Repentance and Acceptance of Christ:Is this merely the beginning of a “Journey into Salvation”?

The subject of salvation was, is and will always remain a topic of debate amongst believers. Some group of Christians believe in salvation by grace and some believe in salvation by works. These two groups are believers/followers of Christ. However, when it comes to an understanding of this subject, each group remains unconvinced about the others side of the story. I choose to say that, because we find it difficult to admit the hard fact that what many of us have been taught over the years is wrong. If this is true, then I can safely conclude that this is more of an ego issue rather than an attempt to uphold the truth of scripture.

Perhaps it is not particularly surprising that this is happening in our time. The difference in Christian’s understanding of Salvation is as old as Christianity itself. We gather from the book of Acts, that the first sects of believers were Jews converted from Judaism (Acts 3 & 13) and came into Christianity with their cultural beliefs, practices and religion. These early believers could not readily understand or accept that it was part of God’s great plan that Gentiles should be saved. Those of them who understood were still afraid and did not want to be seen to be identified with the Gentiles. The Jews regarded themselves as a superior race that had been singlehandedly picked by God for eternity.

These converted Jews believed in the Law of Moses and that their deeds would earn them a place in heaven. They (Peter, James and John) claimed to have Christ but still taught that faith in Christ without works was not sufficient for salvation (James 2:20).

We read in Acts 13 that two apostles of Christ (Paul and Barnabas) were sent forth to take the gospel to the Gentiles while the other apostles remained with the Jews. As a result, the teachings of the apostles who stayed with the Jews expressed and continue to proclaim the Jewish culture, understanding and order of salvation.

On the other hand, the Apostles (Paul and Barnabas) who went to the Gentiles brought a message – the true gospel for the Church on the meaning of Salvation: they taught about “Grace through Faith” as being the free gift of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). The same Apostle teaches about the law and salvation Galatians 3.

Perhaps it is worth pointing out that one was either an Israelite or a Non-Israelite (Gentile), therefore Christians are not Jews. God could have created us Jews if He wanted to. The Jews still believe in works through the Law and the Christian believe in Grace through Faith in Christ Jesus.

Today some still believe in Salvation by Works, while some believe in Salvation by Grace through Faith. The following points highlight some of these issues:

a) Some appear to feel that salvation is too easy or cheap as presented in the scriptures. They believe the teaching on grace allows for believers to be lukewarm in their service to God, and that it permits sin. However, this is simply an erroneous view held by certain believers rather than what the scriptures says. It would be wrong to allow our feelings to overshadow the word of God as laid out in the scriptures.

b) A common question defiantly debated among believers is this: “so, after salvation what else?”, because they believe that some kind of work is required. This suggests that such believers see repentance as merely the beginning of a “journey into salvation”. They believe that in order for believers to sustain their Salvation, there are requirements (things they need to do such as keeping the do’s and don’ts of the Law). They quote scriptures without actually understanding the application of these quotations. They simply cannot understand or accept the truth that acceptance of Christ alone (simple as it sounds) is what leads to Salvation.

c) Many also believe that sin can make a believer to lose their Salvation and not make Heaven. If this position is correct, then we can conclude that:
• Salvation is not a free gift.
• No believer can ever hope to make heaven, as no human being can say he/she doesn’t sin.
• The death of Christ is in vain or Christ needs to die again and again for salvation.

So what then is the truth? If we agree that it is only the death and resurrection of Christ that sets us free from sin and death, must Christ die all over again each time a Christian fall into sin? Certainly not! For if we agree that salvation is a free gift, then we are saying that there is nothing anyone can do to qualify for it: it is not a reward, a prize or a wage (that we receive for work done or carried out). It is simply a FREE GIFT!

Those who quote Romans 6:23 say that the wages of sin is death, however, they do not go on to complete the statement by adding the other vital part of this timeless scripture that says, “But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus”.

We can conclude by saying that whilst repentance and acceptance of Christ undoubtedly is Salvation and not the beginning of a “Journey into Salvation”. Salvation (and with it, our place in Heaven) is not only promised, but it is assured to us at the point of repentance and acceptance of Christ! This is the simplicity and the beauty of the Gospel of Grace.





