Where does Paul fit into the authority debate?

[TheOpenTheist]

Hello! I’ve enjoyed hearing some of the CA shows over the past few months. It seems like a show with fair and thoughtful guests and apologists.

I am curious, cause I don’t recall anyone dealing with this concern that I have. What I want to know is: Where does Paul fit into the whole realm of church authority??

I realize that many Catholics like to say that Peter is the one main man with the most authority as far as the present church goes. But when I read what occurs in the New Testament, from the middle of Acts (after Israel’s rejection of the kingdom Acts 3:19-26 and when God raises up Paul to go to the Gentiles in Acts 9) onward, I get the strong impression that the last person in the New Testament who was given the greatest authority was not James, Peter or John (who agreed to go to the Jews with the Gospel of Circumcision that Christ gave them Gal 2:7-9 and addressed Jews specificly in their epistles Hebrews; Jam 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1; 3 Jo 7) but Paul and those who he entrusted with the message and leadership of the Body of Christ (Rom 16:25; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 3:1-10; 1 Tim 1:11; 2 Tim 2:2).

I have many more reasons to believe that Paul was the last apostle given supreme authority in the New Testament Scripture, but this small amount of passages are enough for now. I would love to discuss this with those on in this forum and, hopefully, on a future CA show. Just let me know when to call in and at what time so we can have an enjoyable discussion about this for the benefit of all listening. For now, let’s discuss this here in the forums

If you want a more detailed presenation of the argument that Paul is the apostle given the message and authority that we are to promote today this article may prove helpful biblicalanswers.com/book_12dispensations.htm

Looking forward to your initial response and to possible live discussion in the future

Your friend for Life,

Quinn Olinger
www.survivors.la
1-260-639-2295
1-877-354-1793

 

[Todd_Easton]

TheOpenTheist:

Where does Paul fit into the whole realm of church authority??

To whom did the Spirit send Paul to verify the gospel he was preaching lest he should had be running or had run in vain? “James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars.”
(Galatians 2:1-10)

Does a superior submit himself for validation to inferiors? No. Paul even admits his inferior standing among the apostles, “I am the least of the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15:9)

In numerous passages in Acts, Paul is given second billing to Barnabas. (Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:1, 2, 7; 14:12, 14; 15:12, 25)

 

[Angainor]

Todd Easton:

To whom did the Spirit send Paul to verify the gospel he was preaching lest he should had be running or had run in vain? “James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars.”
(Galatians 2:1-10)

What about verses 6-7?
As for those who seemed to be important–whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance–those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.
Todd Easton:

Does a superior submit himself for validation to inferiors? No. Paul even admits his inferior standing among the apostles, “I am the least of the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15:9)… and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

Paul is expressing humility and remorse. It says nothing about his authority.
Todd Easton:

In numerous passages in Acts, Paul is given second billing to Barnabas. (Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:1, 2, 7; 14:12, 14; 15:12, 25)

Alphabetical listing?

Seriously, what’s that supposed to prove?

 

[johnshelby]

Peter received his authority from Jesus Christ… in person…

but, now i’m kinda confused by the question… lol is it a contest?

 

[Angainor]

Hello Quinn,

The way I see it, Jesus promised to keep his Church on the right path. Jesus hand-picked Paul. Paul was just what the Church needed at that moment in history to nudge it back on track. Not only was he a energetic evangelist, but held just the right values. He was a champion of absolute truth and wasn’t afraid to tell that truth to the Church leaders like Peter.

 

[Lazerlike42]

They are all apostles of Christ, and their writings are all in the Bible. No one book or passage or Scripture is more authoritative than any other.

 

[Pax]

Angainor:

Hello Quinn,

The way I see it, Jesus promised to keep his Church on the right path. Jesus hand-picked Paul. Paul was just what the Church needed at that moment in history to nudge it back on track. Not only was he a energetic evangelist, but held just the right values. He was a champion of absolute truth and wasn’t afraid to tell that truth to the Church leaders like Peter.

