Just One Gospel?

[Jerry Shugart]

Hello....ever read the book of Isaiah?

and.....Abraham took his son Isaac (In Gen 22) to sacrifice him and according to Hebrews 11:19, he knew God would raise him from the dead. Isaac is a picture of Christ.

Every time a lamb was sacrificed, it was a proclamation of the Gospel.

Yes,with the information we have now that is contained in the NT we can see that these things were "types".However,the Jews did not understand these "types" in the OT times so it could not be said that "it was a proclamation of the gospel".

Something innocent had to die for the guilty. This is why John said in John 1:29, "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

The Baptist was not referring to what the Lord Jesus would do in death but instead was referring to what He would do while He walked the earth.Alfred Eldersheim,a well-respected Christian author,was not a dispensationalist nor did he teach that there were two gospels.However,he knew that the words of the Baptist were not in regard to the Cross:

"Because He took upon Himself our infirmities, therefore He bore our sicknesses. That the view here given is that of the N.T., appears from a comparison of the application of the passage in St. Matt. viii. 17 with that in St.John i. 29 and 1 Pet. ii. 24. The words, as given by St. Matthew, are most truly a N.T. 'Targum' of the original. The LXX. renders, 'This man carries our sins and is pained for us;' Symmachus, 'Surely He took up our sins, and endured our labors;' the Targum Jon., 'Thus for our sins He will pray, and our iniquities will for His sake be forgiven.' (Comp. Driver and Neubauer, The Jewish Interpreters on Isaiah liii., vol. ii.) Lastly, it is with reference to this passage that the Messiah bears in the Talmud the designation, 'The Leprous One,' and 'the Sick One' (Sanh. 98 b).(Eldersheim,"The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah",Book III,Chapter 14,Last Footnote in Chapter).

Here is the interpretation given by Sir Robert Anderson:

"Behold the Lamb of God. which taketh away the sin of the world " (John i. 29). This rendering of the text in both our versions savours of exegesis. The Baptist’s words are definitely clear, "Behold the Lamb of God, who is bearing the sin of the world." And they are usually supposed to be a revelation to the Jews that Christ was to die; the only question in doubt being whether the type to which they refer be the Paschal lamb or the sin-offering.

But this involves a glaring anachronism. For it was not until the Sanhedrin decreed His destruction (Matthew xii. 32) that the Lord revealed even to the Twelve that He was to be put to death. And so utterly opposed was it to all Jewish beliefs and hopes that they gave no heed to it. Upon other grounds also such an exegesis is unintelligent. For the Passover did not typify "bearing sin," and a lamb was never the sin-offering victim. Nor was it " the sin of the world" that the scapegoat bore away, but the sins of the children of Israel (Leviticus xvi. 21).

"Who is bearing the sin of the world." This was not a prophecy of Calvary, but a revelation of what the Lord was during His life. Therefore the word here used is not a sacrificial term, as in 1 Peter ii. 24 and other kindred passages, but an ordinary word in common use for taking up and carrying burdens. Its five occurrences in John v. 8 - 12 are fairly representative of its use in the ninety-six other passages where it is found. Accordingly we read in 1 John iii. 5 - the only other passage where the word is used in this connection - "He was manifested to take away (or to bear) sins" (R.V.), the Apostle’s purpose being, as the context plainly indicates, not to assert the doctrine of expiation, but to impress on the saints that sin is utterly opposed to Christ, and hinders fellowship with Him. Mark the word "manifested" ; it was not the mystery of Calvary, but the openly declared purpose of His life. For in this sense He was a sin-bearer during all His earthly sojourn ; as witness, for example, His groans and tears at the grave of Lazarus. He took up and bore the burden of human sin; not as to its guilt - that was not till Gethsemane and Calvary - but as to the sufferings and sorrows it brought upon humanity.
"He was oppressed, yet lie humbled Himself and opened not His mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb, yea He opened not His mouth" (Isaiah liii. 7, R.V.). There is a general consensus of opinion that to this passage it is that the Baptist’s words refer. And it is noteworthy that it contains no sacrificial language ; for, in the Hebrew, " slaughter" is a common word that points to the shambles. It foretold the Messiah’s earthly life of humiliation and suffering. And this it was that the Jews could not understand, and would not accept. Hence the force and meaning of the Baptist’s inspired words uttered at the very threshold of the ministry.

