Curious

[ebedmelech]

their was never a dispute of this.

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

that "neither hadst pleasure in" is the query I'm not challenging the thought of offerings HE never had pleasure in. I'm challenging the thought that certain offerings HE did pleasure in. Sacrifices were given before the law as well- again He enjoyed the sweet savor.

Of course but the point is the insufficiency of such offerings. This is the point of Hebrews 10:1-18. The offerings are shadows of Christ, who would come at God's appointed time.

What point are you trying to make?

verse 1 make perfect- sin offering
verse 2 again sin
verse 3 sins
verse 4 sin again
verse 5 our Lords body as the true sacrifice
verse 6 sin
verse 8 mentioning of sin yet again.

any verses that mention thanksgiving and peace offerings?

Try Leviticus 3:1-9 for peace offerings and again Leviticus 7 for peace and thanksgiving offerings.

 

[BABerean2]

You are still being too nice. Come on now. Don't hold back. Let loose. You will feel so much better afterwards.

I would feel much better if the seminaries that teach Dispensational Theology would present this history of the doctrine to their students.


The next group who needs to see the truth would be those sitting in the pews of the hold-onto-the-doctrine-until-death Dispensational pastors.


If they did, the doctrine would soon crumble like the house built upon sand that it really is.



Then maybe we could all get back to what the Apostles taught.



That would really make me feel better.

.

 

[riverrat]

I would feel much better if the seminaries that teach Dispensational Theology would present this history of the doctrine to their students.


The next group who needs to see the truth would be those sitting in the pews of the hold-onto-the-doctrine-until-death Dispensational pastors.


If they did, the doctrine would soon crumble like the house built upon sand that it really is.



Then maybe we could all get back to what the Apostles taught.



That would really make me feel better.

.

What the apostles taught was the kingdom gospel which is not salvation in this the dispensation of the grace of God. Show me the scripture where they taught the work of the cross for salvation. They did not. This is a perfect example of your blenderizing of scripture. It just will not work. It leads to confusion and lack of understanding. You are confused and you lack understanding. Remove the blinders from your eyes!

 

[BABerean2]

What the apostles taught was the kingdom gospel which is not salvation in this the dispensation of the grace of God. Show me the scripture where they taught the work of the cross for salvation. They did not. This is a perfect example of your blenderizing of scripture. It just will not work. It leads to confusion and lack of understanding. You are confused and you lack understanding. Remove the blinders from your eyes!

One God, One Savior, One way of salvation, and One Gospel.


1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1Pe 1:6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
1Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 1:8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
1Pe 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
1Pe 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.



1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

One Gospel, One Covenant, One Plan, and One People of God.
.
.

 

[KrAZeD]

What point are you trying to make?

here's the thing Ebed, with respect that you and others most likely won't agree but that's ok, I'll close with the main point I wanted to attempt to make and G done.

Sweet savor/aroma means what exactly- I've always seen it as enjoyable. Their were offerings that did involve animals that God did enjoy- they had a sweet "savor", savor definition-1. taste (good food or drink) and enjoy it completely. We can use lev 3:5.

Reasons as to why God did become tired of "sacrifices", which in context we see not only idolatry but out of sheer habit(ritual), over abundance with no honest reasons, made up to celebrate anything- Isaiah 1:11-14. Also He(God) never enjoyed certain animal sacrifices I.e. sin. No mentioning at all of sacrifices from a willing loyal servant or for peace/thanksgiving or honest worship.

We agree Jesus was a perfect sacrifice which can get seen as fulfilling all of the "law" sacrifice requirements. Though their are no verses saying one can not still perform an animal sacrifice that is given as thanks specifically - a sacrifice that contained a sweet savor. The verses typically against animal sacrifice are always seen with sin (hebrews)- which was never a "good" sacrifice. As well as sacrificing something to show appreciation was just that - appreciation of what God had provided and given freely.