O rufai

I agree.

Although I disagree with the position that James, Peter and some other Jerusalem apostles believed salvation by works. My own deduction is that they may not have understood the doctrine in its wholesomeness the way Paul preached it, but they accepted Paul doctrine and did not detract from it. The James 2 scriptures was not saying Justification was gonna be by works but that no one can truly say that he is justified by faith without showing the works.

And that point James made is very vital when the doctrine of grace is proclaimed bc without that caveat, the teaching will lead inevitably to licenciousness. So if you are truly justified, don't just say it; show it. That is what James is saying.

James and Peter, did not detract from Paul's teachings in their letters. They did not understand all he taught though, like Peter confessed. The epistles are scriptures for the church age and no part of it should be explained away as works and the other as grace.

^^^^But their differences were quite clear to see in the book of Acts and Galatians.

shdemidemi: ^^^^But their differences were quite clear to see in the book of Acts and Galatians.

They did have differences as reported in those scriptures but to regard the scripture as flawless, you cannot degrade one author and exalt another. Written scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Their actions as recoreded is Acts and Galatians were not flawless but their epistles must be regarded as flawless for us to maintain the integrity of the whole bibie.

Now, what I have said does not mean that I accept that the laws of Moses found in the OT are relevant today. Paul shows us clearly that the law is done away with in the cross of Jesus. So any thing written in the OT, outside the law, is still for our edification.

^^

I believe your understanding here is a more accurate understanding of the Scriptures. I disagree with you on Peter. I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures where Peter Peter confessed that he did not understand all that Paul taught. He said SOME people do not understand it and twist it for their own destruction. That's not to say that he himself is included. Besides, how on earth would he know that people misunderstood Paul if he did not have an understanding of what Paul was saying?

On James and works, I agree with you completely. It continues to boggle the mind how Grace preachers often attack James. James made clear what he was talking about - the sacrifice by Abraham of his son. Abraham believed God in his heart and was ready to do what he believed, which is sacrifice Isaac. But would it do any good if he stayed at home and did nothing and then claim that he is justified by the faith he has in his heart? In fact, God Himself did not commend Abraham's faith until the point he raised the knife to kill his son.That's God's understanding of faith - that you act on what you believe. Grace preachers should not make it appear as though all you need is claim you believe and you're justified. No, that's not faith. Faith has an action component to complete it as well as an action component that serves as its fruit. Paul called what Abraham did with Isaac faith. James emphasized the action component. Both were discussing the same incident, not 2 different incidents.

The reality is that the core of the Grace message is that we live beyond the law and this calls for a higher level of living than the law. Grace preaching should not stop at how we are not under the law, because all that does is make the preacher and the congregation feel good, including those that see it as an occasion to live a sin-filled life. The real work starts in living everyday under grace. And that is far more demanding than the life under the law.

^^^^ Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness... It did not say Abraham had faith and worked and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Like all of us Abraham failed some test, he lied, he compromised amongst other things. So, saying the work Abraham did made him perfect would be wrong.

Peter actually did not understand Paul's gospel, 1peter and Acts makes that clear. He was given the job by Christ to take the gospel to the Gentiles and he was also shown through a vision how Gentiles are now part of the fold. Peter saw the signs but he could not carry out the job.

^^
You're mixing things up. Abraham's lifestyle and what made him justified are 2 different things. James and Paul were talking about what made Abraham justified and they referred to one incident - the sacrifice of Issac. And Abraham was not counted righteous or his faith was not accounted for righteousness when he was in his house - it was when he left hom and raised his hand to kill his son. Both the OT and Paul make that clear. And so does James. Only difference is that Paul calls the act faith while James calls the act works, because James was focusing on the fact that there is no such thing as (justifying) faith without action. How does a person get justified today? Is it by 'believing' in his heart or acting on that belief by confessing Jesus as Lord? Put differently, when you say Abraham was justified by faith, what is the content of that faith?

