The God Culture: Did Paul Teach a Different Gospel?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has a new Foundations series article. This time it's a bit different as he is asking if Paul taught a different Gospel from Jesus. The obvious answer is he did not but Tim has a lot of assumptions hidden in this lesson that are not readily apparent unless one is familiar with the whole of his teaching. Let's take a look. 

Facebook

Did Paul Teach a Different Gospel?

FOUNDATIONS: Week 30

Key Texts: Acts 24:14; Acts 17; Romans 3; Galatians 1:6–9

Some claim Paul taught a gospel different from Yahusha.

But what does Paul's own life reveal?

Paul declared:

"I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets."

(Acts 24:14)

Throughout Acts, Paul preached in the synagogues, observed the Biblical Feasts, and proclaimed Yahusha as the promised Messiah.

He repeatedly taught that salvation is by the grace of Elohim through faith—not by human merit.

Yet he also affirmed that faith does not nullify obedience.

Rather, faith establishes a life devoted to Yahuah.

Paul did not preach another gospel. 

Yes, Paul even agreed with James' "faith without works is dead" explicitly as he wrote passages such as: "created in Christ Jesus to do good works"  (Ephesians 2:10).

He proclaimed the same Messiah foretold by the Law and the Prophets and fulfilled in Yahusha.

The issue is not whether Paul agreed with Yahusha.

The issue is whether we are reading Paul in harmony with the rest of Scripture.

Question for Discussion

Should Paul's letters be interpreted through the teachings of Yahusha and the whole of Scripture—or should isolated verses define Paul's message?

The core of this lesson is the following:

Throughout Acts, Paul preached in the synagogues, observed the Biblical Feasts, and proclaimed Yahusha as the promised Messiah.

He repeatedly taught that salvation is by the grace of Elohim through faith—not by human merit.

Yet he also affirmed that faith does not nullify obedience.

For Tim the Gospel means obedience which means keeping the law. No matter how much lip service Tim gives to saying "salvation is by the grace of Elohim through faith—not by human merit," his whole theological system is nothing but graceless law keeping. Tim has absolutely nothing to say about the finished work of Christ on the Cross and the victory we have through His blood. Go back and read every Foundations lesson critiqued on this blog where that is proven to be the case. 

But let's hear a word from noted theologian Father Ted Crilly who has been following along and can put it all together. 

Ah, Philippine Fails, me lad... puts the teacup down slowly and lets out a long breath
I’ve read Tim’s Week 30 Foundations lesson — “Did Paul Teach a Different Gospel?” — and you’re right. It’s craftier than some of the others.On the surfaceIt sounds reasonable. Tim says Paul didn’t preach a different gospel from Jesus. He quotes Paul saying he believes “all things which are written in the law and the prophets” (Acts 24:14), and notes that Paul kept feasts and preached in synagogues. He affirms that faith produces works and quotes Ephesians 2:10. 
Fair enough. Paul did not preach a different gospel. He preached the same good news about the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.But here’s the crafty partTim is using a true statement (“Paul and Jesus taught the same gospel”) to smuggle in his own version of what that gospel is. In Tim’s system, the “same gospel” means:

• Keeping the Torah (Sabbath, feasts, dietary laws, etc.)
• Obedience to the law as the evidence and continuation of salvation
• The law still functioning as the main director of the Christian life

He’s not really defending Paul. He’s using Paul as a shield to protect his Torah-observant theology.The sleight of handNotice how Tim never lets the cross, the blood, justification by faith apart from works of the law, or the finished work take center stage. He keeps steering everything back to “faith establishes a life devoted to Yahuah” — which, in every previous lesson, means law-keeping.
This is the same pattern we’ve seen for 30 weeks now:

• He affirms something true (Paul and Jesus agree).
• Then quietly redefines what they agree on as continued Torah observance.
• He makes the law the hero again.

The Real IssuePaul and Jesus absolutely taught the same gospel. But that gospel is:

“Repent and believe the gospel” — the good news of the Kingdom, centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, received by faith, not by works of the law.

Paul spent his whole ministry fighting against the idea that Gentiles (or Jews) had to keep the Mosaic law to be saved or to stay saved. That’s why he wrote Galatians with such fire. Tim wants to bring that law back in through the side door and call it “the same gospel.”Father Ted’s Plain Verdict

This lesson is clever misdirection.

Tim is not defending the unity of Scripture. He’s defending his own law-centered system by borrowing Paul’s authority.

The apostles did not preach “Keep the Torah and you’ll be fine.”

They preached “Repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.”

The gospel is the same from Genesis to Revelation — but its center is Christ, not the Mosaic law. The law served its purpose. Christ has come. We now live by the Spirit.

Down with this sort of thing, lad.

Very careful now.

Tim keeps trying to put the old yoke back on. The apostles spent their lives trying to lift it off.
...Right, I’m off to read Galatians again and thank the Lord for the freedom we have in Christ.
Go on, go on, go on — have a cuppa. You keep seeing through the craftiness. Tim is very good at sounding biblical while steering everything back to the law. The real gospel keeps Christ at the center. Keep holding fast to that. It’s so much better than what he’s building.

The God Culture: Can the Law Be Abolished If Sin Still Exists?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has a new Foundations lesson.  Actually it's not new. It's the same message repackaged. Now he is asking whether the law can be abolished if sin still exists. Let's take a look. 

Facebook

📖 Can the Law Be Abolished If Sin Still Exists?

FOUNDATIONS | WEEK 27

Key Texts:

Hebrews 10

1 John 3:4

Jeremiah 31:31–33

Hebrews 8:10

Many discussions about the New Covenant begin with assumptions rather than Scripture's own definitions.

So let's begin where the Bible begins.

