Just One Gospel?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
drbrumley
Well-known member
OK, let's see if I explain this where you might understand.
The term, "Gospel of the Kingdom" is found only in Matthew (4:23, 9:35 and 24:14)
The Gospel of the Kingdom is the good news that Christ will establish His Kingdom of righteouness and peace in the world.
It goes back for its foundation to the covenant of the Kingdom made with David.
The term, "Gospel of the Kingdom" is found only in Matthew (4:23, 9:35 and 24:14)
The Gospel of the Kingdom is the good news that Christ will establish His Kingdom of righteouness and peace in the world.
It goes back for its foundation to the covenant of the Kingdom made with David.
Emo
New member
Matthew 5:17-20
Members of Israel had to keep the law. Christ is clearly teaching the Law which continues on from here through Matt. 7. Righteousness came through observance of the Mosaic Law, not from the death & resurrection of Jesus alone.
Acts 26:14-18
Paul was exclusively given the Gospel by Jesus which shows that the Body of Christ members will be sanctified by faith in Christ only.
No works salvation required, just salvation by grace.
Gal. 2:6-9
The distinction here is made between Paul & Peter clearly showing the 2 different Dispensations.
The Gospel of the Kingdom pertains to Israel.
Jesus' earthly kingdom is solely with Israel & He will return someday & rule with an iron fist according to the law.
The Gospel preached by Paul is a heavenly gospel which establishes the Church & The Body of Christ. His message was Grace.
No other apostle ever mentioned the Body of Christ.
- "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Members of Israel had to keep the law. Christ is clearly teaching the Law which continues on from here through Matt. 7. Righteousness came through observance of the Mosaic Law, not from the death & resurrection of Jesus alone.
Acts 26:14-18
- 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' 15 So I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'
Paul was exclusively given the Gospel by Jesus which shows that the Body of Christ members will be sanctified by faith in Christ only.
No works salvation required, just salvation by grace.
Gal. 2:6-9
- But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
The distinction here is made between Paul & Peter clearly showing the 2 different Dispensations.
The Gospel of the Kingdom pertains to Israel.
Jesus' earthly kingdom is solely with Israel & He will return someday & rule with an iron fist according to the law.
The Gospel preached by Paul is a heavenly gospel which establishes the Church & The Body of Christ. His message was Grace.
No other apostle ever mentioned the Body of Christ.
Last edited:
elected4ever
New member
Ephesians 2:8 _For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
There has never been a time in the history of man that that passage of scripture has not been true. From Adam to the present day men have been saved the same way. That has never changed. The Law never saved anyone. Israel was never saved by law. The law condemned a person to death and executed them. All the troubles of Israel were caused by there inability to keep the law.
Sacrifice and oblations were introduced in the religious ceremonies of the nation of Israel to provide a covering for their sin. In actuality the sacrifices did nothing if they were offered in the absence of faith. When those sacrifices and oblation were reduced to just religious ceremony they profited Israel nothing and at time were abandoned by Israel all together.
Hebrews 1:1 _¶God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Now if this is what is meant by dispensationalism then one would be hard pressed to disagree. Tho the gospel of grace through faith has always been true from Adam onward the methods that God used to communicate with man has changed with the passage of time. To say that man was saved by another gospel is quite another.
Hebrews 1:2 _Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; :e4e:
There has never been a time in the history of man that that passage of scripture has not been true. From Adam to the present day men have been saved the same way. That has never changed. The Law never saved anyone. Israel was never saved by law. The law condemned a person to death and executed them. All the troubles of Israel were caused by there inability to keep the law.
Sacrifice and oblations were introduced in the religious ceremonies of the nation of Israel to provide a covering for their sin. In actuality the sacrifices did nothing if they were offered in the absence of faith. When those sacrifices and oblation were reduced to just religious ceremony they profited Israel nothing and at time were abandoned by Israel all together.
Hebrews 1:1 _¶God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Now if this is what is meant by dispensationalism then one would be hard pressed to disagree. Tho the gospel of grace through faith has always been true from Adam onward the methods that God used to communicate with man has changed with the passage of time. To say that man was saved by another gospel is quite another.
