The Two Gospels of the New Testament 12.03.2019

Terral · Jan 4, 2020

Hi Bramblewild:

Thank you for writing on the Two Gospels topic. You wrote:

Bramblewild said:
There are not two different gospels, such a blasphemy has not place in the Bible, and should be rejected by the church no matter their end times views.

Very good. Would the "one gospel" be the "Gospel of the Kingdom" that Jesus Christ preached right out of the starting gate (Matthew 4:23), or would that be the "gospel of the grace of God" that Paul contrasts with "preaching the kingdom" in Acts 20:24-27?

"But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom [gospel of the kingdom], will no longer see my face. Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God." Acts 20:24-27.

Bramblewild said:
There is only one gospel, the gospel of Christ crucified for our sins, and salvation by grace through face and not through any of our works.

There is a big problem with your unsupported statements, because Jesus Christ Himself preached the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM long before dying for anyone.

"Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:14-15.

Bramblewild said:
If anyone teaches any other gospel, they are preaching a false gospel, and are condemned.

Ouch! That sounds serious. You can see clearly that Jesus Christ is preaching the "Gospel of the Kingdom" in Matthew 4:23 and that the Holy Spirit by the Scriptures call this good news message the "gospel of God" right here in Mark 1:14-15. Therefore, if your statement is true (NOT), then Jesus Christ is in big trouble for preaching the "gospel of God" in Mark 1 some three years before He died for anybody. The obvious truth escaping the notice of somebody is that Jesus Christ preached the Gospel of the Kingdom BEFORE anybody could possibly preach salvation through His shed blood. The doctrinal precepts teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom is presented in the OP of this thread. If you really see only one gospel in the NT, then a good idea might be for you to explain what the "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 4:23) and the "gospel of God" (Mark 1:14-15) means to you.

Blessings,

Terral

Terral · Jan 4, 2020

Hi Nolidad:
Thank you for writing on the Two Gospels thread. You wrote:

nolidad said:
Well I do not know how yo come to these conclusions. But OT saints ended at Pentecost and after that point, anyone who exercises saving faith are placed into the body of Christ.

Maybe a good idea would be to support your statements using Scripture (1Tim. 2:15), as what you suggest here (OT saints ended at Pentecost) has no basis in Biblical reality. The OT saints do not simply end, as if Israel of the flesh is no longer under Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19). There is no such thing as "saving faith" available to anyone at Pentecost in Acts 2, because God had yet to give our gospel to Paul via "a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:11-12). Return to the Opening Post to realize the "Gospel of the Grace of God" (#2) does not exist at the time of Pentecost.

nolidad said:
The Apostles are part of the church.

Here is where we definitely disagree, if your generic phrase ("the church") is a references to our His body church from Colossians 1:24-27.

"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me [Eph. 3:2] for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery [musterion #3466] which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." Colossians 1:24-27.

Attempting to make "The Apostles" (Peter, John, James, etc.) part of our Body of Christ church using any Bible-based supported argument in Acts 2 or in Acts 15 would be an exercise in futility. We can determine my statement here to be true using an example from Galatians where Paul describes his "Gospel of the Grace of God" (Acts 20:24).

"For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:11-12.

The Gospel of the Grace of God (#2 in OP) falls under the "mystery" (hidden in God) umbrella in that the details are revealed to Paul after his conversion in Acts 9. We know for certain that Peter, John and James did not have knowledge of the gospel Paul preached among the Gentiles, because Paul was sent up to submit this gospel to these men of reputation at the famous meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15. Paul writes,

"Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation [Peter, John, James: Gal. 2:9], for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain." Galatians 2:1-2.

Here we are in about 50 AD and Paul went up to Jerusalem to submit the gospel (Gospel of the Grace of God) that he preaches among the Gentiles "and" he makes the submission to the same Peter and John that you say are already part of our Body of Christ church at Pentecost in Acts 2. Hmm, no sir. Peter is the one who stood condemned over the "truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:14) a decade and a half after you have him preaching our gospel at Pentecost in Acts 2 that did not happen. Those obeying our gospel have sins forgiven by Christ's shed blood. Right? Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:20. Okay then. What did Peter preach at Pentecost in Acts 2 for the forgiveness of sins?

"Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38.

Peter is preaching the same repentance and water baptism for the "forgiveness of sins" that John the Baptist preached in Mark 1:4. Peter, John and James would continue preaching the "Gospel of the Kingdom" and water baptism for the forgiveness of sins their entire lives for gathering disciples to the Prophetic Kingdom Bride that is Church #1 here from my OP on the Two Churches topic.

nolidad said:
The law is now null and void being fulfilled completely by Christ!

No sir. Please forgive, but these wild claims are not supported by an accurate interpretation of God's Living Word. Jesus Christ makes this point very clear:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19.

The idea that Christ died for ALL SINS of everyone everywhere has no basis in Biblical fact at all. Zero. If Christ's sacrifice could save one soul, then God had no reason to send "the gospel" in the first place. Paul writes:

"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation [Gospel of the Grace of God = #2 from OP]—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory." Ephesians 1:13-14.

God calls Christ's body members "through our gospel" (2Thes. 2:14) where "the gospel" is the power of God for?? for everybody?? No.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Romans 1:16.

The notion that someone wakes up one morning to make a personal decision about becoming a member of our mystery church is simply false. God calls members to Christ's body and God chooses us "through" the gospel where some obey and some simply do not. God called and chose Peter, John, James, Nicodemus, etc. to preach the "Gospel of the Kingdom" for gathering disciples to the Prophetic Kingdom "Bride," because God needs a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6) and a "royal priesthood" (1Peter 2:9) "and" a body of kings-judges (that's us) for judging the "world" and the "angels" (1Cor. 6:2-3) part of the "whole purpose of God" (Acts 20:27).

nolidad said:
Paul in Romans and Galatians makes this very clear! Besides the law was not designed to save people ever.

No sir. Situations like this help to highlight the need for Bible debate, discussions, deliberations and particularly this Dispensationalism Forum, even if I frequent this room to deliberate the truth of God's Word with Dispy's rather than considering myself to be one. Paul is dispensing "Grace Doctrine" to members of Christ's Body throughout the Pauline Epistles representing "Dispensational Truth" with application to just one household over which Paul is the "steward." Moses is steward over Israel of the flesh dispensing Mosaic Law under which Israel is bound until heaven and earth pass away and no matter what Paul teaches to Christ body members having a part in the current dispensation of God's grace (Eph. 3:2). We have no license to place Israel of the flesh, or disciples of the Kingdom Bride obeying the Gospel of the Kingdom, into Christ's Body because they have not been called by God to obey our gospel; because God called them to something else.

Blessings,

Terral

Terral · Jan 4, 2020

Hi Sovereigngrace:

While I am not quite sure what you are going on and on about: You wrote:

sovereigngrace said:
My last post actually addresses this. But you ignore it!

Please check the subject title again to realize we are supposed to be writing on the Two Gospels of the New Testament and not hijacking the topics to SomeWhereElseVille. Maybe a good idea would be for you to start a new thread on your topic and I promise not to sidetrack your deliberations with information about the Two Gospels of the New Testament. Thank you in advance, and,

God bless you,

Terral

Terral · Jan 4, 2020

Hi Bramblewild:

Thank you for writing on the Two Gospels topic: You wrote:

Bramblewild said:
Look at the context. Luke 8:1, Jesus preached the good news of the Kingdom of God. Luke 4:43, Jesus preached the good news of the Kingdom of God. Luke 5:32, "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."

If anyone is trying to say that this gospel of the Kingdom of God somehow involves works salvation, then they should get this one great truth firmly fixed in their minds--if our salvation depends in any way on our works, we are doomed for Hell, because all of our works are filth, soiled in our sins; selfishness, greed, self-righteousness, pride, and all the other sins man leans toward.

We disagree on that "they should get this firmly fixed..." unsupported assumption that assumes the "Gospel of the Kingdom" and the "Gospel of the Grace of God" are the same thing, because they are NOT. Jesus Christ is preaching the "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matthew 4:23) in Mark 1 as the "gospel of God" that is the ONLY good news in town when John the Baptist and Jesus Christ began their ministries to Israel ONLY. Nobody writing on these topics has the authority to elevate or diminish the essentials of the "gospel of God" that we can see Christ preaching right here:

"Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:14-15.