While the thought of all animal sacrifices to you and those against them might G equal, the lack of mentioning thanksgiving/peace offerings from Loyal and true servants is not scripturally shown as a wrong way of worshipping God- even after our Lords death (These offerings are not for sin-Jesus covered that and a sin offering today is a wrong way to worship.). As well as it isn't written that we are limited to only "x,y,c,a" ways to worship our Lord and God. We are given ways but not limitations (excluding the obvious evil ways to worship).

To make an assertion that a sacrifice of an animal to God for a form of worship and praise is contrary the new covenant we would have to show where it was never enjoyable or specifically asserted it was wrong. While I do understand it's not feasible we all go sacrifice an animal to show thanks to God their are some that that could get seen as feasible- I.e. a poverty area such as Somalia where livestock is precious or other small remote villages.

So my point was Sin animal sacrifices are bad but if one had true motives of an animal sacrifice for thanksgiving/peace it seems it is allowed and still accepted. So comments as animal sacrifices are bad and or violating the new covenant are not entirely correct without specifying which animal sacrifices.

That is somewhat important when one attempts to explain a 3rd temple and the first/primary objection is animal sacrifices are a slap in Gods face.

 

[Danoh]

I would feel much better if the seminaries that teach Dispensational Theology would present this history of the doctrine to their students.


The next group who needs to see the truth would be those sitting in the pews of the hold-onto-the-doctrine-until-death Dispensational pastors.


If they did, the doctrine would soon crumble like the house built upon sand that it really is.



Then maybe we could all get back to what the Apostles taught.



That would really make me feel better.

.

Fool's gold, that.

Better they be taught what you obviously were not - how to examine their own conclusions even as they arrive at them- how to know how to know when they are on the right track and when they are not.

That out of the way, their agreement will be with that "ism" that their knowing how to know they are studying a thing out properly leads them to.

That is not you - yours is the typical perception of the masses "well this does not make sense to me... while, this over here does... done, mind made up - all else is off!"

Fool's gold, that.

Go ahead, don't be challenged by this; gainsay it - your "gold" is your "gold."

 

[101]

What the apostles taught was the kingdom gospel which is not salvation in this the dispensation of the grace of God. Show me the scripture where they taught the work of the cross for salvation. They did not. This is a perfect example of your blenderizing of scripture. It just will not work. It leads to confusion and lack of understanding. You are confused and you lack understanding. Remove the blinders from your eyes!

Ok, that's it.

I'm going to say it.

That is the single most ignorant statement I have ever read in my entire life, bar none.

I guess the Epistle to the Ephesians doesn't exist. I guess Paul isn't an apostle. And I guess the Ephesians weren't entrusted with the dispensation of the grace of God.

Let me reiterate that again in clear terms. What you wrote above is beyond measure the single most ignorant statement I have ever read in my entire life from any human being on any topic whatsoever. Nor do I think I will live to see a statement that is that infinitely ignorant again during my earthly days. I've never seen a person be perfectly wrong, as in absolutely, diametrically opposite from reality in quite as bold of terms as the statement above. It is the purest, most perfected statement of abject ignorance I have ever witnessed. It should be the example paragraph in the dictionary under the entry 'ignorance'.

1For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mytery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

 

[Danoh]

Ok, that's it.

I'm going to say it.

That is the single most ignorant statement I have ever read in my entire life, bar none.

I guess the Epistle to the Ephesians doesn't exist. I guess Paul isn't an apostle. And I guess the Ephesians weren't entrusted with the dispensation of the grace of God.

Let me reiterate that again in clear terms. What you wrote above is beyond measure the single most ignorant statement I have ever read in my entire life from any human being on any topic whatsoever. Nor do I think I will live to see a statement that is that infinitely ignorant again during my earthly days. I've never seen a person be perfectly wrong, as in absolutely, diametrically opposite from reality in quite as bold of terms as the statement above. It is the purest, most perfected statement of abject ignorance I have ever witnessed. It should be the example paragraph in the dictionary under the entry 'ignorance'.