What is sin?

John answers plainly:

> "Sin is the transgression of the law."

> (1 John 3:4, KJV)

If Scripture defines sin as transgression of the Law, then the Law provides the standard by which sin is recognized. To abolish Law is to abolish sin. Yet, Revelation continues to speak of keeping His commandments and of sin in the very Last Days. Thus, neither pass away especially since Yahusha said the Law would not (Matt. 5:17-20). Such strange new doctrine put words in His mouth which were and are not there.

Next, what changed at the cross?

Hebrews 10 does not say that Yahusha abolished righteousness or removed the definition of sin.

Instead, it teaches that His sacrifice was offered ONCE AND FOR ALL, accomplishing what the repeated animal sacrifices could never accomplish. He fulfilled them which definition is also misconstrued as fulfilled means He executed and continues to do so.

The sacrifice changed.

The priesthood changed.

The perfect atonement arrived.

But the New Covenant promise itself is:

> "I will put My laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts."

> (Hebrews 8:10; Jeremiah 31:33)

Notice what Scripture says is new.

The location of the Law changes—from tablets of stone to hearts.

The sacrifice changes—from repeated offerings to Messiah's perfect offering.

The High Priest changes—from the Levitical priesthood to our eternal High Priest (Melchizedek).

Yet the Law itself is not described as disappearing. Rather, it is written within those who belong to the New Covenant.

Grace does not redefine sin. It never has.

Grace provides forgiveness for sin and empowers us to walk in covenant with Yahuah. Such grace unto Salvation did not change either as Moses, Abraham and the Patriarchs were also saved by the same grace of Yahusha as He is present since the beginning even before His coming in the flesh (1 John 1).

The New Covenant is not the absence of His instruction.

It is His instruction written upon transformed hearts. A deepening of the same Law that opposes and defines sin.

A changing of medium is not a change of the Law.

Yah Bless.

Question for Discussion:

If the New Covenant promises to write Yahuah's Law on our hearts, what exactly is being written there if the Law no longer exists?

Tim is making several category errors here and is asking a wrong and loaded question. First of all the law is NOT abolished meaning it ceases to exist. It is still there pointing us to Christ. 

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Second of all is Tim's confusing the function of the law with its continued use. The law is a SHADOW of Christ. Christ has come and we are no longer under the law.

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 

But let's hear from noted theologian Father Ted Crilly.

Ah, Philippine Fails, me lad... puts the teacup down with a firm clunk and leans forward
I’ve read Tim’s Week 27 lesson — “Can the Law Be Abolished If Sin Still Exists?” — and you’re spot on. He’s making a category error and asking the wrong question because his entire foundation is faulty.What Tim is doingHe says:

• Sin = transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).
• If the law were abolished, sin would no longer exist.
• But sin still exists → therefore the law still exists and is still binding.
• The New Covenant just moves the law from stone tablets to our hearts.

It sounds logical on the surface. But it’s built on a false dilemma.The Category ErrorTim keeps treating “the Law” as one indivisible block that can only be fully kept or fully abolished. That’s the mistake.
The Bible makes distinctions:

• The moral law (God’s unchanging righteous standard — reflected in the Ten Commandments) still reveals sin and God’s character. No one disputes this.
• The Mosaic covenant as a whole (the full system given at Sinai — ceremonial laws, civil laws, sacrifices, feasts, dietary rules, penalties, etc.) was a temporary covenant with Israel that has been fulfilled and set aside in Christ.

Paul doesn’t say the moral standard disappeared. He says we are not under the law as a covenant system (Romans 6:14, Galatians 3:23–25, 5:18). The tutor has done its job. Christ has come. We now live by the Spirit.
When Paul says we are not under the law, he is not saying “sin doesn’t exist anymore.” He is saying the law is no longer the covenant framework under which we relate to God.Tim’s Foundational Flaw

This whole lesson (and the entire Foundations series) rests on one faulty assumption:

“If the law isn’t still binding in the same way, then sin has no definition.”

That’s simply not true. Sin is ultimately rebellion against God Himself — against His holy character. The law revealed that, but it was never the only definition. After Christ, sin is still real, but we are no longer under the old covenant system that couldn’t fix it. We are under grace, led by the Spirit, with God’s law written on our hearts (the New Covenant promise).
Tim keeps trying to keep believers under the old system “internally.” That’s not what Hebrews 8 or Jeremiah 31 actually teach.The Real Answer

Yes, the moral standard remains — we are still called to holiness.

But the Mosaic covenant with all its shadows, sacrifices, and specific commands has been fulfilled in Christ. The shadow served its purpose. The substance has come.

That’s why Paul can say:

• “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)
• “You are not under law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14)

He’s not abolishing righteousness. He’s saying the way to righteousness is no longer through the old covenant law system. It’s through faith in Christ, with the Spirit producing fruit in us.
Father Ted’s plain verdict:
Tim is chained in his own cave again. He sees the shadow of the law and thinks it’s still the main reality. He can’t let the old covenant go, so he keeps dragging it into the New Covenant and calling it “restoration.”

The New Covenant doesn’t abolish God’s righteous standard.

It gives us a better way — Christ’s righteousness credited to us by faith, and the Holy Spirit writing obedience on our hearts.

Down with this sort of thing, lad.

Very careful now.

The gospel is not “the law moved from stone to heart so we can keep it better.”

The gospel is “Christ fulfilled the law, took its curse, and now we live by the Spirit.”

...Right, I’m off to read Romans 6–8 again and thank the Lord we are not under the old system.
Go on, go on, go on — have a cuppa. You keep spotting the same foundational error. Tim’s whole system is built on a category mistake. The real gospel is far clearer and freer. Keep holding fast to it.