Sure, I'd be happy to debate this with you, or discuss it, whichever seems to come the most naturally. I'll state my position a little bit more thoroughly on the grace + nothing vs grace + works controversy, and then I'll follow with some general thoughts on why these controversies exist, why so many denominations exist, and what I think is necessary to understand in order to actually, really, truthfully understand the bible in the right way.

Paul taught a different gospel than Jesus and taught that we are saved by grace alone, through faith, and not by <works> in any way, shape, or form.

Paul makes this clear, and he also makes it clear that faith is not a <work>.

I think Paul makes it clear that if you add anything to this, like the Judaisers tried to do, that you are teaching <another gospel> that is not the gospel. The Judaisers only wanted to add one <work>, which was circumcision, but any other work would distort the gospel and lead people astray too, such as baptism, weekly communion, the sacraments, penance, confessing your sins, asking for forgiveness every time you think you sinned, repenting from your sins so that you are <worthy> of being saved, tithing, going to mass or church, saying certain prayers over and over, keeping the sabbath holy and any other <work> that <earns>, even if only a fraction, of one's salvation.

It's Grace + Nothing, not Grace + Works.

I think the confusion on this issue, which not only separates Catholics from a lot of Christians, but also Christians among each other (some might say separates many Protestants from one another, but I do not hold that being a non-Catholic necessarily forces you to identify as a Protestant), is the fact that most Christians are so used to <mixing the scriptures> that they can't stop and don't want to stop and that they refuse to stop. Thus, they never <rightly divide> the word of truth, as Paul warned us.

I think most Christians merely divide the Old Testament from the New Testament and think that is sufficient, but it is not, and it's not even close.

I think the main stumbling block is that one needs to understand the overall plot of the bible from Genesis to Revelation and understand the twists in the plot. This includes Satan's plan of evil and how he continually tries to thwart God's will, and how God responds to Satan's attempts to undermine his own plans, and this includes God's chosen people Israel and later on, the Gentiles.

However, like trying to put together a 1000 word jigsaw puzzle without ever looking at the picture on the box, so you can at least know what kind of picture you're attempting to put together, it's nearly impossible to quickly show someone who is <missing> the overall plot of the bible, exactly how to <rightly divide> the word, and <why> it is being rightly divided when done this way.

<Paul taught a different gospel than Jesus>

A question to inform my response:

2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version

If <rightly dividing> is the basis of your theology, you're in trouble mate!

<What Did the Apostle Paul Mean by "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth"?>

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Ri...

rightly divide (orthotomeō)

1. to cut straight, to cut straight ways

A to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right

2. to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly

<One can only guess why the KJV translators chose the phrase “rightly dividing” instead of “rightly teach” or “cutting straight”, I would suggest that in 1611 “rightly dividing” might have had a different meaning than how we use it today.>

More accurate modern translations are:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (NIV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth. (NRSV)

Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth. (NLT)

Anyway, I don't want to interrupt you and Ohio, but I just wanted to let you know why you're wrong.

What follows is a fairly full response in two parts. I'm hoping that by answering your question directly in the first sentence that you enjoy perfect clarity on my part so that you can get on with your response without me playing hide the ball.

I also hope that my full explanation saves you time in the future, because you may not have to ask as many questions to get a full understanding of my position, seeing that I've taken the time to lay it out here.

I have done my best to keep this focused around the <central point>, and to circle back to it after any lengthy supporting arguments on my end, so that the <central point> is always top-of-mind.

<1. Did Paul teach a different gospel than Peter?>

Yes, Paul taught a different gospel than Peter. Furthermore, he taught a different gospel than Jesus taught when he was here with his disciples.

Jesus taught his disciples, all of the Jewish the gospel of the kingdom, which was given specifically to the children of Israel. They were to follow the law, but also to believe that Jesus was their messiah.

Jesus did not mention dying on the cross, being buried for three days and rising from the dead to atone for the sin of mankind. Jesus did not mention <grace> in his gospel message. The Jews were to inherit an <earthly> kingdom with Jesus as the messiah. Jesus preached to his disciples that he came <not> to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

He only preached his gospel of the kingdom to the Jews and did not preach it to the Gentiles. Jesus told his disciples not to preach his gospel to the Gentiles, but only to the Jews.

The disciples did as Jesus commanded, including Peter, and preached the gospel of the kingdom to the Jews.

Israel rejected their messiah. They stoned Steven and set out on an aggressive and deadly plot to stamp out Christianity. Paul was instrumental in this.