The idea that Peter did not understand Paul's message because he did not understand a vision shown in Acts is a weak one. Even Paul probably did not understand all of his message in the beginning. He even accepted to purify himself according to the Law in Acts. If somebody else had done that, you'd also accuse him of not understanding Paul's message.

Please show me where in 1 Pet. where Peter said he did not understand Paul's message.

And another thing I notice you're doing is to divide the Church of Christ into 2: one for Jews and one for christians. There is only one body of Christ and the same message applies to all. Peter being sent to the Jews and Paul being sent to the Gentiles does not mean that the 2 sets of christians would be applying 2 different sets of principles. Nothing in the WOrd of God says that. In fact, when Paul met Jews during his minsitry, he preached the same message to them.

nlMediator: ^^

I believe your understanding here is a more accurate understanding of the Scriptures. I disagree with you on Peter. I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures where Peter Peter confessed that he did not understand all that Paul taught. He said SOME people do not understand it and twist it for their own destruction. That's not to say that he himself is included. Besides, how on earth would he know that people misunderstood Paul if he did not have an understanding of what Paul was saying?

On James and works, I agree with you completely. It continues to boggle the mind how Grace preachers often attack James. James made clear what he was talking about - the sacrifice by Abraham of his son. Abraham believed God in his heart and was ready to do what he believed, which is sacrifice Isaac. But would it do any good if he stayed at home and did nothing and then claim that he is justified by the faith he has in his heart? In fact, God Himself did not commend Abraham's faith until the point he raised the knife to kill his son.That's God's understanding of faith - that you act on what you believe. Grace preachers should not make it appear as though all you need is claim you believe and you're justified. No, that's not faith. Faith has an action component to complete it as well as an action component that serves as its fruit. Paul called what Abraham did with Isaac faith. James emphasized the action component. Both were discussing the same incident, not 2 different incidents.

The reality is that the core of the Grace message is that we live beyond the law and this calls for a higher level of living than the law. Grace preaching should not stop at how we are not under the law, because all that does is make the preacher and the congregation feel good, including those that see it as an occasion to live a sin-filled life. The real work starts in living everyday under grace. And that is far more demanding than the life under the law.

This post has made my morning. God Bless you abundantly sir!

nlMediator: ^^
You're mixing things up. Abraham's lifestyle and what made him justified are 2 different things. James and Paul were talking about what made Abraham justified and they referred to one incident - the sacrifice of Issac. And Abraham was not counted righteous or his faith was not accounted for righteousness when he was in his house - it was when he left hom and raised his hand to kill his son. Both the OT and Paul make that clear. And so does James. Only difference is that Paul calls the act faith while James calls the act works, because James was focusing on the fact that there is no such thing as (justifying) faith without action. How does a person get justified today? Is it by 'believing' in his heart or acting on that belief by confessing Jesus as Lord? Put differently, when you say Abraham was justified by faith, what is the content of that faith?

The idea that Peter did not understand Paul's message because he did not understand a vision shown in Acts is a weak one. Even Paul probably did not understand all of his message in the beginning. He even accepted to purify himself according to the Law in Acts. If somebody else had done that, you'd also accuse him of not understanding Paul's message.

Please show me where in 1 Pet. where Peter said he did not understand Paul's message.

And another thing I notice you're doing is to divide the Church of Christ into 2: one for Jews and one for christians. There is only one body of Christ and the same message applies to all. Peter being sent to the Jews and Paul being sent to the Gentiles does not mean that the 2 sets of christians would be applying 2 different sets of principles. Nothing in the WOrd of God says that. In fact, when Paul met Jews during his minsitry, he preached the same message to them.

my brother i don tell am dis thing tire o.

nlMediator: ^^
You're mixing things up. Abraham's lifestyle and what made him justified are 2 different things. James and Paul were talking about what made Abraham justified and they referred to one incident - the sacrifice of Issac. And Abraham was not counted righteous or his faith was not accounted for righteousness when he was in his house - it was when he left hom and raised his hand to kill his son. Both the OT and Paul make that clear. And so does James. Only difference is that Paul calls the act faith while James calls the act works, because James was focusing on the fact that there is no such thing as (justifying) faith without action. How does a person get justified today? Is it by 'believing' in his heart or acting on that belief by confessing Jesus as Lord? Put differently, when you say Abraham was justified by faith, what is the content of that faith?.