He was excluding Paul from that; in light of Ephesians.

In light of that, what you have actually done is taken what you read into his words as "the single most ignorant statement" you "have ever read in my entire life, bar none" - it is your reading that you have concluded that on and don't even know it.

But, just go on over and troll through the past ten years or so in the Dispensational forum, and you will see that you are just a long, long line in the same old same old "what makes sense to me is right, and what does not, is not."

Missing in your typical process is the habit of first taking a step back to seek out first some kind of means of knowing how to know that what makes sense to you is actually the same as what any passage is actually talking about.

Question is, are you open to the challenge of this assertion, if you understand it to begin with, or will it too meet with the deaf ear of "this does not make sense to me, it is therefore wrong - next!"

None of you seem to care about searching out this first step... you are like several people at a crime scene; none of which have ever sought out training first in how to know how to approach looking at a thing objectively, aware throughout of one's own inclinations to read into things..

 

[101]

He was excluding Paul from that; in light of Ephesians.

In light of that, what you have actually done is taken what you read into his words as "the single most ignorant statement" you "have ever read in my entire life, bar none" - it is your reading that you have concluded that on and don't even know it.

But, just go on over and troll through the past ten years or so in the Dispensational forum, and you will see that you are just a long, long line in the same old same old "what makes sense to me is right, and what does not, is not."

Missing in your typical process is the habit of first taking a step back to seek out first some kind of means of knowing how to know that what makes sense to you is actually the same as what any passage is actually talking about.

Question is, are you open to the challenge of this assertion, if you understand it to begin with, or will it too meet with the deaf ear of "this does not make sense to me, it is therefore wrong - next!"

None of you seem to care about searching out this first step... you are like several people at a crime scene; none of which have ever sought out training first in how to know how to approach looking at a thing objectively, aware throughout of one's own inclinations to read into things..

Well, I just happened to dial up Paul the Apostle in the 'Great Cloud of Witnesses' in our Communion of Saints, as it were, and he told me to feel free to troll away.

In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd say he wanted to troll in here a bit too.

He wanted me to remind all that just because he's out of sight he isn't out of mind. No, he is very much with us and he does not appreciate excluding his statement 'as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit' part.

That's 'apostles and prophets', you see. That would be plural in both English and Greek (and no doubt even in Aztec).

So, the dispensation of the grace of God not only seems to have been given to the apostles, but it is the only dispensation that was given to the apostles.

I believe there is something in Acts 2 about some baptism of the Spirit whereby they received the power for such, or something

IF MEMORY SERVES!!!!

 

[Danoh]

Danoh wrote:
God's mystery visit among the Gentiles

I didn't get this answered the other day but now I see that you were using it this way. This is a loss of meaning. The mystery there is that of evil's ability to harden Israel. It has been there from the beginning. Rom 9-11 affirms that, even though it would seem like more Jews would believe with all those backgrounds and opps, they don't, and it does not happen automatically or genetically. Only by faith. The way for Jews to express faith in Paul's time is to join in the mission of the Gospel to the nations, ch 10. So ch 11 spurs them, prods them to do so, but is only optimistic that those who have faith will be saved, not the genepool sector.

You know you are adding the word "visit" and it does not belong.

Yet, there's James and Peter; finally understanding what took place in Acts 10, after meeting with Paul in Galatians 2, used of God now, to acknowledge His mystery visit among the Gentiles through Paul in Acts 15:

12. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

They knew their prophet's had prophesied a gap in time between their nations fall and that time "after this" in which the Lord would return in His glory at some point after His sufferings to restore again the kingdom to Israel, David's tabernacle, or royal house.

But the prophets had not known of a Mystery visit of God's among the Gentiles during said prophesied gap in Israel's timeline.