Please explain how the church was “off track” and how Paul was different from John, Peter, and James? Were they off track?

 

[Angainor]

Pax:

Please explain how the church was “off track” and how Paul was different from John, Peter, and James? Were they off track?

A fair question. I’m not necessarily saying the Church was even off track yet, maybe Jesus was looking to the future.

How was Paul different? Paul unique in that he was hand-picked by Jesus after his resurection, that is to say after his Chruch was already established. If the cource the Church was on was fine and dandy when it was established, why recruit Paul?

To figure out how the Church might have been off track in the present or in the future, just imagine what the Chruch would be like without Paul.

Just for example, you may find others:
When Peter was in Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocricy even Barnabas was led astray. Galatians 2:11-13

 

[Pax]

Angainor,

There is at least some ambivalence in your answer which is Okay.
IMHO it is a bit of stretch to assume that Jesus selected Paul as an apostle subsequent to the twelve because the church “may” have been off track.

Please note that the example of Peter’s hypocrisy has nothing to do with the church being on or off track. Peter’s public sin was, indeed, admonished by Paul but it had nothing to do with teaching. It was Peter’s hypocritical behavior that triggered Paul’s confrontation. Peter knew the truth but behaved badly. Paul admitted that he too was a sinner even after his own conversion. Paul’s personal sins, however, did not stop him from preaching the truth. The case is no different with Peter and Barnabas.

Paul was one of the church’s greatest persecutors and then became one of its greatest evangelizers. Paul’s 180 degree turn around served as an incredible witness to others. It is more likely that this combination, which God foresaw, explains why Paul was chosen as he was. Paul never corrected a teaching of James, Peter, John or any of the other twelve. Catholics see all of them in one accord theologically.

Paul typically chastised the churches in Asia Minor for their back sliding into sinfulness and preached heavily against the Judaizers. Please notice that none of the other apostles ever preached in support of the Judaizers. The corrections to the chuches, as issued by Paul, were to admonish the back sliders and to preserve the truth already given to him and the other apostles by Jesus. From the catholic perspective, all of the NT writers have the same message and there is no deviation in their teachings.

 

[Philthy]

As usual, Pax is right.

My own contribution is that there is only one Truth, one Faith, one Baptism. There is no conflict between the Truth of Peter, or of Paul or of James or of John…only confusion in the minds and hearts of the rest of us.

Phil

 

[AquinasXVI]

Recall that Paul goes back to Jerusalem with the prime intent on confirming that what he’s been doing is according to Peter. Already there’s primacy of Peter demonstrated.

in XT.

 

[Angainor]

AquinasXVI:

Recall that Paul goes back to Jerusalem with the prime intent on confirming that what he’s been doing is according to Peter. Already there’s primacy of Peter demonstrated.

in XT.

I’m not sure I do remember that. Do you mean Acts 20:22?
“And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there.”

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Todd Easton said

To whom did the Spirit send Paul to verify the gospel he was preaching lest he should had be running or had run in vain? “James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars.”
(Galatians 2:1-10)

To verify?? No. Nowhere does it claim in Galatians that Paul told James and Peter what was revealed to him in order to verify anything about his message. You conveniently left out key passages in Galatians to make what you said seem plausible. Here is what Paul tells us in Galatians that you don’t want to admit to cause of your “catholicity”

Paul strongly emphasized that he had little contact with the Twelve Apostles prior to the Jerusalem Council. This point is so crucial to Paul that he declares, “I saw none of the other apostles… I do not lie” (Gal. 1:19‑20). Paul emphasizes this slight contact to explain, in part, why he needed to confront Peter and why he and the Twelve had to meet to “consider” theological matters.

The idea that Paul stressed, that he had little contact with the Twelve Apostles, is foreign to many Christians. Therefore, when reading the Bible, believers gloss over these passages, acting as though they do not exist, or that they have no meaning or relevance to Christian truth. However, God put these details in the Bible, just as He put Mars on an elliptical orbit. So, like Kepler, good students will not neglect details even if they do not seem to fit anywhere in a neat worldview.