This "gospel of God" is being preached and God is calling disciples to the Prophetic Kingdom "bride" (John 3:29) that includes water baptism for "the forgiveness of sins." Mark 1:4. John the Baptist preached the Gospel of the Kingdom to baptize the convert for the "forgiveness of sins" and God forgave those sins part of the "good news" being preached. Period. Christ is going to die for "our" sins at the end of the Four Gospels, but Peter will continue preaching repentance and water baptism for the "forgiveness of sins" at Pentecost in Acts 2:38.

Bramblewild said:
There is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul.

There are many seeming contradictions in what Jesus Christ preaches to Israel ONLY and what Paul preaches to the Gentiles after Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Christ says that the Law will continue until heaven and earth pass away (Matt. 5:17-19), but Paul says we are not under law but under grace (Rom. 6:14). Heaven and earth are still around, so who is right? The simple truth here is that Christ is preaching "the Kingdom" the forgiveness of sins by "water," that Israel rejected to commit the "transgression" from Romans 11:11. However, what does Paul teach in the same passage?

"What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; ... I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous." Romans 11:7-11.

Credit Terral Croft, The Mystery Explained, Nov. 2017, Page 390

Think things through carefully to realize Peter, John, James, Cornelius, etc. were all called to God via the Gospel of the Kingdom (#1 from OP) for a specific purpose, because God needs a kingdom of priests (Body of Moses at the Lamb's right hand) for providing intercession for all the hosts of heaven! God also needs a ruler-judge body (Body of Christ = "IN" the Lamb = members of the Lamb's body) for judging the world and the angels (1Cor. 6:2-3) which is what the "Gospel of the Grace of God" (#2 from OP) is all about.

Credit Terral Croft, The Mystery Explained, Nov. 2017, Page 309

Nobody has been saved by obeying the Gospel of the Kingdom in almost 2000 years, since Peter's Kingdom Early-rains Bride Church was "cut off" and God put the Kingdom Dispensation on the back burner. However, our mystery church will be "caught up" (1Thes. 4:15-17) to meet the Lord in the air (Rapture Body) and Elijah will return to restore all things and preach the "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 24:14) as "the gospel" to the end of the age. Attempting to discredit, demean, and diminish the Gospel of the Kingdom as the "gospel of God" means that you are disqualified from seeing the larger picture where both the "gospel of the grace of God" (#2 in OP) and "preaching the kingdom" (#1 in OP) are two parts of the "whole purpose of God." Acts 20:27.

Blessings,

Terral

nolidad · Jan 4, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Please read this slowly, and you will see what I am getting at:

Matthew 24:3 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

Mark 13:4 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled (finished or ended)?”

Luke 21:7 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?”

Christ addressed both questions and both eras in chapter 24. However, because of the intermingling of His response, many Bible students suffer great confusion in identifying what aspect of the teaching relates to AD 70 and what relates to the second coming.

In His response to the first question in Matthew 24:15-22, He spoke of the end of the 40 year probationary period (AD 70), saying, “When ye (the disciples) therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand: Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”

Mark 13:14-20 says, “when ye (the disciples) shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. For in those days shall be tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.”

Luke’s parallel passage, in Luke 21:20-24, records, “when ye (the disciples) shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! For there shall be great distress (anagke) in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

A comparison of these three accounts will see the correlation in teaching. Plainly: “the abomination of desolation … standing where it ought not” or standing “in the holy place” relates to the Roman soldiers that would destroy the city of Jerusalem. Luke adds meat to the bones, saying: “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.” Here is the warning sign to run! There is also the limitation of that judgment so that the Gospel would spread to the nations. The Gospel spread as Jewish families were spread throughout the world.

You seem to forget that the three (not tow ) questions and Matthew, Mark and Luke are all part of what we call the Olivet discourse.

They are not three seperate teachings. Each Author pulled from the whole pteaching what God wanted them to focus on.

Luke focused on the destruction of Jerusalme while Matthew and Mark focused on when will the end come and what will be the signs of the end of the world and the physical return of Jesus!