Hebrews 1:2 _Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; :e4e:
e4e,
You are the king of unresponsiveness! Practically every word you say testifies against your own position. If you had attempted to say that animal sacrifices were anything other than absolutely mandatory in order to be saved prior to the Apostle Paul's ministry, you would have been stoned to death! But now if you attempt to say that you can legitimately offer an animal sacrifice, you would prove yourself to be an unbeliever!
If that isn't a change, what is it?
Resting in Him,
Clete
You are the king of unresponsiveness! Practically every word you say testifies against your own position. If you had attempted to say that animal sacrifices were anything other than absolutely mandatory in order to be saved prior to the Apostle Paul's ministry, you would have been stoned to death! But now if you attempt to say that you can legitimately offer an animal sacrifice, you would prove yourself to be an unbeliever!
If that isn't a change, what is it?
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
Then I guess that the prophet Daniel wasn't saved. No Israelite in the captivity was saved then. Think about what you are saying. "If you had attempted to say that animal sacrifices were anything other than absolutely mandatory in order to be saved prior to the Apostle Paul's ministry,"
Again, completely unresponsive! Changing the subject won't win you the debate.
Had Daniel or any other captured Jew had the opportunity to do so they not only would have, they would have HAD TO offer sacrifices in order to remain in covenant relationship with God.
Further, for a Jew (including Jesus and the twelve) to offer animal sacrifices DID NOT remove them from their covenant relationship with God but it certainly would today! As I said, if you offer an animal sacrifice this afternoon, you are not a beleiver!
So any way you slice it, there was a time (before Paul) that one was obligated to make animal sacrifice and now (after Paul) we are required NOT to make animal sacrifices.
Is that a change or isn't it?
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
Talking about tolal ideiocy, you take the cake.:freak: Wath someone does or does not do as far as religious practic is concerned has no bearing on one's salvation.
The Mosacic Law had a great deal to do with one's being an Israelite or not but being an Israrlite did not make a person saved or lost.:doh:
Romans 4:1-11
"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about–but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them."
"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about–but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them."
You guys keep changing the subject (although I know you don't understand that you are). Whether you see it or not, I won't let you get away with it.
Could a man refuse to offer animal sacrifices and remain saved under the old covenant?
Yes or No?
Can a person today offer animal sacrifices and be considered a Christian?
Yes or No?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Could a man refuse to offer animal sacrifices and remain saved under the old covenant?
Yes or No?
Can a person today offer animal sacrifices and be considered a Christian?
Yes or No?
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
Yes in both cases sense in ether case the work of the flesh is not the justification for salvation before God. Jesus Christ is our justification before and after the resurrection of Christ.
MercyBreeze
New member
Isn't that an oxy moron?
Then why was God going to kill Moses in the following passage?
Exodus 4:24And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him. 25Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses' feet, and said, "Surely you are a husband of blood to me!" 26So He let him go. Then she said, "You are a husband of blood!"--because of the circumcision.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete - The animal sacrifices were only a picture of what saves. The acts themselves did not save. When Jesus came in the flesh, there was no need to proclaim the gospel via the sacrifices because the ACTUAL sacrifice had finally showed up! Either way, you had to put faith in the picture that the sacrifice represented (Christ) or the actual sacrifice (Jesus' death, burial and resurrection), which is what we do now in the church age.
Question for you: In Genesis 4, Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God. How did they know about sacrifices? They lived centuries before the law was given to Moses.
e4e & Sold Out,
If someone asked you this question, how would you answer?
Would you answer like this?
I sure wouldn't! :nono:
- Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
If someone asked you this question, how would you answer?
Would you answer like this?
- So He said to him, [jesus]"Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." [/jesus]
He said to Him, "Which ones?"
Jesus said, [jesus]"'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"[/jesus] Matthew 19:16-19
I sure wouldn't! :nono:
No sir, if God had killed Moses he would have been just as hell bound as the whole generation of Israelite who's carcasses fell dead in the desert.
Further, this is beside the point. I'm not talking about the question is, was circumcision or the law in general optional? If it was then why would God seek to kill Moses over it?
You'd basically have to be stupid to think that it was optional! And getting circumcised (as a religious rite) is not an option at all today!
THAT"S A CHANGE FOLKS! A pretty big one at that!
Resting in Him,
Clete