Then Paul received the gospel of grace from Jesus himself, after his road to Damascus moment. Christ revealed to him a great <mystery>, which had not been shared by God yet since the beginning of time, and that was the mystery of the dispensation of grace for the Gentiles.

Unlike the program the Lord had for his chosen covenant people Israel, He had an entirely different gospel for the Gentiles. Paul preached the gospel of grace. Paul speaks about <grace> continuously while neither Peter, nor Jesus, nor the other disciples hardly mentioned grace at all.

When grace was mentioned by Paul, it was almost always in the context of God's mechanism of salvation. When Peter or other disciples mentioned grace, it was never having to do with salvation.

Peter, the disciples and Jesus taught that you must be baptized, whereas Paul did not, because Paul's gospel was of grace and not of works. Paul baptized only a few people, and then later on wished he hadn't.

Paul spoke of <The Body> of Christ and the disciples, including Peter didn't talk about that, because it was not known to them.

Peter and the disciples had no idea about the plan of dying on the cross, being buried for 3 days and then rising again to atone for our sins. For them, the gospel of the kingdom was only a Jewish message to <believe in Jesus>, or that Jesus is the prophesied messiah.

That's it. They were to believe that Jesus was the messiah! Israel was to <repent> for killing Jesus and thus rejecting their messiah.

Paul's gospel has nothing to do with believing that Jesus was the messiah. Rather, Paul's gospel of grace (it's Christ's gospel of grace given to Paul to preach) is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

<1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, and in which you stand firm.>

Notice first that Paul is reminding them (who is them? The Corinthians were mostly Gentiles who converted from paganism) of the <gospel> that <he> preached to them. Not the gospel, period. Not the gospel that Jesus preached. Not the gospel that Peter preached, but the gospel that <Paul> preached.

<2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.>

It is by <this gospel> and not another gospel, that you are saved. If they do not believe <this> gospel, then they believe in vain.

<3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,>

The gospel he received from Jesus himself when the Lord appeared to him.

<4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures>

The gospel: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried and was raised on the third day according to the scriptures.

Paul instructed the <Gentiles> to <believe> this gospel, his gospel, the gospel that <Paul> gave them, which was given to Paul by Jesus and for the Gentiles, and it is a gospel of <grace> alone.

Eph 2:8 makes it clear that this gospel, that is, salvation, is by grace alone and it is a gift from God.

<For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,>

Paul says it's <not of yourselves>, and because there's nothing we can <do> to somehow earn, in any way, even a little bit, our salvation.

Paul's gospel of grace was given to the Gentiles and it was Paul's unique apostleship was directed to the Gentiles.

Eph 3:1 <For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-->

To Paul it was revealed by Christ that a new dispensation, a dispensation of <grace> for the <Gentiles> (the mystery) had begun, after Israel rejected their messiah.

Eph 3:2 <If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward.> "You-ward" is to the Gentiles.

So Paul was given a different gospel. It was different because:

1. It was for the Gentiles.
2. It was grace and not works, not the law.
3. It was a new dispensation.

Peter was given a gospel for the Jew, the prophesied gospel of the kingdom, not grace. It was before the dispensation of grace, or, the time of the Gentiles. It was a works-based program, as it had been since Moses. It was based on Israel <repenting> for rejecting their messiah and to <believe> that Jesus was their prophesied messiah.

Two totally different gospels for two totally different peoples in two different dispensations.

Further, because the dispensation of grace, given to Paul, was a <mystery>, it means that Peter couldn't have known it, or it wouldn't have been a mystery. Therefore they were teaching different gospels.

...So I started this forum...>

I understand there to be one gospel, for all time. I understand that the Jews and Gentiles were saved in the same way. Peter speaking in Acts 15:7

<And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.>

Peter says the Gentiles would hear the gospel from him. He didn't have a gospel for Jews and a different one for Gentiles. He was the same Peter commanded to go into all the world, including Gentile nations, and preach the gospel. There is one gospel.

Mark 16:15 <And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.>

< and taught that we are saved by grace alone, through faith, and not by <works> in any way, shape, or form.>

If I tell you 20 times that to get me to buy you a year's premium, you had to praise me on the Rogoff page, and 1 times said you had to praise me on the Kibitzer's Cafe, you have to do both. It would be untrue for you to say "I'll get a premie by posting on the Rogoff page alone." For you to affirm that we're saved by grace alone, it's not enough to cite a verse that says we're saved by grace. You must also cite every other passage that references being saved and confirm none of them say anything except being saved by grace.

<Paul makes this clear, and he also makes it clear that faith is not a <work>.>

I don't agree at all. We are saved by grace, through faith, and the grace is not of ourself, it is the gift of God.