You quote this passage:

sovereigngrace said:
In His response to the first question in Matthew 24:15-22, He spoke of the end of the 40 year probationary period (AD 70), saying, “When ye (the disciples) therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand: Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”

But it is sad that you fail to finish the quote:

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

For even you know these events have not happened. So Jesus could not be referring ot this portion of Scripture as the destruction of Jerusalem.

sovereigngrace said:
A comparison of these three accounts will see the correlation in teaching. Plainly: “the abomination of desolation … standing where it ought not” or standing “in the holy place” relates to the Roman soldiers that would destroy the city of Jerusalem

It is only plain to those who have been indoctrinated in this false teaching. No Jew with an IQ above 2 would compare Roman soldiers besieging Jerusalem the same as the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

YOu err because you do not follow grammar and are willing to accept close enough as a match! But it is not. Close enough is not a good way of hermeneutics for the Bible and prophecy.

Also the abomination of desolation is singular which means it is an individual and not an armies which is plural. Grammar matters more than you give weight to it!

nolidad · Jan 4, 2020

Guojing said:
Peter did not preach 1 Cor 15:1-4 in any of his sermons from Acts 2-10. Read the Bible properly.

The point under the grace dispensation was that a Gentile can be a Christian without circumcision. That did not begin until Cornelius.

For your final point, so you believe, under grace, a believer can be killed by God for lying?

What does Peters preaching have to do with God placing teh saved in teh church which is the Body of Christ?

Maybe it is you who forget to read the Bible properly.

Peter preached to Jews in all His sermons. People who were very familiar with what had happened to jesus at Calvary and th eclaims Jesus made to be Messiah! He did not have to go over the basics with his audiences as Paul did with the Gentiles who were not aware of what happened in that backwater priovince of Israel in the Roman Empire.

Knowiung these things will help us avoid mistakes because we forget the historical settings which the books of the NT were written about and for!

sovereigngrace · Jan 4, 2020

nolidad said:
You seem to forget that the three (not tow ) questions and Matthew, Mark and Luke are all part of what we call the Olivet discourse.

They are not three seperate teachings. Each Author pulled from the whole pteaching what God wanted them to focus on.

Luke focused on the destruction of Jerusalme while Matthew and Mark focused on when will the end come and what will be the signs of the end of the world and the physical return of Jesus!

You quote this passage:

But it is sad that you fail to finish the quote:

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

For even you know these events have not happened. So Jesus could not be referring ot this portion of Scripture as the destruction of Jerusalem.

It is only plain to those who have been indoctrinated in this false teaching. No Jew with an IQ above 2 would compare Roman soldiers besieging Jerusalem the same as the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

YOu err because you do not follow grammar and are willing to accept close enough as a match! But it is not. Close enough is not a good way of hermeneutics for the Bible and prophecy.

Also the abomination of desolation is singular which means it is an individual and not an armies which is plural. Grammar matters more than you give weight to it!

The text speaks for itself. Your conflict is with that. That is my only argument.

Even though I finished my Matthew 24 quote at verse 22, you started up as if your quote was continuous to what I had just quoted. It was not! That was wrong, and I believe misleading.

You started quoting Matthew 24:29 that was speaking about the future. Please do not mislead the reader. What I posted still stands. It is Holy Writ speaking here!

Terral · Jan 4, 2020

Hi Guojing:

Thank you for writing on the Two Gospels topic. You wrote:

Guojing said:
I am not saying that there is a contradiction.

I am just trying to show you that what you stated "There are not two different gospels, such a blasphemy has not place in the Bible" is silly.

Please forgive, but we disagree, because anyone seeing just "one gospel" in the New Testament is likely mixing the doctrinal precepts teaching the "Gospel of the Kingdom" AND the "Gospel of the Grace of God" together creating a good news message that God sent to NOBODY. Think things through carefully to realize that many among the denominations are taking repentance, water baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and laying hands for receiving the Holy Spirit to the Gospel of the Grace of God making "void" the power of the cross to save anyone. 1Cor. 1:17-18*. My feeling is that many members misunderstand the true purpose of deliberating the truth of this Two Gospels of the NT topic, as if something heretical is going on. No. We should agree that even Jesus Christ preached the "Gospel of the Kingdom" in Matthew 4:23, because that is exactly what Scripture says. Well, we should also agree that Christ has died for nobody in Matthew 4 and Mark 1, which means the Gospel of the Kingdom is NOT the "Word of the Cross*" gospel message preached by Paul to the Gentiles only after God raised Christ from the dead. Understanding the differences between these two important gospels of the NT allows us to separate the doctrinal precepts teaching BOTH, so as not to distort the "wisdom given him" (Paul) and fall victim to Peter's warning! This is very serious stuff right here and everyone is wise to pay attention:

"Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2Peter 3:14-16.