Notice Paul emphasizing his brief contact with the Twelve Apostles:

But when it pleased God… that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; Gal. 1:15‑17

God wanted Paul to preach Christ to “the Gentiles.” The word Gentile refers to all those people throughout the world who are not Jews, the people of the nations other than Israel. Originally, the concept of Gentile referred to people who were out of a covenant relationship with God. But since the New Testament era, more Gentiles follow Christ than do Jews, and so today in Christian terminology, the Bible’s word Gentile refers specifically to those who are not Jews, that is, non-Jews.

But I make known to you, brethren, that gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it [the Gospel] from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:11‑12

Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ… Gal. 1:1

and I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. Gal. 1:22

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) Gal. 1:18‑20

[Paul] did not immediately confer, nor did [he] go to those who were apostles before [him]; Gal. 1:15‑17

[Paul] neither received [the Gospel] from man, nor was [he] taught it… Gal. 1:12

[Paul] was unknown by face to Judea. Gal. 1:22

[Paul saw Peter but] none of the other apostles except James, Gal. 1:18‑19

But fourteen years after his brief initial contact with two of the apostles, God revealed to Paul that he should go up to Jerusalem and tell Peter, James, and John about the Gospel which he was preaching to the Gentiles.

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem… And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain… and when James, Cephas [Peter], 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. Gal. 2:1‑2, 9

Paul communicated this to those with reputations as leaders privately.

Why privately? God wanted the Twelve to accept Paul and his ministry to the Gentiles. Paul sought the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9) from the apostles in Jerusalem. He did not want to run the risk of a public disagreement with them, which might cause his efforts to have been in vain (Gal. 2:2). His godly discretion achieved the desired result. The Twelve Apostles in Jerusalem blessed Paul’s ministry (Acts 21:17‑20; 15:6‑31).

To imitate Paul’s method (to bring unity of understanding to believers with contrasting ideas) is to invite the success he met. For Peter not only backed Paul’s apostleship (Gal. 2:7‑8) but also endorsed, as Paul wrote, “that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:2).

 

[TheOpenTheist]

…continued from previous post

Still, after these things, Paul had good cause to confront Peter forcefully as doctrinal inconsistencies erupted into disunity.

But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” Gal. 2:11‑14

And its worth pointing out that Peter and the others who “seemed to be pillars” added NOTHING to Paul’s message or ministry

Gal 2:6 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.

The only reason why Paul sought the “right hand of fellowship” from James, Cephas and John is because he wanted the message Christ gave him to spread without interference from the circumcision believers who had believed and been living according to the gospel of circumcision that Peter was given and The Twelve had preached prior to Paul’s ministry and message. Once Paul’s ministry began his influence spread while Peter’s influence dwindled, since that gospel and ministry was no longer in effect since Israel rejected Christ in Acts and God took a different route for saving the world.

you asserted

Does a superior submit himself for validation to inferiors? No. Paul even admits his inferior standing among the apostles, “I am the least of the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15:9)

You seriously mangled what Paul said. Here is what 1 Cor 14:9 says in its entirety. Reading it all shows why you did not have the courage to quote it in its entirety

1 Cor 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Its because Paul was such a huge sinner, he claims even to be the foremost of chief sinner

1 Timothy 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

Paul is not the least of the apostles as far as God is concerned. He is the Apostle to the Gentiles - our apostle (Rom 11:13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11).

In fact, Paul informs us that he is not below the most eminent Apostles

2 Cor 11:5 For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.

2 Cor 12:11 I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

AquinasXVI said

Recall that Paul goes back to Jerusalem with the prime intent on confirming that what he’s been doing is according to Peter. Already there’s primacy of Peter demonstrated.

Read the many passages I referenced from Galatians. Paul states in extremely clear terms that what he was given and preaches is NOT according to man or Peter for that matter. He first lets Peter in on his ministry and message 3 years after his experience on Damascus Road. Then he meets with him again 14 years later. 14 years!