<I think Paul makes it clear that if you add anything to this, like the Judaisers tried to do, that you are teaching <another gospel> that is not the gospel. >

I sort of agree with you here, although I understand him to mean not adding anything besides that which is confirmed in the gospel message. Ephesians 2:8 is not the only verse in the New Testament.

<The Judaisers only wanted to add one <work>, which was circumcision, but any other work would distort the gospel>

They wanted to add a work <of the Mosaic Law>. THAT is what the NT is referring to at least 95% of the time it references "works". And after the cross, yes, the works of the Mosaic Law were of no value.

< and lead people astray too, such as baptism, weekly communion, the sacraments, penance, confessing your sins, asking for forgiveness every time you think you sinned, repenting from your sins so that you are <worthy> of being saved, tithing, going to mass or church, saying certain prayers over and over, keeping the sabbath holy and any other <work> that <earns>, even if only a fraction, of one's salvation.>

If any of those is referenced in the New Testament as being necessary for salvation, it's not adding to the gospel. I could add you having to praise me on the Kibitizer's Cafe, since <it's already affirmed> and I'd be on safe ground. Let's look back at a passage I already referenced per the gospel:

Mark 16:15-16 <And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.>

This is the gospel message, from the mouth of Jesus. Who will be saved? He who believes and is baptized. Simple. I am always stunned such a simple affirmation is so rejected by all of Protestantism.

<It's Grace + Nothing, not Grace + Works.>

It's grace + whatever else God says anywhere in the NT, not grace + works of the Mosaic Law. Fixed it for you.

<I think the confusion on this issue, which not only separates Catholics from a lot of Christians, but also Christians among each other (some might say separates many Protestants from one another, but I do not hold that being a non-Catholic necessarily forces you to identify as a Protestant),>

I think it was the Reformation over-reaction to the hyper-works mindset of the RCC in that time, with indulgences and being a large donor to the church, etc. They went too far the other way instead of <going back to the Bible>.

<I think most Christians merely divide the Old Testament from the New Testament and think that is sufficient, but it is not, and it's not even close.>

I am mostly in agreement here. I'll note I am far closer to agreeing with you than <Opt> about what it means to divide. I think it has both the sense of dividing as we generally understand it and the sense of correctly handling.

<I think the main stumbling block is that one needs to understand the overall plot of the bible from Genesis to Revelation and understand the twists in the plot. This includes Satan's plan of evil and how he continually tries to thwart God's will, and how God responds to Satan's attempts to undermine his own plans, and this includes God's chosen people Israel and later on, the Gentiles.>

Nothing in particular I disagree with here.

<However, like trying to put together a 1000 word jigsaw puzzle without ever looking at the picture on the box, so you can at least know what kind of picture you're attempting to put together, it's nearly impossible to quickly show someone who is <missing> the overall plot of the bible, exactly how to <rightly divide> the word, and <why> it is being rightly divided when done this way.>

Agreed there. I'll point out that those who hold to your view never seem to recognize that the entire gospel of Jesus was only supposed to be in effect for a couple decades. I'll set that aside for now, but I frequently have pointed that out to people on your side who admitted they'd never considered that implication.

<Yet, <rightly dividing> the word as amazing explanatory power! Immediately, every single apparent contradiction in the bible simply dissolves before your very eyes and a <whole new level> of understand unfolds before you.>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5694)

I especially like this part:

<They wanted to add a work <of the Mosaic Law>. THAT is what the NT is referring to at least 95% of the time it references "works".>

(Although I DON'T agree with <And after the cross, yes, the works of the Mosaic Law were of no value.> Paul makes it clear that the Law is still valuable for a number of reasons, one of which is to inform us what sin is.)

And I don't consider "having faith" in Christ to be a "work". Forgive my crude analogy, but calling "faith" a "work" is like saying "thinking about lifting weights" is a work similar to <actually> lifting weights.

"The word Protestantism had its origin when German princes and free cities at the Diet of Speyer (1529), petitioned or "protested" against the the imperial ban adopted by the Diet against Martin Luther and its stance against the Reformation"

Other than the Eastern Orthodox Churches, every non-Catholic Christian Church since 1529 is, by default, Protestant.

Just as the the Jews identify every non-Jew in the world as a gentile, so Catholics identify every non-Catholic or non-Orthodox Christian as a Protestant.

This includes those peripheral Christian Churches like Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, etc.

"Any Western Christian who is not an adherent of the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church is a Protestant. A Protestant is an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/P....