Paul says that the gospel he preached to the Gentiles was given through "a revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:11-12. Paul went up to submit the gospel he preached among the Gentiles to Peter, John and James being sent up to Jerusalem "because of a revelation" (Gal. 2:1-2). Paul asks the Ephesians to pray on his behalf, "that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make know with boldness the mystery of the gospel" (Eph. 6:19) that connects the "Gospel of the Grace of God" (#2 from OP) directly to the "wisdom given him" (Paul) that many here are mishandling and distorting... Therefore, the notion that getting this important gospel topic wrong is "silly" seems to miss the mark (if you will), when their "own destruction" is at stake for getting things wrong.

Guojing said:
Because its IN the bible that there were various good news, in the past, other than just "the gospel of Christ crucified for our sins, and salvation by grace through face and not through any of our works."

Think of gospel as "good news", and you will understand that.

The "gospel of the kingdom" (Matthew 4:23, etc.) and the "gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24) are real good news messages send by God and given these names in the Holy Scriptures, whether some of these members are willing to open their Bibles and acknowledge these things or not. There is a big difference between "good news" being passed around and gospel messages that include the "forgiveness of sins" and eternal life.

Blessings,

Terral

Terral · Jan 4, 2020

Hi Sovereigngrace:

Thank you for writing on the Two Gospels topic, even if I have yet to find a single post from you that addresses anything presented in the Opening Post of this thread. Quoting the entire OP to invent a series of straw man arguments using a long list of questions is not writing on the OP topic. This is an attempt at hijacking the topic to SomewhereElseVille and without supporting one statement, a quote, or verse from God's Living Word.. You wrote:

sovereigngrace said:
In the light of some of the wild and weird theories floating around out there, it is important that we address some key issues:

· How many different types of salvation are there in Scripture?

Hmm, no. Actually the idea is to "quote >>" from the member's Opening Post to then offer your counterargument, rebuttal, etc. using statements supported by Scripture. 2Tim. 2:15.

sovereigngrace said:
How many different Saviors are there in Scripture? How many different peoples of God are there in Scripture?

Essentially, what we need to establish is... [snip]

No. Each and every word and every statement in the Opening Post remains standing by default and even if you want to ask and answer 10,000 ridiculous unrelated and irrelevant questions. The Gospel of the Kingdom (Gospel #1) and the Gospel of the Grace of God (#2) are presented in the OP should you ever wish to address the topic of this thread.

Blessings,

Terral

Terral · Jan 4, 2020

Hi again, Sovereigngrace:

Your reply to nolidad gave me a belly laugh and a chuckle. You wrote:

sovereigngrace said:
It is fine-and-dandy stating this, but where is your Scripture?

The Opening Post presents the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Grace of God that you quoted (the entire OP) to ramble on asking-answering a myriad of questions without quoting one verse of Scripture to support anything. This post to nolidad appears to be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black... I cannot remember seeing so much off-topic chatter filling these threads with nonsense having nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. You wrote:

sovereigngrace said:
Show us Scripture that teaches (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ? Well, we live in a day where people just swallow what they are taught! They do not search it out for themselves.

And this back-and-forth Rapture of the Church, seven-year tribulation, Coming of Christ rambling has what to do with the Two Gospels of the NT topic?? Nothing. Please do me a big favor and take whatever you guys are going on about to a private conversation; get a room or something. Much appreciation, with,

Blessings,

Terral

Dan Perez · Jan 4, 2020

nolidad said:
No as Paul taught in Galatians the law was only valid till faith came. Now that faith came Israel no longer needed the schoolmaster (the law). The dispensation of the Mystery was that jew and Gentile werein one body equally. But that is not the gospel- that brings Jew and Gentile into one body.