Let no one suppose then that the foregoing exposition of them disparages the truth of the expiation accomplished upon Calvary. That great truth rests upon a foundation too firm and sure to need support from a misreading of the Baptist’s testimony. Indeed, it is the accepted exegesis of the passage that imperils that truth. For it affords a colourable justification for the profane heresy that during the Lord’s earthly ministry He rested under the cloud of separation from His Father (see note on 1 Peter ii. 24). To form too high an estimate of the death of Christ would be impossible, but it is a deplorable fact that the prolonged martyrdom of His earthly life has far too little place in our thoughts.(Anderson,"Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament",p.59,60).

According to you the purpose of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ was revealed in the OT but those closest to Him did not even understand that He was to die!And for that matter,none of the Jews understood that He must die to pay the penalty for the sins of believers.

 

[drbrumley]

There could be no proclamation of a crucified and risen Christ for faith to lay hold upon until Christ had been manifested in time, had died, and had been raised from the dead. Therefore, it is evident that for the several thousand years of human history before the advent of Christ, faith must have been exercised in a message different from that in the present dispensation. Some have supposed that because there are types and shadows of Christ's redeeming work in the Old Testament, the people before Christ had to place thier faith in a coming Messiah who would die for thier sins. A careful searching of the Old Testament Scriptures reveal no statement that God required people in past dispensations to place their faith in the work of a Messiah who was yet to come. No doubt many Jewish people believed that God would one day send them a Messiah who would deliver them from their enemies and establish them in their kingdom, but His coming death and resurrection were never predicated as a basis for faith. It is extremely doubtful whether any of the ancient Isrealites even understood the prophecies concerning the sufferings of the Messiah and the glory that was to follow. It is evident from Luke 18:31-34 that the twelve apostles had no understanding of these thruths even after three years under the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Apollos]

For Jerry and Brumley –

Jerry - However,the Jews did not understand these "types" in the OT times so it could not be said that "it was a proclamation of the gospel".

This claim is nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion. The Jews understanding of “types” had nothing to do with whether or not the GOSPEL could be proclaimed – it was! The actuality or possibility of preaching this message (or any message) is not dependent or contingent upon the recipient understanding the message preached or the facets of the message.

Now let me prove (not assert) that the GOSPEL was preached during OT times. Paul states:

Galatians 3:8 – “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.”

I have already made comment on this verse to Jerry, but he AVOIDED saying anything about it.

Jerry - According to you the purpose of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ was revealed in the OT but those closest to Him did not even understand that He was to die!And for that matter,none of the Jews understood that He must die to pay the penalty for the sins of believers.

I have already abundantly shown that the PURPOSE of Christ’s death WAS known during OT times – Romans 1:2, 16:25-26, 1 Peter 1:10-12. It was the HOW God was going to save man that wasn’t known – 1 Corinthians 2:7-11. Once again Jerry thinks man’s lack of understanding something spiritual, somehow/some way, precludes God from making His will and plans known. Go figure!
<<<*>>>

Jerry - The Baptist was not referring to what the Lord Jesus would do in death but instead was referring to what He would do while He walked the earth.

Lol! Then why did John proclaim – “Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!” – John 1:29 ??? Uh, Eldersheim not withstanding… This guy seems to overlook the fact that John was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). John did not have to wait until the time of Matthew 12 to KNOW that Jesus was to die for the sins of man - that He was "the Lamb of God" !!!
<<<*>>>

Brumley - There could be no proclamation of a crucified and risen Christ for faith to lay hold upon until Christ had been manifested in time, had died, and had been raised from the dead. Therefore, it is evident that for the several thousand years of human history before the advent of Christ, faith must have been exercised in a message different from that in the present dispensation.

Although God dealt with man differently, the ultimate plan was that all men would be saved through the sacrifice/blood of Jesus Christ – this plan from the beginning was/is the GOSPEL – the plan that God was/is going to save man!

Hebrews 1:1 – “God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets
by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us
in his Son…”

God speaks to man today only through His son, and this comes only through the ONE
and ONLY true GOSPEL God has given to man!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Now let me prove (not assert) that the GOSPEL was preached during OT times. Paul states:

Galatians 3:8 – “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.”

Is this your proof.Paul is saying that "good news" was preached to Abraham,and that good news is the fact that "in thee shall all the nations be blessed".

I have already abundantly shown that the PURPOSE of Christ’s death WAS known during OT times – Romans 1:2, 16:25-26, 1 Peter 1:10-12. It was the HOW God was going to save man that wasn’t known – 1 Corinthians 2:7-11. Once again Jerry thinks man’s lack of understanding something spiritual, somehow/some way, precludes God from making His will and plans known. Go figure!

Again,you throw your reason to the wind and make a statement that demonstrates that your ideas are as confused as you theology.

