ECT What is the Gospel?
- Thread starter Wick Stick
- Start date
If memory serves me, the Acts 2 Dispy holds a view of Paul in some ways similar to your own - you both end up asserting aspects of the Mystery were hidden in the OT :chuckle:
heir
TOL Subscriber
No, it doesn't. The dispensation of the gospel committed to Paul (1 Corinthians 9:17 KJV) revealing the mystery of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) and the mystery dispensation of the grace of God given Paul to usward (Ephesians 3:1-5 KJV) revealing the mystery of the gospel (Ephesians 3:6 KJV, Ephesians 6:19 KJV)/fellowship of the mystery (Ephesians 3:9 KJV) is separate from the future NC with the house of Israel and the house of Judah! So those who 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV acknowledge dispensations and covenants! All of your talk of "anti" this or that is divisive nonsense!
heir
TOL Subscriber
Amen! Glory to God!
Not for your poor understanding and or mishandling of the principles of properly studying a thing out :chuckle:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
This is a huge error!
You cannot separate the attributes of God from the purposes of God.
Just as you cannot comprehend the purposes of God without acknowledging the attributes of God.
You have a whole lot of learning left to do . . .
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
heir
TOL Subscriber
:chuckle:
Even further back then any Premise any Conclusion and its resulting Assertion are based on...is the Origin of any Premise itself - what a Premise itself was not only originally based on, but what Criteria as to said Premise's actual soundness one may have relied on and or ignored while attempting to arrive at one's Premise to begin with, before one allowed oneself to proceed forward from said Premise to a Conclusion...
Induction (gathering in, and examining of information) towards forming a Working Premise...which is then carefully examined ("now do run math backwards," my first grade elementary school teacher used to say) as to its soundness BEFORE allowing oneself to continue forward, from said Working Premise, towards a Conclusion, and its' resulting Assertion.
And in this process, nang, you are as off in some of it as heir is.
But you are both too well entrenched in your respective errors by now.
And worse - insistent that what you are seeing is the reality.
Here is something the Holy See teaches concerning sin that you might not know:
The punishments of sin
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church [indulgences], it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church [indulgences], it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.
Emphasis our magisterium's.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
How about God? Does He have the authority?
Let's not get so wrapped up in keeping things the same that we lose the ability to see/be Jesus for the world today.
This is something to be considered.
What gospel message was being preached that Cain and Abel were supposed to believe to have eternal life?
Or skip on down to Noah's time.
What gospel message was being preached at that time that folks were supposed to believe to have eternal life?
Interplanner
Well-known member
The Gospel of the wounded victor was explained immediately to the people alive in early Genesis.
Justification from sins is a bit different from its by-product eternal life. It is this-worldly enough that we find Cain and Abel fighting over what justifies a person, don't we?
Noah is not a good example because...how many times does God completely destroy and redo the existing world? Yet he did also receive the righteousness that is by faith, Heb 11:7.
Then you should have no problem revealing exactly what was said to Cain and Abel of the "gospel of the wounded victor", and who preached it to them.
Spell it out.
We'll wait.
Right Divider
Body part
No bias on that page.... nope.... :dizzy:
Interplanner
Well-known member
The Seed of the woman would be victor over the serpent but would be injured doing so. The Seed motif is why Paul would later say that the Seed of Abraham was Christ, not the ethne. Makes sense.
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=the+bible+project&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002
So when folks ask you what your one and only gospel that was ever preached, you just tell them that Gen 3:15 is the one and only gospel that Cain and Abel needed to believe in order to have eternal life?
When you say that there has always ever been only one gospel, Gen 3:15 is it????
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Genesis 3:15
Eve was given the new covenant promise and she believed she would give birth to a godly Seed. Genesis 4:1
This promise was reiterated by her to her sons, Cain and Abel, and by his worship offerings, Abel revealed he understood the significance of a bloody substitute to rectify original sin. Genesis 4:4
Abel's lineage was godly as outlined in Genesis 5.
This lineage of godly men (believers)produced Noah, who also found grace in the eyes of God. Genesis 6:8
All of this substantiates that the Gospel was proclaimed and believed from the time of the garden.
Hebrews 11:4-7 names Abel, Enoch, and Noah from the godly lineage noted above. The message was carried through the family of Seth to Noah, and they proved to be faithful souls living amongst and despite the wickededness of the offspring of Cain.
Right Divider
Body part
It's no wonder you are SO confused if you think that THAT is the new covenant!
Jer 31:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)
(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
THIS is what the new covenant is.
You guys and your bogus contrived "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" are completely out of your minds.
The OLD covenant had not even been established in Genesis 4.