Hi and in Gal 2:14 we see Peter still is still trying to get Gentiles to adopt Jewish customes and RITES , and we see That Peter is a LAW of Moses KEEPER at the same time that Paul is preaching GRACE GOSPEL , Gal 1:11 and 12 .

dan p

Guojing · Jan 4, 2020

nolidad said:
What does Peters preaching have to do with God placing teh saved in teh church which is the Body of Christ?

Maybe it is you who forget to read the Bible properly.

Peter preached to Jews in all His sermons. People who were very familiar with what had happened to jesus at Calvary and th eclaims Jesus made to be Messiah! He did not have to go over the basics with his audiences as Paul did with the Gentiles who were not aware of what happened in that backwater priovince of Israel in the Roman Empire.

Knowiung these things will help us avoid mistakes because we forget the historical settings which the books of the NT were written about and for!

You claimed that Once the disciples received the Holy Spirit! The only way one could be saved was by accepting the death burial and resurrection of Jesus for their sin!

I am saying you cannot find that preaching in any of Peter's sermons in Act.

Just because the word repent appears in Peter's sermon in Acts 3:18-19 for example, does not mean the same as what Paul meant in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

Peter was accusing the Jews of murdering Jesus. The idea of repentance for them can be viewed from the parable of the tenants, told in all 3 synoptic gospels. (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19)

When Jesus and the 12 were preaching from Matt-John, they need to repent of rejecting God their Father in the OT, and believe in his Son is their promised King and Messiah, as foretold by their prophets. The Jewish nation had rejected and killed many of those prophets.

God had mercy on them and now decided to send his Son to them now. But as Jesus told them in the parable of the tenants, they were wicked and decided to slay the son instead, thinking they can then take control of the vineyard. The words they told Pilate was really horrific from this perspective

Matthew 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

When Jesus was on the cross, he asked his father to forgive them for this act, because they know not what they do, the Father agreed to Jesus request.

So when Peter urged his Jewish brothers at Pentecost to repent (Acts 2:38), they are to repent from their horrific act of murdering the Son of God, and accept him once again as the Son of God and their King, since Jesus's resurrection showed, as Peter stated, he is indeed the Messiah and the Son of God. (Acts 2:36)

But of course the Nation did not, only a remnant of them did, so God blinded the nation temporary, setting his secret plan in motion to save us Gentiles, independent of Israel.

Peter, unlike what so many believe, did not preach to the Jews that Jesus died for their sins and rose again as a sign that all their sins are forever put away, which is 1 Cor 15:1-4

R

Guojing · Jan 4, 2020

Terral said:
Hi Guojing:

Thank you for writing on the Two Gospels topic. You wrote:

Please forgive, but we disagree, because anyone seeing just "one gospel" in the New Testament is likely mixing the doctrinal precepts teaching the "Gospel of the Kingdom" AND the "Gospel of the Grace of God" together creating a good news message that God sent to NOBODY. Think things through carefully to realize that many among the denominations are taking repentance, water baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and laying hands for receiving the Holy Spirit to the Gospel of the Grace of God making "void" the power of the cross to save anyone. 1Cor. 1:17-18*. My feeling is that many members misunderstand the true purpose of deliberating the truth of this Two Gospels of the NT topic, as if something heretical is going on. No. We should agree that even Jesus Christ preached the "Gospel of the Kingdom" in Matthew 4:23, because that is exactly what Scripture says. Well, we should also agree that Christ has died for nobody in Matthew 4 and Mark 1, which means the Gospel of the Kingdom is NOT the "Word of the Cross*" gospel message preached by Paul to the Gentiles only after God raised Christ from the dead. Understanding the differences between these two important gospels of the NT allows us to separate the doctrinal precepts teaching BOTH, so as not to distort the "wisdom given him" (Paul) and fall victim to Peter's warning! This is very serious stuff right here and everyone is wise to pay attention:

Paul says that the gospel he preached to the Gentiles was given through "a revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:11-12. Paul went up to submit the gospel he preached among the Gentiles to Peter, John and James being sent up to Jerusalem "because of a revelation" (Gal. 2:1-2). Paul asks the Ephesians to pray on his behalf, "that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make know with boldness the mystery of the gospel" (Eph. 6:19) that connects the "Gospel of the Grace of God" (#2 from OP) directly to the "wisdom given him" (Paul) that many here are mishandling and distorting... Therefore, the notion that getting this important gospel topic wrong is "silly" seems to miss the mark (if you will), when their "own destruction" is at stake for getting things wrong.