You say that it was "how" God was going to save man that was not known.The "how" is in regard to the "purpose" of His death.

But then you turn around and say that the "purpose" of His death was known during OT times.

You really need to put some thought into what you write before you write it,Apollos.

Lol! Then why did John proclaim – “Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!” – John 1:29 ??? Uh, Eldersheim not withstanding…

If you didn't notice Eldersheim was quoting the Jews and the meaning that they placed on the meaning of bearing sins.If the "purpose" of His death was known in OT times why is there no evidence that any Jews understood that purpose?

And why didn't the Lord's own Apostles know that He was to die?

Hebrews 1:1 – “God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets
by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us
in his Son…”

God speaks to man today only through His son, and this comes only through the ONE
and ONLY true GOSPEL God has given to man!

This does not say that the "good news" that we are to preach today is the same "good news" that was spoken of in OT times.

 

[Apollos]

The "gospel" is the news of man's salvation...

The "gospel" is the news of man's salvation...

Jerry -

Let me, as I typically must, assist you with the CONTEXT of the passage under discussion. In this case it is Galatians 3:8 - - -

“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.”

Let analyze what you said about this verse…(or more importantly, what you did not address.). YOU said -

Paul is saying that "good news" was preached to Abraham,and that good news is the fact that "in thee shall all the nations be blessed".

Lol! As is typical of dispy outlook on the whole of the Bible, you, of necessity, had to leave something out your reply.

What you left out was any reference to – “…foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith…”.

Paul says the SCRIPTURE preached this - - - that the GENTILES were going to be justified (ei. saved) by faith, and that this was preached to Abraham. The “good news” was that all nations would find salvation through the seed of Abraham – ei. Jesus Christ. Of course YOU had to ignore this part about the GENTILES because it destroys your position the PURPOSE (and plan) of Christ’s death on the cross was something never known about and never preached before PAUL showed up – which also shows you don’t understand how the word mystery is used by Paul in the NT.

So instead of accepting the truth that Paul shares with us here, you choose to be intellectually dishonest once again. But this does allow you to cling to what you desire more – dispy-ism.

You say that it was "how" God was going to save man that was not known.The "how" is in regard to the "purpose" of His death.
But then you turn around and say that the "purpose" of His death was known during OT times.

You strain yourself to misunderstand what I wrote. But as far as what I wrote, the “how” is NOT in regard to the “purpose” of Christ’s death.

1 Corinthians 15:3 as well as Galatians 3:8 above show that the PURPOSE of Christ’s death was told beforehand – He died for our sins/He died for our salvation.

1 Corinthians 2:6-9 tells us that no one knew HOW God was going to accomplish the salvation that was to come to ALL nations.

If you didn't notice Eldersheim was quoting the Jews and the meaning that they placed on the meaning of bearing sins.If the "purpose" of His death was known in OT times why is there no evidence that any Jews understood that purpose?

Eldersheim as you quote him presents 2 arguments – both are FLAWED.

The first point of his (which you mis-state by the way) is that he argues John could not have know about Jesus’ death because Jesus did not reveal such before Matthew 12 – the so-called “glaring anachronism”. I showed the error of the thought showing John stated that Jesus was the LAMB (sacrificial by context - John 1:29) that would take away the sins of the world (a sin offering) – having had this revealed by the HS to him per Luke 1:15.

Second, Eldershiem struggles in vain to “show” that what John was speaking of in John 1:29, and that Jesus’ “burden” through life was to bear… our sins??? Christ did this in His death – NOT BEFORE – NOT during His lifetime. Eldersheim spuriously attempts to accomplish in the LIFE of Christ what He accomplished by His DEATH on the cross! What he says is nothing but sophistry to promote his theological agenda!

YOU then compound all of this error with a PRESUMPTION that the Jews needed to understand what the PURPOSE of Jesus’ death to prove that said purpose was in fact foretold. No such understanding was needed for God to plan man’s salvation or to proclaim that ahead of time. You have presented nothing to show the necessity of anyone understanding the purpose of His death for it to have been foretold. Of course, allow me once again to point you toward 1 Peter 1:10-12 for further condsideration as to whether any Jews understood salvation was to come. Hmmm?

This [Galatians 3:8]does not say that the "good news" that we are to preach today is the same "good news" that was spoken of in OT times.

If salvation BY FAITH to all is the gospel message today (and it is), then the “good news” of Galatians 3:8 is the same “good news” we are to preach today. We have the good fortune today of knowing all that God had planned for man before the creation of the world via His complete word.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry -

Let me, as I typically must, assist you with the CONTEXT of the passage under discussion. In this case it is Galatians 3:8 - - -

“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.”