Thank you for your response- Lets take this thing together by the scriptures. The Jews(legalists) had the same understanding you have right now. Paul explained explicitly in Romans 4, He said-

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faithi is credited as righteousness.

The man is saying, your trust is what makes you righteous like Abraham and not what you do. When it comes to the issue of grace, as simple as it sounds, Paul says it was a gift. A gift is something that you get without merit- If i work for you, I will demand my wage because it is my right to but God leaves us in a state of brokeness where our salvation/righteousness does not depend on what we can do but what God has done, so every mouth ,or boast can be stopped.

nlMediator: ^^
The idea that Peter did not understand Paul's message because he did not understand a vision shown in Acts is a weak one. Even Paul probably did not understand all of his message in the beginning. He even accepted to purify himself according to the Law in Acts. If somebody else had done that, you'd also accuse him of not understanding Paul's message.
Please show me where in 1 Pet. where Peter said he did not understand Paul's message.?.

ok, Peter knew the contents of the law, he walked with Christ as well during his earthly ministry. He was there in mathew 10:5-
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near

But after the death of Christ, things changed. Peter was also there when Christ said in Acts 1-'you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Did Peter or the rest get the transition that took place? No, because in Acts11:19-

"Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only."

The gospel Paul had was different from what the other twelve had. He sat with them and concluded that they added nothing to me by what they knew. Remember he never saw Christ during his earthly ministry, he says how he got his gospel-

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ

nlMediator: ^^ Please show me where in 1 Pet. where Peter said he did not understand Paul's message.

Read the whole of the chapter and pick out the crux of the message,if you insist we can as well go through it together. The people Peter addressed this letter to is also an indication that he did not understand this fresh revelation that has been given to Paul-

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,

nlMediator: ^^
And another thing I notice you're doing is to divide the Church of Christ into 2: one for Jews and one for christians. There is only one body of Christ and the same message applies to all. Peter being sent to the Jews and Paul being sent to the Gentiles does not mean that the 2 sets of christians would be applying 2 different sets of principles. Nothing in the WOrd of God says that. In fact, when Paul met Jews during his minsitry, he preached the same message to them.

No, there are two comings of Christ according to scriptures-one for the church and the other for the jews.
1 thessalonians 4
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air

zechariah 14:4

On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. 5 You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake[a] in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones [/b]with him

Paul would not preach what the rest preached-
Romans 2:16
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ [b]according to my gospel. The scripture says you and I would be judged according to the gospel preached by this Apostle. A jew person can decide to join the church and abide/believe according to the gospel of Paul(grace) or remain under the doctrine of the kingdom for the jewish nation (promise).

Bidam: my brother i don tell am dis thing tire o.

I am a stickler for true word of God. Show me what I am saying through scripture is wrong and see if I would not agree with you. All I am saying is let's leave God's word the way it is without trying to help God say what he is not saying.

shdemidemi:
I am a stickler for true word of God. Show me what I am saying through scripture is wrong and see if I would not agree with you. All I am saying is let's leave God's word the way it is without trying to help God say what he is not saying.

so you actually think i am the one manufacturing these statements abi? What in God's name gave you this erroneous impression that i am trying to help God say what He is not saying Ok let's start with Apostle Peter statement concerning Paul letters.Peter warned us that people would misinterpret/misunderstand the writings of the Apostle Paul:[/b]Shikena!

2 Peter 3: 15 And think of our Lord's patience as deliverance, just as our dear brother Sha'ul also wrote you, following the wisdom God gave him. 16[b] Indeed, he speaks about these things in all his letters. They contain some things that are hard to understand, things which the uninstructed and unstable distort, to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

nlMediator: ^^

I believe your understanding here is a more accurate understanding of the Scriptures. I disagree with you on Peter. I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures where Peter Peter confessed that he did not understand all that Paul taught. He said SOME people do not understand it and twist it for their own destruction. That's not to say that he himself is included. Besides, how on earth would he know that people misunderstood Paul if he did not have an understanding of what Paul was saying?