The "gospel of the kingdom" (Matthew 4:23, etc.) and the "gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24) are real good news messages send by God and given these names in the Holy Scriptures, whether some of these members are willing to open their Bibles and acknowledge these things or not. There is a big difference between "good news" being passed around and gospel messages that include the "forgiveness of sins" and eternal life.

Blessings,

Terral

Your points are actually agreeing with my points so I was confused when you stated Please forgive, but we disagree.

Which points of yours are disagreeing with mine?

nolidad · Jan 5, 2020

Terral said:
No sir. Please forgive, but these wild claims are not supported by an accurate interpretation of God's Living Word. Jesus Christ makes this point very clear:

Yes sir- the Mosaic Law is no longer in operation. Jesus fulfilled the entire reuirement of the Law thus ending it! Paul also explained this well if one reads the Word without retranslating it.

Gal. 3: 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

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.

Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

nolidad · Jan 5, 2020

Guojing said:
You claimed that Once the disciples received the Holy Spirit! The only way one could be saved was by accepting the death burial and resurrection of Jesus for their sin!

I am saying you cannot find that preaching in any of Peter's sermons in Act.

Just because the word repent appears in Peter's sermon in Acts 3:18-19 for example, does not mean the same as what Paul meant in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

Peter was accusing the Jews of murdering Jesus. The idea of repentance for them can be viewed from the parable of the tenants, told in all 3 synoptic gospels. (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19)

When Jesus and the 12 were preaching from Matt-John, they need to repent of rejecting God their Father in the OT, and believe in his Son is their promised King and Messiah, as foretold by their prophets. The Jewish nation had rejected and killed many of those prophets.

God had mercy on them and now decided to send his Son to them now. But as Jesus told them in the parable of the tenants, they were wicked and decided to slay the son instead, thinking they can then take control of the vineyard. The words they told Pilate was really horrific from this perspective

Matthew 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

When Jesus was on the cross, he asked his father to forgive them for this act, because they know not what they do, the Father agreed to Jesus request.

So when Peter urged his Jewish brothers at Pentecost to repent (Acts 2:38), they are to repent from their horrific act of murdering the Son of God, and accept him once again as the Son of God and their King, since Jesus's resurrection showed, as Peter stated, he is indeed the Messiah and the Son of God. (Acts 2:36)

Yes you can find Peter preaching this.

You forget that He was preaching to a crowd that knew of the death of Jesus and now Peter is preaching on the resurrection to Israel, and that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ! He was telling them that He died and rose and Jesus is the prophesied Messiah.

Same gosdpel, just presented in a different way to an audience that had far more understanding than gentiles who had little to no OT understanding and probably had no knowledge of Jesus!

Guojing said:

Just because the word repent appears in Peter's sermon in Acts 3:18-19 for example, does not mean the same as what Paul meant in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

Click to expand...

Well you need to prove that! for repent in both is metanoia which means a change of mind!

Guojing said:

So when Peter urged his Jewish brothers at Pentecost to repent (Acts 2:38), they are to repent from their horrific act of murdering the Son of God, and accept him once again as the Son of God and their King, since Jesus's resurrection showed, as Peter stated, he is indeed the Messiah and the Son of God. (Acts 2:36)

Click to expand...

No! They had to repent of rejecting Jesus as Messiah and accept Him as such!

Guojing said:

When Jesus and the 12 were preaching from Matt-John, they need to repent of rejecting God their Father in the OT, and believe in his Son is their promised King and Messiah, as foretold by their prophets. The Jewish nation had rejected and killed many of those prophets.

Click to expand...

Well the History of Israel is rife with sin! But Jesus did not hold the sins of the ancients on the people He spoke to ! They were responsible for the unpardonable sin as a nation of rejecting Jesus as Messiah on the basis Jesus was demon possessed. As Jesus told them in Matt. 12> The destruction of Jerusalem was the consequence of the nation as a nation rejecting Him. He proved His messiahship.