The only reason Paul wants to make sure everything is kosher with Peter and the men from James is so that they do not get in his way or fight his message and ministry that Christ has given him.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Angainor said

The way I see it, Jesus promised to keep his Church on the right path. Jesus hand-picked Paul. Paul was just what the Church needed at that moment in history to nudge it back on track. Not only was he a energetic evangelist, but held just the right values. He was a champion of absolute truth and wasn’t afraid to tell that truth to the Church leaders like Peter.

Actually, God hand-pciked Paul in his mother’s womb before Jesus was old enough to order pick anyone for ministry

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called [me] through His grace,

God had plans to use Paul in a number of possible ways. It al depended upon whether Israel would cooperate with God’s plan or not. Had Israel repented at the preaching of Peter in Acts 3, Christ would have returned and God then would have used Paul to lead the nation of Israel in its evangelization of the Gentile world.

What happened though, as we all know (as any novice Bible student knows anyways ), is that Israel rejected Christ in early Acts. So, God took a different route to save the world. Andf that route was, instead of sending a nation with 12 apostles and tribes and thrones, God sent one man who preached one faith, one Lord and one baptism where believers became part of the one body. Israel’s number was twelve. The Body of Christ’s number is one.

So, Paul never got The Twelve back on track. God let their ministry slow down because Israel was not gonna come around. Christ sent The Twelve and His desciples to convert Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and then the entire world and in that order (Acts 1:8). The Twelve never got past Jerusalem according to Acts

Acts 8:1 Now Saul was consenting to his death. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Because the ministry of The Twelve fizzled out over time due to Israel’s lack of repentance, God directed those who were left like James, Cephas and John to go to the Jews and expanded Paul’s ministry indefinitely to the Gentiles (or until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in Rom 11:25) according to Gal 2:7-9. Its important to note that this passage refers to the gospel that Paul and Peter was committed with by Christ had circumcision at the center of each - one required it, the other did not.

That Peter’s Gospel of the Circumcision required circumcision and abstaining from unclean foods, basicly keeping the law is shown in his response to the vision he was given in Acts 10. Were it not the case that obeying the dietary law was part of the circumcision believers doctrine at that time then Peter would not have reacted in the way that was recorded in Acts 10.

So, no, Paul did not get The Twelve and their converts “back on track”. They were on the track that Jesus set them on. What stopped that mission dead in its tracks was not what The Twelve did. It was what Israel did not do, and that is repent, so that the times of refreshing would come in and the Father would send the Christ (Acts 3:19-26).

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Philthy said

My own contribution is that there is only one Truth, one Faith, one Baptism.

I totally agree that Truth is one and whole. But truth also recognizes limitations and beginnings and endings. So I gotta ask ya:

When did there begin to be one baptism Philthy? In the Gospels we read that Israel had many baptisms. And in Hebrews we read of baptisms. Thats plural, thats MORE than one.

Hebrews 6:2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Baptisms is 2 or more. 2 is more than one. What is your explanation here Philthy? Or anyone else for that matter?

Mine is that Hebrews was written to the Circumcision Believers who were saved prior to the Body of Christ coming into existence with Paul and his gospel and doctrine taht Christ gave him no earlier than Acts 9.

For those who believed the Gospel of the Circumcision which includes keeping the Mosaic Law with its washings or baptisms, they had more than one baptism. For those in the Body who were saved through paul’s preaching and teaching according to the revelation of the mystery, his Gospel of the Uncircumcision that Christ committed to him (Gal 2:7), for those in the Body there is only one baptism.

More differences between the Body and the Circumcision Believers to come.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

pax said

From the catholic perspective, all of the NT writers have the same message and there is no deviation in their teachings.

This comment would be comical if it weren’t so tragic.