On James and works, I agree with you completely. It continues to boggle the mind how Grace preachers often attack James. James made clear what he was talking about - the sacrifice by Abraham of his son. Abraham believed God in his heart and was ready to do what he believed, which is sacrifice Isaac. But would it do any good if he stayed at home and did nothing and then claim that he is justified by the faith he has in his heart? In fact, God Himself did not commend Abraham's faith until the point he raised the knife to kill his son.That's God's understanding of faith - that you act on what you believe. Grace preachers should not make it appear as though all you need is claim you believe and you're justified. No, that's not faith. Faith has an action component to complete it as well as an action component that serves as its fruit. Paul called what Abraham did with Isaac faith. James emphasized the action component. Both were discussing the same incident, not 2 different incidents.

The reality is that the core of the Grace message is that we live beyond the law and this calls for a higher level of living than the law. Grace preaching should not stop at how we are not under the law, because all that does is make the preacher and the congregation feel good, including those that see it as an occasion to live a sin-filled life. The real work starts in living everyday under grace. And that is far more demanding than the life under the law.

Very beautifully spoken. This is the very essence of all we have been talking about. Thank you nlmediator.

Bidam: so you actually think i am the one manufacturing these statements abi? What in God's name gave you this erroneous impression that i am trying to help God say what He is not saying Ok let's start with Apostle Peter statement concerning Paul letters.Peter warned us that people would misinterpret/misunderstand the writings of the Apostle Paul:Shikena!

2 Peter 3: 15 And think of our Lord's patience as deliverance, just as our dear brother Sha'ul also wrote you, following the wisdom God gave him. 16 Indeed, he speaks about these things in all his letters. They contain some things that are hard to understand, things which the uninstructed and unstable distort, to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.]

ok,please let us leave personal issues for now. Peter warned the scattered Jewish believers although we can learn from these things as christians. The bolded shows Peter himself was not fully convinced coupled with what was agreed in Acts 15:5-22.

Which people do you think Paul was warning the church against in Galatians?

shdemidemi:

ok,please let us leave personal issues for now. The bolded shows Peter himself was not fully convinced coupled with what was agreed in Acts 15:5-22.

Nope that's a wrong misrepresentation of facts.Peter taught that Paul was hard to understand, the "things hard to understand" are not identified in this short passage. Peter wrote that there would be those who would twist Paul's words to mean something incorrect.

shdemidemi: Which people do you think Paul was warning the church against in Galatians?

Paul was actually warning against recent Jewish converts who had an incorrect or incomplete view of faith/salvation. This is shown in several places including; Galatians 2:3-5; 3:1-4; 5:2-11 and 6:12-15. These people were telling new Galatian converts that you had to do certain things for salvation, other than trust in God through Jesus. They were of the same faction mentioned in Acts chapter 15.

Bidam: Nope that's a wrong misrepresentation of facts.Peter taught that Paul was hard to understand, the "things hard to understand" are not identified in this short passage. Peter wrote that there would be those who would twist Paul's words to mean something incorrect.

Paul was actually warning against recent Jewish converts who had an incorrect or incomplete view of faith/salvation. This is shown in several places including; Galatians 2:3-5; 3:1-4; 5:2-11 and 6:12-15. These people were telling new Galatian converts that you had to do certain things for salvation, other than trust in God through Jesus. They were of the same faction mentioned in Acts chapter 15.

please don't just reply because i took my time to visit the verses you wrote as well-
galatians 2:6

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter

What people was Paul referring to here-(He was speaking of the other disciples). You might want to argue that, he went on further down '9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars' (ask yourself what he meant by 'who seemed') and further down for the blow-

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation(camouflage, hypocrisy).

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

He asked Peter why he would compel the gentiles to live like Jews which he said is not part of the truth of the gospel.

shdemidemi:

please don't just reply because i took my time to visit the verses you wrote as well-
galatians 2:6

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter

What people was Paul referring to here-(He was speaking of the other disciples). You might want to argue that, he went on further down '9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars' (ask yourself what he meant by 'who seemed') and further down for the blow-

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation(camouflage, hypocrisy).