What you left out was any reference to – “…foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith…”.

If the OT Scriptures revealed that the Gentiles would be justified by faith then I am sure that you can provide an OT verse that says that.

Gal.3:8 does not say that the OT Scriptures "revealed" that the Gentiles would be saved by faith.Instead:

"What's more, the Scriptures looked forward to this time when God would accept the Gentiles, too, on the basis of their faith. God promised this good news to Abraham long ago when he said, 'All nations will be blessed through you' "(Gal.3:8;NLT).

This truth was not revealed until Paul made it known:

"But now the righteousness of God without law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe"(Ro.3:21,22).

Of course YOU had to ignore this part about the GENTILES because it destroys your position the PURPOSE (and plan) of Christ’s death on the cross was something never known about and never preached before PAUL showed up – which also shows you don’t understand how the word mystery is used by Paul in the NT.

Of course I understand what Paul meant when he used the word "mystery".It means something that was kept secret but is now made known:

"Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints"(Col.1:26).

You strain yourself to misunderstand what I wrote. But as far as what I wrote, the “how” is NOT in regard to the “purpose” of Christ’s death.

1 Corinthians 15:3 as well as Galatians 3:8 above show that the PURPOSE of Christ’s death was told beforehand – He died for our sins/He died for our salvation.

Known beforehand that Christ would die for our sins "according to the Scriptures"?

The purpose of His death could only be found in the "types".But that does not mean that anyone understood those types.

The verse that follows proves that the words "according to the Scriptures" is in regard to "types" and not in regard to an open revelation:

"And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures"(1Cor.15:4).

Where in the OT Scriptures is it revealed that He would rise the third day?

Even those closest to Him did not even know that He must die.And you continue to ignore this fact !

1 Corinthians 2:6-9 tells us that no one knew HOW God was going to accomplish the salvation that was to come to ALL nations.

That is right! No one understood HOW God was going to accomplish the salvation that was going to come to all nations.That is exactly what I have been saying all along!

You finally got something right.Must be a lucky guess!

Eldersheim as you quote him presents 2 arguments – both are FLAWED.

Eldersheim is not saying anything that is in error.He is merely stating what the Jews themselves believed.

YOU then compound all of this error with a PRESUMPTION that the Jews needed to understand what the PURPOSE of Jesus’ death to prove that said purpose was in fact foretold. No such understanding was needed for God to plan man’s salvation or to proclaim that ahead of time. You have presented nothing to show the necessity of anyone understanding the purpose of His death for it to have been foretold.

I said all along that no one understood,and that is why Paul says that it was kept secret.

Of course, allow me once again to point you toward 1 Peter 1:10-12 for further condsideration as to whether any Jews understood salvation was to come. Hmmm?

I never argued that the Scriptures never revealed that salvation was to come!

If salvation BY FAITH to all is the gospel message today (and it is), then the “good news” of Galatians 3:8 is the same “good news” we are to preach today. We have the good fortune today of knowing all that God had planned for man before the creation of the world via His complete word.

Again,you fail to understand that the heart and soul of the "gospel of grace" concerns the "purpose" of His death upon the Cross.Those who believe that gospel are saved.

 

[Sold Out]

All of us are beating a dead horse here. There are a few of you who disagree on this topic, but I think what we can ALL AGREE ON is that the Gospel is what saves, and we need to be out there telling people about it, instead of spending countless hours on this forum debating about something no one is ever going to reach an agreement on.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

All of us are beating a dead horse here. There are a few of you who disagree on this topic, but I think what we can ALL AGREE ON is that the Gospel is what saves, and we need to be out there telling people about it, instead of spending countless hours on this forum debating about something no one is ever going to reach an agreement on.

Sold Out,

There are some participating on the thread that do not believe that the "gospel" in itself is enough for salvation.They insist that to be saved it takes "faith" plus "works".

And what subject can we discuss where all will come to an agreement?Are we supposed to limit our discussions to something that all will agree?I see no point in your post.

The Scriptures become much more clear when they are examined dispensationally,but there are those who do not even understand the first things about the various dispensations and have no interest in learning.You appear to be one of those.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Sold Out]

Sold Out,

There are some participating on the thread that do not believe that the "gospel" in itself is enough for salvation.They insist that to be saved it takes "faith" plus "works".

And what subject can we discuss where all will come to an agreement?Are we supposed to limit our discussions to something that all will agree?I see no point in your post.