Thus, all the Circumcision Apostles could say to this was basically Peter's Acts 11 "Who was I that I could resist God" - "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

For said visit during this gap in Israel's timeline was not inconsistent with Israel's prophesied restoration for it was on hold anyway.

I know, I know - yawn - it does not fit what your forty plus years in books supposedly about these things has blinded you from being able to see.

And I now it irks you that I address your "learning" in that way, I am well aware of that. But its on you now, you will one day have to account that you simply had not bothered being a Berean about this because it simply did not fit your huge library...

"saved, yet so as by fire..."

 

[Danoh]

Well, I just happened to dial up Paul the Apostle in the 'Great Cloud of Witnesses' in our Communion of Saints, as it were, and he told me to feel free to troll away.

In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd say he wanted to troll in here a bit too.

He wanted me to remind all that just because he's out of sight he isn't out of mind. No, he is very much with us and he does not appreciate excluding his statement 'as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit' part.

That's 'apostles and prophets', you see. That would be plural in both English and Greek (and no doubt even in Aztec).

So, the dispensation of the grace of God not only seems to have been given to the apostles, but it is the only dispensation that was given to the apostles.

I believe there is something in Acts 2 about some baptism of the Spirit whereby they received the power for such, or something

IF MEMORY SERVES!!!!

Right, and you ran the passages and found mention of those Apostles who labored with Paul as to the Body - not the Twelve Circumcision Apostles - but decided to ignore that, yeah, okay, you mean if distorted, incomplete memory serves, lol

 

[BABerean2]

Fool's gold, that.

Better they be taught what you obviously were not - how to examine their own conclusions even as they arrive at them- how to know how to know when they are on the right track and when they are not.

That out of the way, their agreement will be with that "ism" that their knowing how to know they are studying a thing out properly leads them to.

That is not you - yours is the typical perception of the masses "well this does not make sense to me... while, this over here does... done, mind made up - all else is off!"

Fool's gold, that.

Go ahead, don't be challenged by this; gainsay it - your "gold" is your "gold."

The following is a quote from the text of page 128 of C.R. Stam's book "Things that Differ".
(Bold type and underlining have been added.)

"IS THERE ONLY ONE GOSPEL?

But while it is technically incorrect to call these four records four gospels, it is
equally incorrect to say, as many have said, that the Scriptures present only one gospel.

First, the word gospel (Gr. evangelion) means simply good news and to say
that the Bible presents only one gospel is like saying that God has sent man only one item of good news down through the ages.
Second, God uses distinctive terms to designate the various items of good
news: e.g., "the gospel [good news] of the kingdom" (Matt. 9:35), "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24), "the gospel of the uncircumcision" (Gal. 2:7), etc.

Surely if God distinguishes between these gospels they cannot be exactly the
same.

Next, it should be noted that God has revealed His good news to man
progressively. To Adam and Eve He proclaimed the gospel, or good news, that
the woman's seed should some day crush the head of the Serpent (Gen. 3:15).
To Abraham He preached the gospel, or good news, that in him all nations
should be blessed (Gal. 3:8). And all down through the Old Testament
Scriptures we find God proclaiming more and more good news to man."

Stam is clearly advocating for two different Gospels.

The Gospel of the kingdom (circumcision)

The Gospel of the Grace of God (uncircumcision)

What does the New Testament say about promoting more than one Gospel?


Gal_1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Gal_1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal_1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal_1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.



Sadly, some who are promoting this false doctrine call those who oppose it "fools".


.

 

[101]

Right, and you ran the passages and found mention of those Apostles who labored with Paul as to the Body - not the Twelve Circumcision Apostles - but decided to ignore that, yeah, okay, you mean if distorted, incomplete memory serves, lol

So Paul is splitting hairs and doing semantic gymnastics with the term 'apostles' and doesn't tell us that he is playing jedi mind tricks on us while we think that he means "the apostles of Christ" (as in all of them) instead of, as you suggest, Paul's little groupy of culted out 'Grace Apostle' types, of whom we have no the slightest knowledge?