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

He asked Peter why he would compel the gentiles to live like Jews which he said is not part of the truth of the gospel.

another misinterpretation and cherry picking of scripture to say what you want it to say. Who is guilty now? And you were actually accusing me of having a personal interpretation of scripture abi? I understand where you are coming from and let me categorically tell you here that Paul's rebuke of Peter, in the second chapter of Galatians, is NOT a proof that "the Law" had ended for Jews who now followed the Messiah. After all, doesn't Paul criticize Peter for going back to his "old ways" (keeping kosher) just to placate certain Jews who don't realize he is now "not under the Law?"

The problem here is that the text shows that the issue is not one of the food being eaten. Peter was indeed eating with Gentile believers, however this is not "different" in that he was now eating non-kosher food. Rather, it was "different" because Jews generally did not sit and eat with Gentiles at that time. However, Peter was told by God that Gentiles were to be considered "clean." This was the meaning of of his dream in Acts chapter 10, which had nothing to do with eating unkosher food, as seen by Peter's responses in Acts 10:17, 28, 34, 11:3-17; 15:7-10.

Peter was rebuked by Paul because of his hypocrisy, as when he saw Jewish brethren approaching, he walked away from the Gentiles, treating them as if they were spiritual inferiors.


When Paul says to Peter that they "live" in the same way, he is not talking about their eating habits. Rather, Paul is saying they are "saved" in the same way. This is consistent with the theme of the rest of the letter -- that Jews and Gentiles are saved ("live" in the same way, by faith, not "works of Law."

Alwaystrue:

Very beautifully spoken. This is the very essence of all we have been talking about. Thank you nlmediator.

please look into this issue properly to see the uniqueness of the revelation given to Apostle Paul--The scripture is a progressive revelation. See Acts 15:1-2 to see how Paul distorted their gospel alongside Barnabas. Saying this, the story of Apollos and the couple Aquila and Priscilla comes to mind. Paul taught the couple this new revelation and they taught Apollos whom the bible described as an 'eloquent man and mighty in scriptures' but he knew only the baptism of John. Acts 18:18-28.

Bidam:

Peter was rebuked by Paul because of his hypocrisy, as when he saw Jewish brethren approaching, he walked away from the Gentiles, treating them as if they were spiritual inferiors.


When Paul says to Peter that they "live" in the same way, he is not talking about their eating habits. Rather, Paul is saying they are "saved" in the same way. This is consistent with the theme of the rest of the letter -- that Jews and Gentiles are saved ("live" in the same way, by faith, not "works of Law."

Bidaaaaaaam....back what you are saying up by scriptures and interpret what this verse says

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

compel means force. Why would Paul be asking why Peter is forcing the believer/christians/church to live like jews. Be sincere.

shdemidemi:

Bidaaaaaaam....back what you are saying up by scriptures and interpret what this verse says

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

compel means force. Why would Paul be asking why Peter is forcing the believer/christians/church to live like gentiles. Be sincere.

And i still maintain my stand that Peter was rebuked by Paul because of his hypocrisy, as when he saw Jewish brethren approaching, he walked away from the Gentiles, treating them as if they were spiritual inferiors. Nothing more, nothing less.Gal 2:13.

Bidam: And i still maintain my stand that Peter was rebuked by Paul because of his hypocrisy, as when he saw Jewish brethren approaching, he walked away from the Gentiles, treating them as if they were spiritual inferiors. Nothing more, nothing less.Gal 2:13.

Should I take it that you disagree with that part of the scripture?

shdemidemi:

Should I take it that you disagree with that part of the scripture?

It is not about disagreeing.It's about taking that scripture literally without any personal interpretation.

Bidam: It is not about disagreeing.It's about taking that scripture literally without any personal interpretation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

without personal interpretation, can you not see or understand what is written there^^

shdemidemi:

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

without personal interpretation, can you not see or understand what is written there^^

What do you understand by "walking in the spirit" and "walking in the flesh"?