The issue is not one of cheating, but of occupation.>

Yes, I know.
Your "arguments" are starting to sound quite familiar.

<we acknowledge things are evil because they are detrimental to the good of humanity.>

...and under "freedom/liberty" you will be the almighty who decides <good of humanity>. The same way the left decided the poor should be owned by government, and fossil fuels are persona non grata. (Hey, while we're at it may as well throw in those Trump supporters, like poker players they've been deemed, dangerous and troubling)

All for the <good of humanity>.

Welcome to the left!

<Poker does not build wealth for the community.>

I guess you've never seen a casino, or Las Vegas?

<Your examples of casinos, guns, power tools and wine are ridiculous.>

Funny, you're making me feel like I've hit the nail right on the head.

<So because there are problems with everything, everything is okay?>

Of course not, Hitler showed us in spite of laws/freedom, one can do many things for the <good of humanity>.

<And the so-called gambling industry costs the community a great deal more in pain and suffering than any perceived benefits in useless jobs.>

Welcome AOC of the right!

But maybe you just think that's melodrama.>

The melodrama was this:

<They are lazy>

<taking advantage of some poor sucker>

<ripping off his life savings >

You see what you did there?

Just like the left you need victims.
To sell your hate you need to create poor/noble victims taken by evil.

Losing a bet here or there wasn't enough, so now Perf steals <life savings>.

<If you keep attempting to justify professional poker players >

Since I'm <one of those> you could take a page from the left, we could brand my forehead with the Scarlet Letters:

<LSD>

I would be forever known as a : Life Savings Denier

Just like the left, you make the victim the noble one, and what you don't like evil.

What noise?

What are you talking about?

If you want the rest of us to be quiet, okay then!

We won't post anything while you and Ohio are having your discussion.

<diceman> We'll continue our discussion after BP & Ohio have completed their theological debate.

Or you can open your forum and we'll talk over there.

BP can't concentrate on his theological exegesis while we're all babbling away on his forum.

Now shhhhhhh ... everybody quiet.

I'm questioning their integrity.>

Yes, Trump supporters get that all the time.

You don't decide by facts, you don't decide by knowing them, you decide by this:

<ripping off his life savings>

your perceptions of what's going on.

<You talk about skill, intelligence, discipline, emotional control, and so on>

Remember that when I brought that up it was related to the victim/loser. It is the victim/loser who is the problem.

My mom would take bus trips to Atlantic City to gamble. To make people go they actually offer more back than the cost of the trip.

The bus cost $15, you receive a coupon for $20.

Some of her casino friends put the extra $5 in slot machines to see if they'd win something. After that, they considered it a free bus ride to the shore, and spent the day walking the boardwalk, and visiting the beach.

They were able to do that because of, <intelligence, discipline, emotional control> they made the casino trip exactly what they wanted it to be.

The loser in the casino lacks: <skill, intelligence, discipline, emotional control>.

Why don't you open your forum?

<Big Pawn> is upset because our posts have interrupted his theological discussion with Ohio.

He can't concentrate on his biblical exegesis with our posts getting the way.

<OCF: They wanted to add a work <of the Mosaic Law>. THAT is what the NT is referring to at least 95% of the time it references "works".>

<(Although I DON'T agree with <And after the cross, yes, the works of the Mosaic Law were of no value.> Paul makes it clear that the Law is still valuable for a number of reasons, one of which is to inform us what sin is.)>

Well, in context of being saved, they have no value.

<And I don't consider "having faith" in Christ to be a "work". Forgive my crude analogy, but calling "faith" a "work" is like saying "thinking about lifting weights" is a work similar to <actually> lifting weights.>

I don't call faith a work of the Mosaic Law. But it's a work of some kind we must do to be saved.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

I understand "the work of God" to mean "a work God gave us to do."

<I also do not consider any of the sacraments to be works. Baptism, receiving the Eucharist, getting married, etc., are not works.>

Okay, now that <Big Pawn> has scurried away like a scared little rabbit down his burrow rather than face up to the heat of Ohio's interrogation, I would like to hear from Ohio regarding his proposition "that the entire gospel of Jesus was only supposed to be in effect for a couple decades".

The concept of having the bottom drive things is how the left operates.>

As an aside, this is <exactly> why writing "works" is antithetical to clarity. "Works" should make any Christian think "works of the Mosaic Law". When this is not the intention, I suggest adding clarification, e.g. "work of God" or some such.

<<<<>>>OCF: I don't call faith a work of the Mosaic Law. But it's a work of some kind we must do to be saved.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

I understand "the work of God" to mean "a work God gave us to do.">