The Scriptures become much more clear when they are examined dispensationally,but there are those who do not even understand the first things about the various dispensations and have no interest in learning.You appear to be one of those.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

It's just that this particular discussion has dragged on forever and seems to be going nowhere. I was under the impression that those regularly posting on this topic believed in salvation through gospel, but I'm sure there are a 'few' who don't.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It's just that this particular discussion has dragged on forever and seems to be going nowhere.

It may seem like it is going nowhere to you,but there are some who have learned a thing or two from following this discussion.

For instance,I have proved conclusively that the "gospel of the circumcision" is an entirely different gospel than that which was being preached to the churches which Paul founded.The facts in regard to this are so strong that even those who objected to this idea had to admit that different things were being preached to the Jews than that which was preached to the churches that Paul founded.

Anyone with an open mind would realize that the present "dispensation of grace" did not start until Paul was converted and began preaching the "gospel of grace".It did not start on the day of Pentecost as many believe.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Sold Out]

It may seem like it is going nowhere to you,but there are some who have learned a thing or two from following this discussion.

For instance,I have proved conclusively that the "gospel of the circumcision" is an entirely different gospel than that which was being preached to the churches which Paul founded.The facts in regard to this are so strong that even those who objected to this idea had to admit that different things were being preached to the Jews than that which was preached to the churches that Paul founded.

Anyone with an open mind would realize that the present "dispensation of grace" did not start until Paul was converted and began preaching the "gospel of grace".It did not start on the day of Pentecost as many believe.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

But what does any of this have to do with people being saved NOW????!!!!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But what does any of this have to do with people being saved NOW????!!!!

There is more to Christianity to preaching the gospel.We "grow" as Christians through knowledge of the Lord Jesus and His purposes (2Pet.3:18).

 

[brotherjim]

Whoever,

Was there more than one New Covenant Gospel? Of course not.

Those who would believe otherwise, obviously do not understand the amount of time it takes to make an apostle, neither do they understand the obstacles God faced in unveiling the New Covenant to the world.

Let us consider just one aspect of the New Covenant, that of how someone need not be of the Hebrew race in order to have a relationship with God. View again the story of Cornellius, paying attention how God had to make an exception to His normal flow of methodology, baptizing Cornelius and his household in the Holy Ghost, spiritually, before they were baptized in water, for the Christians up to that time could not have in their wildest imagination entertained the concept of Gentile Christians.

We must not underestimate how Judaism carried on for centuries, and how as a result deeply ingrained were the elements of that dispensation. It was thoroughly impossible for Christ to unveil the full Gospel in one fell swoop: Hebraic man could not have handled it, and salvation did, and had to, begin with the Judaic house.

(Christ, the Great and FIRST Apostle [Heb. 3:1], one in a line of many needed, their chief duty that of dissemenating doctrine for the church.)

As another example, consider John 6. Beginning with the "red words," read again how thoroughly revolting to the minds of His audience were Christ's Words, culminating around v. 60 or so with Jesus saying, "Again, unless you eat My flesh and drink My Blood, . . . ." (para.). What!? Are these the words of a pre-medeival vampire? Can we today even fathom what must have taken place in the minds of those who first heard such a declaration? What kind of words are those to be spoken by someone claiming to be one with the Holy God? And for Him to say such was a necessity for eternal Life?!?!

Then the straw that broken the camel's back: "Unless My Father [GOD HIMSELF!!!] draws you, you cannot come to Me." Thus the gate to eternal Life made so very, very narrow, like the size of a camel in comparison to a needle's eye. The result?

"From that time many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him."

Jesus, after 3+ years and so many miracles that all the books of that day could not have contained the accounts (or however you interpret that passage), ended up with a congregation of only 120 souls or surnames!

And you who are questioning just one Gospel, cannot from the above understand what would've been the result had Jesus also condemned penile circumcision and . . . and . . . and . . . and. . . ?

(And need I mention the "concept" of Loving one's enemies to the same degree Christ Loved and died for us? Even the "Christian" rejects that one!)

And can you not fathom how Paul, the apostle mainly to the Greeks, would've naturally been the first to have unveiled to him the Truth regarding how New Cov. circumcision must be of the heart, in the spirit realm and not flesh? (And yet, of course the Law of Love---Paul likely also the first to know---also dictating the Christian becoming all things to all men, even if such called for, in some cases, post-Grace penile circumcision, in order that some Hebraic Jews not be too offended to consider Christianity as the Way.)

Which brings this to Part Two. It takes a good decade or two for God to make an apostle---hence why NT writings were delayed. The Truths of God must be unveiled in layers, and those layers unveiled concurrently to the layers of hardness a man has formed in the course of his lifetime over his spiritual heart, are removed.