Guojing said:

God had mercy on them and now decided to send his Son to them now. But as Jesus told them in the parable of the tenants, they were wicked and decided to slay the son instead, thinking they can then take control of the vineyard. The words they told Pilate was really horrific from this perspective

Click to expand...

And that is why Jesus yanked the Messianic Kingdom from that generation of Israel and will give it to another generation of Israel that will receive HIm as Messiah.

Remember the first part of Jesus ministry was to announce the promised kingdom to Israel was at hand for the King was walking with them. After Israel rejected the offer through their leadership, the kingdom was postponed, and Jesus prepared the Apostles to build the church!

Guojing said:

But of course the Nation did not, only a remnant of them did, so God blinded the nation temporary, setting his secret plan in motion to save us Gentiles, independent of Israel.

Click to expand...

Well the Body of Christ is composed of both Jew and Gentile so we are not saved independent of Israel but are save equally with believing Israel!

Guojing said:

Peter, unlike what so many believe, did not preach to the Jews that Jesus died for their sins and rose again as a sign that all their sins are forever put away, which is 1 Cor 15:1-4

Click to expand...

Wrong again ! He said that just in a Jewish understanding way! Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles ans Peter, James and JOhn were the Apostles to the Jews. They both preached the same gospel, but in a different way because their audiences had different understanding.

nolidad · Jan 5, 2020

Dan Perez said:
Hi and in Gal 2:14 we see Peter still is still trying to get Gentiles to adopt Jewish customes and RITES , and we see That Peter is a LAW of Moses KEEPER at the same time that Paul is preaching GRACE GOSPEL , Gal 1:11 and 12 .

dan p

Nothing wrong with jews keeping the Mosaic laws. As long as it is not the basis of their salvation. But in Gal. 2 Peter had backslidden when the Judaizers showed up in Galatia!

nolidad · Jan 5, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
The text speaks for itself. Your conflict is with that. That is my only argument.

Even though I finished my Matthew 24 quote at verse 22, you started up as if your quote was continuous to what I had just quoted. It was not! That was wrong, and I believe misleading.

You started quoting Matthew 24:29 that was speaking about the future. Please do not mislead the reader. What I posted still stands. It is Holy Writ speaking here!

Well in the scheme of doctrines, our disagreement is over a minor issue.

What disturbs me is that you have adopted a method of exegesis and hermeneutics that betrays language, grammar, and construct as well as how language is used int original. That is the greater concern, For it leaves a fellow believer wondering where else you have allowed what was taught to you to disrupt more important doctrines.

We have reached the end of this debate- You may have the last word if you wish.

sovereigngrace · Jan 5, 2020

nolidad said:
Well in the scheme of doctrines, our disagreement is over a minor issue.

What disturbs me is that you have adopted a method of exegesis and hermeneutics that betrays language, grammar, and construct as well as how language is used int original. That is the greater concern, For it leaves a fellow believer wondering where else you have allowed what was taught to you to disrupt more important doctrines.

The opposite is the truth! You have not been able to show me any Scripture that describes (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ. That is because it is not in the Book. All you can present is theories and speculations.

Guojing · Jan 5, 2020

I can see that You are not a dispensationalist.

Okay we can agree to disagree there

Terral · Jan 6, 2020

Hi Guojing:

Thank you for writing on the Two Gospels topic. You wrote:

Guojing said:
Your points are actually agreeing with my points so I was confused when you stated Please forgive, but we disagree.

Which points of yours are disagreeing with mine?

We disagree about your conclusion that declaring two gospels interpretations as blasphemy is "silly" (my highlight on your commentary for emphasis below):

Guojing said: ↑
I am not saying that there is a contradiction.

I am just trying to show you that what you stated "There are not two different gospels, such a blasphemy has not place in the Bible" is silly.

My point is that mixing doctrinal precepts teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and Gospel of the Grace of God together is extremely dangerous. That is Peter's warning in 2Peter 3:14-16.

Blessings,

Terral

The Two Gospels of the New Testament 12.03.2019

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Similar threads