Bidam: What do you understand by "walking in the spirit" and "walking in the flesh"?

which yeye spirit, see this bidam o, its me you want to be using spirit scam for. stop it, 'study to show yourself approved'

shdemidemi:

which yeye spirit, see this bidam o, its me you want to be using spirit scam for. stop it, 'study to show yourself approved'

My point is peter has been dealing with the gentiles long before Saul aka Paul was entrusted with the Gospel as seen in Acts 10. Paul accusation of peter walking with the gentiles when the Jews were not present and separating himself when the Jews were around all boils down to hypocrisy nothing more..haba!

shdemidemi:
please look into this issue properly to see the uniqueness of the revelation given to Apostle Paul--The scripture is a progressive revelation. See Acts 15:1-2 to see how Paul distorted their gospel alongside Barnabas. Saying this, the story of Apollos and the couple Aquila and Priscilla comes to mind. Paul taught the couple this new revelation and they taught Apollos whom the bible described as an 'eloquent man and mighty in scriptures' but he knew only the baptism of John. Acts 18:18-28.

You cannot seperate grace and obedience. You said in your OP, Grace through faith!
Do you even realise what grace through faith in Jesus means.
You cannoy claim to belief in Jesus and claim to know Him and refuse to obey his commands.
Faith...belief is totally trust in what someone says and does. It is full obedience and that will always be expressed in thoughts, words and actions.
Even the thief on the cross made a request to Christ to remember Him in His Kingdom because He realised at that point that Jesus is truly the Christ. That was an ACT of faith.


Circumcision is of the heart. In the OT, God said circumcize the foreskin of your heart...that was the whole essence of the circumcision as commanded, the circumcision of the flesh was how it was to be conveyed initially by obedience....the heart was the priority.

Bidam: My point is peter has been dealing with the gentiles long before Saul aka Paul was entrusted with the Gospel as seen in Acts 10. Paul accusation of peter walking with the gentiles when the Jews were not present and separating himself when the Jews were around all boils down to hypocrisy nothing more..haba!

No...Christ told him to but he didn't. He only went when he saw the vision but was afraid of the Jews to continue, so he knew the truth but he was scared. Aside being scared he was compelling gentiles to take part in the jewish culture as part of the gospel. Paul calls the law flesh and the gospel of Christ he called Spirit, Paul called that church in Galatia foolish for adhering to Peter and the rest by thinking they would be made perfect by the deeds of the law.

shdemidemi:

No...Christ told him to but he didn't. He only went when he saw the vision but was afraid of the Jews to continue, so he knew the truth but he was scared. Aside being scared he was compelling gentiles to take part in the jewish culture as part of the gospel

. You are reading a different meaning which to me is irrelevant in the word of God. Point is did peter respond or not?

Paul calls the law flesh and the gospel of Christ he called Spirit, Paul called that church in Galatia foolish for adhering to Peter and the rest by thinking they would be made perfect by the deeds of the law.

another misinterpretation of scripture.like i said earlier and will still repeat my self again Paul was warning the Galatians about recent Jewish converts who had an incorrect or incomplete view of faith/salvation and NOT the apostles.

Bidam: . You are reading a different meaning which to me is irrelevant in the word of God. Point is did peter respond or not?another misinterpretation of scripture.like i said earlier and will still repeat my self again Paul was warning the Galatians about recent Jewish converts who had an incorrect or incomplete view of faith/salvation and NOT the apostles.

If you say I am reading a different meaning even when it is clearly written, bring where it writes your meaning please.
Where it talks about recent Jewish converts.

shdemidemi:

If you say I am reading a different meaning even when it is clearly written, bring where it writes your meaning please.
Where it talks about recent Jewish converts.

Gal 2:4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves

The scripture in no way mentioned peter, Paul and James here.

Bidam: Gal 2:4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves

The scripture in no way mentioned peter, Paul and James here.

my brother go and study, you are missing a few things- verse 2 says

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

who were the people of reputation in Jerusalem? read acts of apostle

what was the result of the conference in verse 6

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me

Bidaaaammm