You twist more than a cork screw.

 

[riverrat]

One God, One Savior, One way of salvation, and One Gospel.


1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1Pe 1:6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
1Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 1:8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
1Pe 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
1Pe 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.



1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

One Gospel, One Covenant, One Plan, and One People of God.
.
.

And when did Peter preach this?

 

[101]

And when did Peter preach this?

When he put his magic preaching cap on.

 

[riverrat]

The following is a quote from the text of page 128 of C.R. Stam's book "Things that Differ".
(Bold type and underlining have been added.)

"IS THERE ONLY ONE GOSPEL?

But while it is technically incorrect to call these four records four gospels, it is
equally incorrect to say, as many have said, that the Scriptures present only one gospel.

First, the word gospel (Gr. evangelion) means simply good news and to say
that the Bible presents only one gospel is like saying that God has sent man only one item of good news down through the ages.
Second, God uses distinctive terms to designate the various items of good
news: e.g., "the gospel [good news] of the kingdom" (Matt. 9:35), "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24), "the gospel of the uncircumcision" (Gal. 2:7), etc.

Surely if God distinguishes between these gospels they cannot be exactly the
same.

Next, it should be noted that God has revealed His good news to man
progressively. To Adam and Eve He proclaimed the gospel, or good news, that
the woman's seed should some day crush the head of the Serpent (Gen. 3:15).
To Abraham He preached the gospel, or good news, that in him all nations
should be blessed (Gal. 3:8). And all down through the Old Testament
Scriptures we find God proclaiming more and more good news to man."

Stam is clearly advocating for two different Gospels.

The Gospel of the kingdom (circumcision)

The Gospel of the Grace of God (uncircumcision)

What does the New Testament say about promoting more than one Gospel?


Gal_1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Gal_1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal_1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal_1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.



Sadly, some who are promoting this false doctrine call those who oppose it "fools".


.

There is only one valid gospel for salvation in this dispensation and it is the gospel of grace but there have been other gospels for salvation in previous dispensations.

 

[riverrat]

When he put his magic preaching cap on.

LOL, scripture please.

 

[101]

LOL, scripture please.

Would apostle Kephas qualify as preaching the gospel of the cross of Jesus Christ here? Or is this some other gospel of some other dispensation? Because, I'll be honest with you, I could have sworn it sounded like New Testament preaching, even though I shouldn't swear

1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

3Beatified be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6Wherein you greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, you are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8Whom having not seen, you love; in whom, though now you do not see him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

10Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ who was in them did signify, when he testified beforehand the Passion of the Christ, and the glory that should follow. 12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them who have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. -- 1 Peter 1​

 

[BABerean2]

There is only one valid gospel for salvation in this dispensation and it is the gospel of grace but there have been other gospels for salvation in previous dispensations.

Stephen, a Jew, was martyred after Pentecost but before Saul became Paul. He may not have known about the "mystery" only revealed to our Apostle Paul.

Which Gospel and Dispensation does that put him under?



How about the sinner on the cross? Which Gospel and Dispensation does he fall under?
What if he was a gentile, would that make a difference?


I need to write these down so I can keep all of them straight within the doctrine of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

.

 

[riverrat]

Stephen, a Jew, was martyred after Pentecost but before Saul became Paul. He may not have known about the "mystery" only revealed to our Apostle Paul.

Which Gospel and Dispensation does that put him under?



How about the sinner on the cross? Which Gospel and Dispensation does he fall under?
What if he was a gentile, would that make a difference?


I need to write these down so I can keep all of them straight within the doctrine of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

.

I ain't no dispensational expert but IMO both Stephen and the thief on the cross were saved by believing the kingdom gospel during the dispensation of law. And a Gentile at that time would still be in the dispensation of human government and the gospel would be his conscience.

Maybe someone more qualified about dispensationalism will also answer this question for you.

Now it is your turn to answer a question. If there has never been but one gospel what is it?