20)

"…'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'  I tell you, this man went to his house justified…" (Luke 18:13-14)

For my eyes have seen Your salvation, Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples, A LIGHT OF REVELATION TO THE GENTILES, And the glory of Your people Israel." (Luke 2:30-32)

And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." (Luke 19:9-10)

Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. (John 6:68)

exalted far above all to become "Head over all things to the Church which is His Body" (Eph 1:22-23),

You also said the four Gospels say nothing of Christ being the head of the church, because the Gospels are really the Old Covenant.  It then becomes necessary to neglect this:

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Matthew 16:18)

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

I think you get the idea.  Hyper-dispensationalism makes the mistake of assuming that because the four Gospels spent more time explaining Jesus’ life, parables, and sacrifice while Paul, Peter, and James spent more time explaining theology that somehow one approach is inferior to the other or carries a different plan of salvation.  The error in that thinking is assuming a different salvific message instead of assuming one core plan of salvation explained using different techniques (e.g. story narratives, poetry, letters of instruction, apocalyptic narrative, etc.).  

Christ Himself preached none of it during His ministry. Why not?

You are mistaken, as noted by the numerous quotations from the four Gospels above.  Jesus did preach the New Covenant of His blood, the forgiveness of sins, and Himself being the light of the world, even to the Gentiles, and finally commanding the apostles to go to ends of the planet to make disciples.

1) Paul DID claim to be the first, exclusive recipient of the mystery. Argue with him, not me:

1 Timothy 2:7: "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle..."

2 Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle..."

As all may plainly see, Paul does not claim he is the ONLY preacher, or the ONLY apostle, merely that he is one of many preachers, and one of a dozen apostles.

Preacher = Gr. kerux: an advance herald sent to announce something new, which he likewise did for Peter et al in Gal 2]

Why didn't Peter ever refer to himself as the kerux?

I have been utterly unable to identify from what Greek dictionary you obtained your definition of preacher.  That definition is not one found in the standard references.  Typically references like Strongs (“a herald, that is, of divine truth (especially of the gospel): - preacher“) and Thayer’s (“ a herald or messenger vested with public authority, who conveyed the official messages of kings, magistrates, princes, military commanders, or who gave a public summons or demand, and performed various other duties. In the NT God’s ambassador, and the herald or proclaimer of the divine word“) do not allow that the message is “new,” rather they explain that the emphasis is on the messenger as “authorized.”

2) Did any apostle prior to Paul lay claim to receiving the revelation of the mystery that Paul preached?

Yes, actually.  Luke interviewed the apostles to write his Gospel and He said that Jesus was the light to the Gentiles (Luke 2:32).  And, of course, all of Acts 9-11 are about Peter receiving from the Holy Spirit the revelation that the Gentiles are cleansed in Christ as fellow believers and fellow partakers of the Holy Spirit.  Of course, as we noted earlier, Paul was still in his three years of isolation in Damascus getting revelatory teachings from Jesus while Peter was doing this.

4) If the Gospel of the grace of God - which Paul tied to the revelation of the mystery - was not actually 'news,' why was Paul be allowed by the Spirit to repeatedly call it "my gospel" when, by your interpretation, he wasn't the first to preach it? How was this not erroneous if not deceptive, if your interpretation is correct?

For the same exact reason Paul often refers to Jesus as “my Lord,” and to God as “my God,” even though he does not own exclusivity to Jesus or to the Father.

a) Why did God need to send Peter the sheet vision when Peter already had the 'great commission'?

Why did Jesus need to come to Peter on the beach to tell him to stop fishing and get back to preaching when Jesus had already spent three years teaching him how to preach?  Because Peter, like all of us, was temporarily doubt filled, scared, and a bit disobedient.

b) Upon his arrival at Cornelius' home, why did Peter voice his legal reluctance at even seeing him, since the 'great commission' sent him and the others unto the Gentiles? Peter was not a bigot as such, for to be so would be to disobey Christ...so why his reluctance?

That is the wrong question.  The right question is, Why did Peter enter the home at all and preach the gospel to a Gentile who conducted an unclean profession out of his own home?  The answer:  Because the Holy Spirit revealed to him that Gentiles were fellow heirs to Christ and fellow partakers of the Holy Spirit.

Regarding c: because it was the first time they personally witnessed the event.  

Regarding d: would you really dictate to the Holy Spirit which words of Jesus He must bring to someone’s mind and when?  See Acts 11:16.