We, apostle or alter candle stick lighter, come to receive the New Birth with X amount of heart idols/impurities. God cannot remove them all at once, neither even reveal them to us all at once (we would likely commit suicide at such a sight of insight), nor can anyone stand us if we are made entirely pure at the onset of rebirth, much less us tolerate our own selves (we too greatly love our idols more than the things of God, and, furthermore and because of that, would soon allow many to return and re-enter, where and when they become even more deeply rooted).

So God had to unveil His Truths to each apostle in direct proportion to the timescale of each of them coming face to face with their remaining idols, usually one by one, suffering the loss they cause, realizing their destruction enough so as not to allow their re-entrance once delivered, granted repentance for them, delivered from them, then given one more previously unhad holy substitution, one more fullness of one more of Christ's virtues---

Otherwise the apostles would've too greatly resisted that which was dictated to them by God's Spirit, and like all of us here now, they too, if still housing an impure heart, would twist and pervert the Holy Truths of God to justify themselves.

Does anyone see?

When someone has received the God-given, full and complete and perfect doctrines of the New Covenant, said doctrines will align with every passage in the Holy Word, bar none. There will be absolutely no contradictions, and all this without having to jam square pegs into round holes. All else is manmade, and the opinions [and conjectures and widely-accepted insistences---ed.] of man cannot ETERNALLY save him, not ever.

brother jim

 

[Morris]

not Just One Gospel

not Just One Gospel

From post #1

Originally posted by elected4ever
God does not teach 2 or 3 gospels. Just one.

Scripture clearly identifies more than one gospel. To name a few:

Gospel of God (resurrection of the dead):
(Romans 1:1-4 KJV) Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, {2} (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) {3} Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; {4} And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Gospel of Christ (righteousness of God):
(Romans 1:16-17 KJV) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. {17} For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Gospel of the Grace of God (God’s wrath is being withheld and God is offering grace, peace and mercy to all men):
(Acts 20:24 KJV) But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

In Galatians 2, Paul mentions two different gospel message: the gospel of the circumcision, and the gospel of the uncircumcision.

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

Gospel of the UnCircumcision (circumcision profits nothing but a new creation)
(Galatians 6:15 KJV) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Gospel of the Circumcision (has to do with the promise God made to Abraham concerning a land and a nation…
(Genesis 12:1-3 KJV) Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee: {2} And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: {3} And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

…in order to be a part of the nation that will dwell in the land one had to be circumcised
(Genesis 17:9-11 KJV) And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. {10} This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. {11} And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

The Gospel of the Kingdom (message Christ proclaimed in his earthly ministry )
(Matthew 4:23 KJV) And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

… Both Christ and the twelve proclaimed that the kingdom was “at hand”
(Matthew 10:5-7 KJV) These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: {6} But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. {7} And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

This details the governmental structure that will be put in place to make the people and land promised to Abraham a “nation”. The Gospel of the kingdom also refers to the promise God made to David that his kingdom would be established forever:

(2 Samuel 7:12-16 KJV) And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. {13} He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. {14} I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: {15} But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. {16} And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

The Gospel of the Kingdom is good news about the coming of Christ to establish a literal, visible, physical, earthly, kingdom, sitting on the throne of His father, David.

In conclusion, to say that God only teaches one gospel is to ignore what the scriptures say. Although Christ taught the Gospel of the Kingdom in His earthly ministry and Peter preached the Gospel of the Circumcision the gospel that saves is the Gospel of Christ.

(Romans 1:16-17 KJV) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. {17} For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

We do not have the righteousness that God requires, the law tells us that. The Jews were not required to do the Law in order to be saved but the law was given to show them that they could not meet that standard of righteousness that God requires. Those in time past, who did what the law required when they sinned was due to the fact that they recognized that they came short of the glory of God and were guilty before God. But because they believed God in what He told them to do they did what He required at that time for the remedy of their sin.

Paul tells us it is through God’s forbearance, how he waited for that cross-work to be accomplished, that makes it possible for Him to remit the sins before the cross-work was done:

(Romans 3:19-28 KJV) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. {20} Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. {21} But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; {22} Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: {23} For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; {24} Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: {25} Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; {26} To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. {27} Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. {28} Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

All those that believe are justified unto eternal life by the faith OF Christ.

(Galatians 2:16 KJV) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Morris

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Morris,

Good post!

Anyone with an open mind will realize that more than on "gospel" has been preached down through the ages.You said:

All those that believe are justified unto eternal life by the faith OF Christ.