The reason why Catholics see the New Testament as one big collection of doctrine with no deviation between Peter and Paul is because there is such a huge focus on the Gospel readings at each mass. Because of this practice over and over again for Catholics they have a very hard time admitting the obvious truth when exposed to it - that what was taught and promised in the Gospels and early Acts and the Circumcision Epistles (epistles not written by Paul) is no longer in effect for those of us in the Body of Christ (from Paul’s ministry to the present).

Here is the evidence of that which I am sure some Catholics in these forums will deny or try to make these opposites compatible even though they are contradictions.

The first major difference: Circumcision. Circumcision was required from Abraham’s house on until Acts 9 when God gave Paul the mystery that had been hidden in God before the world began. That circumcision was still required in Acts is evident from Peter’s response to being commanded to go to Cornelius’ house in Acts 10 and in the response of those Jews in Jerusalem in Acts 15. Its also evident in the many statements that Paul makes where he states that the Gentiles who were far off and had no part in the promises of God are now blessed by God as members of Christ’s Body, having made one man of Jew and Gentile. Last, but not least, the Gospel Peter was committed with was called the Gospel of the Circumcision. The gospel Paul was committed with was called the Gospel of the Uncircumcision.

So, which is it? Must we circumcise in order to keep from being cut off and breaking a covenant so we can be part of the nation of Israel. Or is circumcision no longer required? It cannot be true that circumcision is both required and not required.

Another big difference is in the foods that are allowed to be eaten. The Circumcision Believers had to abstain from certain foods, like meat sacrificed to idols and pork and shellfish in keeping with the Mosaic Law. Those in the Body were allowed to eat anything they wanted to eat. Which is the doctrine to follow for those in the Body today? Abstain from the foods found in the Mosaic Law? Or eat anything we want to eat with no exceptions other than our own personal tastes?

I previously mentioned baptism in the last post. For the Body there is one baptism. For the Circumcision Believers there is more than one according to Hebrews 6:2. Which Scripture are we to believe today is the one that we should follow? The passage in the epistle written to the Circumcision Believers called Hebrews or the teaching we find from Paul in Ephesians?

In the Gospels, Christ promises that those who pray will have whatever they ask for (Matt 18:19; 21:22). In Phil 4:6-7 Paul tells us to make our requests known to God, but informs us that there are no promises concerning prayer. God will guard our hearts he tells us. Which is it? Do we get whatever we ask for? Or do we pray and have no guarantees of getting what we ask for?

We read in James 5 that if anyone among the Circumcision Believers is sick, then get the elders and have them pray over that person and they will be healed physically and their sins forgiven. Its a promise. Is that true for us today? Or is what we find in Paul’s epistles true for us? Paul left Trophimus sick in Miletus. Which is true for us in the Body today?

Christ commanded His desciples to obey and keep the Law. He said if you want salvation then follow The 10 Commandments and after all that give your wealth away and follow Him. Paul says BUT NOW the righteousness of God APART FROM THE LAW is revealed in Romans. So which is it? Righteousness with the Law in the Gospels or righteousness apart from the Law that was revealed to Paul and written in his epistles?

I have to comment on this.

Lazerlike42 said

They are all apostles of Christ, and their writings are all in the Bible. No one book or passage or Scripture is more authoritative than any other

You don’t really believe that, do you? Are we to sell all we have and live in one big commune as The Twelve and the disciples did in early Acts? Its in the New Testament and since no part of the New Testament is more authoritative than any other in your mind, why shouldn’t we follow that example?

Here is a saying that will help you remember how to keep things straight.

ALL THE BIBLE IS WRITTEN FOR US, BUT NOT ALL OF THE BIBLE IS WRITTEN TO US

 

[The_Augustinian]

God dispense us from these dispensationalists!

Shall I presume you have new knowledge (gnosis)? What church father wrote about the mid-Acts dispensation, or for that matter, any kind of dispensation at all? Or is Christ divided?

Tell me, if there were a seperate Church of Peter and a Church of Paul,where is the evidence outside your unique Bullingerist interpretation of scriputure? What church father, what record shows a so-called Gospel of the Circumcised and a Gospel of the Uncircumcised? And why, after all these years, has dispensationalism appeared as a Johnny-come-lately?