Regarding e: it took Paul 17 years of preaching before the Twelve sanctioned him going to the Gentiles as an apostle.  Until then Peter was the first to reach out to Gentiles, followed by many others who were very successful, especially in Antioch.  

Regarding f: your assumptions are invalid.  John did leave Israel.  As for the other apostles the Scriptures nowhere state they never left Israel and other written church history indicates that many of them did.  The point either way proves nothing about Paul’s gospel being the same as or different from the gospel of the Twelve or the gospel of Jesus.

Also consider that Acts 8:4 says the Jews who were scattered abroad after the stoning of Stephen "went everywhere preaching the Word." Here we are told that they had been "preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." This scattering took place approximately ten years before the events in Antioch. This means that all during this period, none but Jews were evangelized. There's a reason for that and it wasn't Jewish bigotry. Do you know what it was?

The underlying assertion is false.  Philip preached to the Ethiopian court official, a Gentile.  Philip, Peter, and John all preached in Samaria, a region and a people considered worse than other Gentiles because they mixed idolatry with their religion (note: even Jesus preached to those heathens).  

Now look at the actual text which you are referencing:

When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.
(Acts 11:18-20)

Luke just finished telling us how Peter changed the minds of the Judean Christians so that they would begin evangelizing the Gentiles (Acts 11).  Luke uses the literary device of a flashback to remind us of the attitude AT THE TIME OF STEPHEN’s STONING some ten years earlier (in Acts 7).  That flashback goes back almost ten years (to Acts 7), before Paul was even saved (Paul was actually there at the stoning as a young servant boy before he rose to power as a high ranking Pharisee leading troops of his own against the church).

Luke uses this flashback device to give us a dramatic look at how vastly different attitudes toward the Gentiles had changed from ten years earlier during Stephen’s time (in Acts 7) and now (Acts 11), after Peter had begun evangelizing the Gentiles.  Ten years earlier the common Jewish Christian convert would not have thought to engage the Gentiles in such dialogue.  But after Peter’s efforts men were even coming from foreign countries to evangelize the Gentiles!  That was what Peter’s vision did for the global missions.

I was going to end my responses here because virtually everything else is repetition.  However, I felt the following was important as it deals with salvation itself.

Essentially, yes. Instrumentally, no. Salvation was always by faith in whatever that merciful Savior God said at specific times in human history; on what He said to believe or to do, which has varied from age to age.

Salvation was never based on what we do.  The Jews could have obeyed the Law all day long and not attained salvation.  The Law was never meant to save.  So, you are not correct when you say, “Salvation was always by faith in whatever…God…said to…do, which varied from age to age.”  Salvation is not faith in doing.  Salvation is faith in the saving God.

Hebrews 11 instructs that salvation was always based on faith in the saving God of Creation.  Those who offered sacrifices were often unbelievers, as the Old Testament repeatedly informs us.  And sometimes those who offered no sacrifices had greater saving faith than the Jews who did offer sacrifices, as Jesus told us (Mattew 8:8-10).  In any case, salvation was never attained by what we do, or by having faith in what we do, that is, salvation is not through deeds or through having faith in deeds.

It is my sincere hope that we can agree on that.  

Blessings.

Thanks for the discussion.  

[musterion]

This is perhaps the most important thing I can add to this conversation.  Paul said “to me.”  He did NOT say, “To me alone.”  To make your case you have to ADD to the passage something Paul does not say. 

I have digested your entire reply. I have one of my own but I won't weary you with it, save for these two points.

1. Forgive my being blunt but I am deeply disturbed by your assertion the Jerusalem apostles had the authority to demand Paul meet their qualifications "for examination and judgment." NOWHERE does ANY of them claim any such authority over Paul, nor does Paul say they had it. You have added this to Scripture.

2. Since you made the quote above your most important point, allow me to confine my final (if you wish it to be such) question to it.

Your ultimate point remains a claim that is still unproved from Scripture, so I ask that you prove it from Scripture by showing where Peter or any other circumcision apostle preceded Paul in a salvation message

(a) to a non-proselyte Gentile,
(b) where the convert is told that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, without works.

Chapter and verse for this, please. If you can show it -- not surmise, speculate, suppose, infer, but show it from the text of Scripture -- where Peter or any other Jewish believer preached salvation by grace through faith to a Gentile "dog" before Paul did, you will have shown that Paul's gospel was essentially identical to what they were already preaching, and I will concede my entire argument as wrong.

[EverAStudent]

NOWHERE does ANY of them [the twelve apostles in Jerusalem] claim any such authority over Paul, nor does Paul say they had it. You have added this to Scripture.