I believe that the proper translation here is by "the faithfulness of Christ".

The Greek word "pistis" can be translated "faith",but it can also mean "fidelity,faithfulness,i.e. the character of one who can be relied on...of one who keeps his promises"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

The Christian is justified by his own faith ["justified by faith"(Ro.5:1)---"to him that worketh not,but believeth...his faith is counted for righteousness"(Ro.3:5)] and we can know we are saved because the Lord is faithful to keep His promises.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Morris]

I believe that the proper translation here is by "the faithfulness of Christ".

I beleive the King James translators did it correctly.

 

[Morris]

You're just flatly wrong. The theme of the entire book of James is salvation, not sanctification or anything else.
The question he wrote the book to answer was, "What sort of faith saves you?"

Your comment is typical however of those who do not see the distinctive nature of Paul's ministry. They always attempt to make Paul and James say the same thing when they clearly where not. I prefer to acknowledge Paul distinctive message just as the twelve acknowledged it and thereby be able to take both Paul and James at face value.

Resting in Him,
Clete

What if James is writing about something other than justification unto eternal life? He is already addressing his audience as "my brethren" James 1:2, 2:1,5,14, 3:1 etc. That would indicate that they already possess eternal life.

(James 2:20-24 KJV) But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? {21} Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? {22} Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? {23} And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. {24} Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

In verse 23, James agrees with Paul that When Abraham believed God it was imputed unto him for righteousness. But James adds something: and he was called the Friend of God.

Dictionary definition: JUST'IFY, v.t. [L. justus, just,and facio, to make.]
1. To prove or show to be just, or conformable to law, right, justice, propriety or duty; to defend or maintain; to vindicate as right.

James is not writing about how one is justified unto eternal life (having the righteousness that God requires) but a different justification, that of what makes it right to call Abraham the “Friend of God”. Why was Abraham God’s friend? He believed God was worthy to be trusted even when God said, "You sacrifice your son on that altar." Abraham waited a long time to have that child and now God was telling him to kill him. Abraham did not hesitate, did not stagger at the promise, his faith did not waver: God was worthy to be believed even it meant sacrificing the very one through whom the seed line was going to come. His very works proved that he believed what God said to him.

Romans 4 talks of being justified unto eternal life by faith alone (Genesis 15) and James 2 talks about being justified by works to be called the Friend of God (Genesis 22)

From When Abraham was Justified: James 2 and Romans 4:
“We tend to limit that term justification to the issue of eternal life, when we are forgiven all of our trespasses and sins, we are given the imputed righteousness of God to our account and therefore we are saved unto eternal life, saved from the consequences, the debt and penalty of sin. If justification is restricted to that definition then we do have a serious problem comparing Romans 4 and James 2. However, the Word of God never restricts that word or term justification to only refer to eternal life, being saved from the consequences of sin.”
For complete article see: http://bereanworkman.com/books/heb_rev/jaabrahamfriend.html

I think the question that should be asked when reading James 2 is, "What work is being required for the believer to be justified?"

 

[Morris]

faith of Christ

faith of Christ

Jerry,

I believe that the proper translation here is by "the faithfulness of Christ".

The Greek word "pistis" can be translated "faith",but it can also mean "fidelity,faithfulness,i.e. the character of one who can be relied on...of one who keeps his promises"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

The Christian is justified by his own faith ["justified by faith"(Ro.5:1)---"to him that worketh not,but believeth...his faith is counted for righteousness"(Ro.3:5)] and we can know we are saved because the Lord is faithful to keep His promises.

Actually the phrase "the faith OF Jesus Christ” refers to more than just His fidelity, or His faithfulness; it has to do with the doctrine of kinsmen redeemer (our substitute redeemer)

Keith Blades has an excellent article : The Faith of Christ
Morris

 

[Apollos]

There is only ONE gospel - always...

There is only ONE gospel - always...

SOLD OUT [post #367]

…I think what we can ALL AGREE ON is that the Gospel is what saves, and we need to be out there telling people about it, instead of spending countless hours on this forum debating about something no one is ever going to reach an agreement on.

Unfortunately, many do not agree on what the “gospel” is, nevertheless how many there are (pssst - there is only ONE). In fact, many disagree on just which books/epistles to follow.

I know some that believe only the epistles that Paul wrote form the whole of doctrine of Christ for man today, and that ONLY these are to be “followed”.

So I will insist that the debate here is crucial and critical to the truth of God’s word!

(It certainly has gotten quiet on this thread…)

 

[Apollos]

Hi Morris –

You claimed in your last post that there was more than one gospel. I want to take a close look at just what you said and then what you claimed. We will see that such is not the case – there is only ONE gospel.