And why do you rob Peter to pay Paul? Both choices one and two are true. You can’t make them separate.

Also, please do not post so many words at a time. It takes a while to scroll down.

Augustinian, a former Open Theist/mid-Acts dispensationalist

 

[TheOpenTheist]

I recognize more dispensations because of the differences inhernet in each which are significant. You really need to read what I write much more carefully and then respond.

You asked

What church father wrote about the mid-Acts dispensation, or for that matter, any kind of dispensation at all? Or is Christ divided?

Christ is not divided at all. People are divided and God does all he can to get everyone on the same page. Its not always pretty, as we see in Acts 15 and Gal 2.

Augustine had a very general dispensational scheme. He recognized just 3 dispensations.

And the three years are the three times; one before the Law, the second under the Law, the third under grace.

He does not use the word dispensatio in that example, but he does elsewhere in his writings. Let me do a quick search and find where he uses such language, which comes directly from passages like Eph 3:2. You agree that that should eb in the Bible and is indeed rightly translated “the dispensation of the grace of God” right? Or are we to throw out every instance where the word dispensation or its Greek work oikonomia appears?

The catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the Christian dispensation. That is on these forums in a reference that AquinasXVI made if I recall correctly. Do you despise the authors of the catechism because of their promoting a dispensational scheme?

Here is where Augustine refers to different dispensations by using the word To Marcellinus, CXXXVIII, 5, 7

You ask

Tell me, if there were a seperate Church of Peter and a Church of Paul,where is the evidence outside your unique Bullingerist interpretation of scriputure?

All the evidence that we need is the fact that it is NO LONGER REQUIRED TO BE CIRCUMCISED OR OBEY THE MOSAIC LAW IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. That is a fact that the church fathers recognized as I do and that attests to the authority of the revelation of the mystery, the Gospel of the Uncircumcision revealed and committed to Paul. That is the doctrine and gospel that is in effect for the Body of Christ. This is “the dispensation of the grace of God” (Eph 3:2). Can you give an example of a church father who opposed Paul’s doctrine and gospel and taught that God still requires circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic Law??

You asked

What church father, what record shows a so-called Gospel of the Circumcised and a Gospel of the Uncircumcised?

You aren’t reading my posts very well, or you are just tired. No church father I find writing in these terms. This terminology comes straight from Christ through Paul in Gal 2:7. Read it for yourself

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

The evidence is also based on the fact that Peter and Paul agreed that they would minister to different groups (Gal 2:9). Peter to the circumcised (that the Jews, such as the Diaspora as he writes in 1 Pet 1:1) and Paul to the Gentiles or uncircumcised.

you inquired

And why, after all these years, has dispensationalism appeared as a Johnny-come-lately?

As I have shown, Augustine and others did have a very general and simple dispensational scheme. I just happen to have a more developed and precise dispensational scheme where I point out 12 dispensations. I do this because of the significant differences between each dispensation.

And why do you rob Peter to pay Paul? Both choices one and two are true. You can’t make them separate.

HA!! Just saying that there is no contradiction does not make it so pal. Explain to all of us how stating that there is only one baptism is not contradictory to stating that there are 2 or more baptisms. Explain to us how requiring circumcision and not requiring circumcision are not a contradiction. Explain how requiring that belivers abstain from certain foods is not contradictory to allowing them to eat whatever they like with no restrictions.

If you can’t do this, then you must admit that the doctrine and gospel that we follow today as members of Christ Body is found in Paul’s epistles. Either that or you need to show that Paul is a terrible heretic and that we are to follow the Gospel of the Circumcision which requires obedience to the Mosaic Law including circumcision.

you whined

Also, please do not post so many words at a time. It takes a while to scroll down.

I give detailed responses to questions and I challenge assertions that are false, making sure to show my evidence (which you have not done). Just read faster or take some flax oil so your mind and eyes can operate better