Paul himself states that the Twelve Apostles had authoritative standing greater than his; he states this both directly and indirectly. 

In 1 Corinthians 15:9 he states directly, “For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. “ (1 Corinthians 15:9) 

The word “least” (Greek: elachistos) according to Thayer’s definitions, means “smallest;” specifically smallest in:
      a) size
      b) in amount: of management of affairs
      c) in importance: what is the least moment
      d) in authority: of commandments
      e) in the estimation of men: of persons
      f)  in rank and excellence: of persons

Paul states plainly that Jesus called Paul into apostleship last of all “for the reason of my being the least of the apostles” or “because I am the least of the apostles.” 

So, in the context of Paul’s own statement, Jesus delayed making Paul an apostle “because” Paul’s apostleship was to be the smallest in authority (see definition d above) or smallest in rank among the other apostles (see f).  It is evident that this is what Paul meant by “smallest” because it is simply silliness to assume that Jesus delayed to appoint Paul merely because Paul was short (a), or not busy enough (b), or not important enough (c), or was not a famous enough Pharisee (e).

From Paul’s own testimony we know that Jesus delayed until last in appointing Paul to apostleship so as to establish Paul’s ranking and authority as secondary to the other apostles.  Surely this is why Jesus stated that the Twelve Apostles would be the ones who would judge Israel from the twelve thrones while omitting Paul from that esteemed group. 

Moreover, in 2 Corinthians 11:5 Paul even acknowledged that the Twelve Apostles were more “eminent” (Greek: huperephanos--Thayer’s: conspicuously above others in standing or rank) than he was, but Paul did not consider himself to be in any way an inferior apostle simply because of that lower rank.  In fact Paul states his deeds and knowledge are just as good as those of the apostles who outrank him.  Nonetheless, the Twelve did outrank him.  See also where Paul makes the same point about the Twelve being of higher rank in 2 Corinthians 12:11.

And, of course, Paul himself stated that he deferred to the Twelve’s authority when they refused to meet with him on his first trip to Jerusalem three years after his salvation, “When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.”  (Acts 9:26)  So Paul only met with Peter, and that only happened because Barnabas became Paul‘s advocate.  Paul did not have the rank or authority to order or demand the Twelve to meet with him, but they did have the rank to deny him such a meeting.

So, even three years after Paul was commissioned to become an apostle by Jesus the majority of the Twelve did not even consider Paul to be a believer much less to be an eminent or ranking apostle. 

When Paul returned to Jerusalem fourteen years later Paul wrote that he had to privately “submit” to the Twelve the text of the gospel he had been preaching so they could determine if Paul “had been running in vain” as a Judaizer or not (Galatians 2:1-20).  That statement by Paul is an admission by him that the “eminent” Twelve were passing judgment on his apostolic qualifications.  Thus Paul was submitting to their judgment as to whether his ministry had been in vain or not.

I ask that you prove it from Scripture by showing where Peter or any other circumcision apostle preceded Paul in a salvation message (a) to a non-proselyte Gentile,

This I did in considerable detail in my previous post.  From numerous passages I cited where Peter and others transitioned from preaching to Jews only to preaching to the Gentiles, particularly in Acts 9 - 11 (see Acts 11:20-21), and this they did among the Gentiles with considerable success.

(b) where the convert is told that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, without works.

This idea that Jesus and the Twelve were teaching a gospel of salvation by works is a dangerous and unorthodox doctrine, though I know it is popular among hyper-dispensationalists.  How many times in Scripture have you read that the Law never saved anyone?  How many times have you read in the Bible that salvation was by faith alone and that works only display saving faith, not cause it? 

Was Jesus not the literal author of the Law of Moses?  Was Jesus not the literal author of the gospel which Paul preached?  Could it be even remotely possible that Jesus would preach that salvation was by works of the Law when He knew full well that “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight“ (Romans 3:20)?  Would Jesus ever teach a salvation of works knowing that by it no one ever was or ever would be saved?   

As before, I previously posted the abundance of Scriptures which demonstrate that during Jesus’ lifetime salvation from sin by faith was the core gospel message being preached.  Rather than repeat that information here, I will ask that the reader look at the previous post.

Lastly, it is not necessary that I “prove” that the gospel of Jesus is the same as the gospel of Paul by trying to recreate those messages from the tiny snippets of speech recorded in the narratives of the Gospels or Acts.  Paul himself already said there was only ever one gospel (2 Corinthians 11:4, Philippians 1:27) and by it all were saved into one faith and one Christ.

Again, thank you for the conversation.