You presented the following:
1)Gospel of God (resurrection of the dead): (Romans 1:1-4 KJV)
2)Gospel of Christ (righteousness of God): (Romans 1:16-17 KJV)
3)Gospel of the Grace of God (Acts 20:24 KJV)
4)Gospel of the UnCircumcision (Galatians 6:15 KJV)
5)Gospel of the Circumcision (Genesis 12:1-3 KJV)
6)The Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 4:23 KJV)

1) – The “resurrection of the dead” is presented here by Paul as a “proof” that Jesus was the Son of God – He was declared to be the Son of God because He was raised from the dead. There is no mention here of any specific “gospel” as pertains to the resurrection of the dead. You have “created” this concept out of thin air.

Part of the ONE true gospel includes the glad tidings that we have the promise of being raised from the dead, but there is no separate and distinct “gospel” of resurrection.

2) The “righteousness of God” is also a part of the ONE true gospel, but once again you attempt to “create” a separate and distinct “gospel” with this passage that does not exist. Such thoughtless application of scripture makes me wonder if you would go to a passage such as, say Acts 8, and read of the Ethiopian eunuch there and perhaps purport that we should believe there is a “gospel of the chariot” to be found there.

3) In this passage “grace” is used by synecdoche. God’s grace is a part of the gospel to be preached to man. This is not a separate and distinct message, but a part of the whole message.

4) & 5) With both of these you continue to take random passages and randomly label them as a “gospel”. With these two passages as with Genesis 12 & 17, you seem to be confusing “glad tidings” (ei. gospel) with the word “covenant”.

6) The glad tidings that the kingdom would soon come was a part of the one true gospel for man. There would be a kingdom with a king, a domain, a law, and subjects – all the items required for there to be a kingdom. Along with Christ’s new spiritual domain, the grace of God would appear along with the accompanying remission of sins and salvation made possible by the blood of Christ. ALL of these were a part of the “glad tidings” for man. For some cryptic reason, you think these should all be divided into their own distinct and separate “gospel” message.

I don't understand why anyone would need or want to divide God's one gospel this way!

[A] This [Matthew 10:5-7] details the governmental structure that will be put in place to make the people and land promised to Abraham a “nation”.
The Gospel of the kingdom also refers to the promise God made to David that his kingdom would be established forever:

A. Matthew 10 “details” nothing about a “governmental structure” that was to be put into place. You “read” this concept INTO the passage – you “read” something that is not there. Until you stop reading passages with preconceived notions and presumptions, you will never be able to understand what any passage has to say!

B. The “glad tidings” in reference to the coming kingdom did have reference to the kingdom promised to David, but not in the fashion you think. See Acts 2:21-36 (along with 1 Corinthians 15:25 for kingdom information). Peter describes plainly that David spoke of Christ’s RESURRECTION and that Christ would be resurrected to sit on the throne of that kingdom.

Did you get all of that? David prophesied Christ’s RESURRECTION – this was known about beforehand (not an accident or unforeseen). He was resurrected to then sit on the throne!!! Peter tells us this is exactly what happened!

The kingdom was “at hand” (that is, soon to come) and as proclaimed – it came! Jesus is now king over the kingdom and reigns on the throne from heaven, not from Jerusalem. It is s shame that your “theology” denies: David foretold the resurrection, Peter got this wrong, the kingdom was NOT “at hand”, that John as well as Jesus was confused as to when it should come, and that you also de-throne Christ as you teach there is no kingdom at present. Don’t these contradictions to scripture (that you teach) give you any pause to reconsider your error?

The Gospel of the Kingdom is good news about the coming of Christ to establish a literal, visible, physical, earthly, kingdom, sitting on the throne of His father, David.

This remark is the earthly, physical, and inaccurate commentary on events that the scriptures teach took place already according to prophesy and took place in the spiritual realm. Everything Jesus taught in reference to the kingdom was spiritual - that it was spiritual in nature – not physical!

In Galatians 2, Paul mentions two different gospel message: the gospel of the circumcision, and the gospel of the uncircumcision.

Once again, you “read” into the passage that which is not there. Verse 8 further explains verse 7 – these were spheres (areas of work) of apostleship – not separate gospels. Read the passages for what they say, not what you want them to say.

Galatians 2:7 – “They saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the Good News to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews. 8 For the same God who worked through Peter for the benefit of the Jews worked through me for the benefit of the Gentiles.” NLT

There are TWO apostles here – but only ONE gospel !!