ECT Which Gospel Preached During the Tribulation Period?

[beloved57]

jerry:

His mercy comes to all who believe.

Right, thats why they believed. Those not believing have not been shown mercy.

 

[beloved57]

jerry:

The Lord's choosing those who He saves is determined by His foreknowledge:

Right, and He did not foreknow all Matt 7:

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Les Feldick, a Bible teacher whose programs are aired weekdays on most Ion Network stations, threw me a curve this morning. Maybe he's stated this before or perhaps it was supposed to be an assumption based on his mid-Acts leaning, but he said that the Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached during the Tribulation Period because when the Church is raptured the Gospel of Grace will have left with them. This is per Matthew 24, he says.

Most dispensationals, of all varieties, believe and/or teach a millennial kingdom to follow the Tribulation Period, so that seems to paint the dispensational position in general into that same corner, or does it?

Which Gospel do you believe will be preached during the Tribulation Period, the Grace or the Kingdom Gospel? Or, would you describe this some other way?

The gospel of the kingdom has been preached since the time of Jesus. The tribulation began in 67 CE. This gospel has been preached continuously throughout the entire tribulation period since that time. Another gospel has arisen from dispensationalism that has been preached recently (last couple hundred years) that is different from the gospel of the kingdom.

The message of the gospel of the kingdom is simple: "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
The other gospel denies repentance and entering into the kingdom.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The message of the gospel of the kingdom is simple: "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
The other gospel denies repentance and entering into the kingdom.

Then Paul must have preached "the other gospel" because he says nothing about repenting or entering into the kingdom:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve" (1 Cor.15:1-6).

 

[genuineoriginal]

Then Paul must have preached "the other gospel" because he says nothing about repenting or entering into the kingdom:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve" (1 Cor.15:1-6).

No, Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom:

Acts 14 21And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, 22Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. ​

 

[notreligus]

Here Paul speaks about the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles:

"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Gal.2:2).

If there were only "one" gospel then there would be absolutely no reason to specify that the gospel that he is speaking of is the one "which I preach among the Gentiles."

If the gospel which Paul "preached among the Gentiles" was the same one that the other Apostles were preaching then why would Paul want those Apostles to consider its relationship to the gospel they were proclaiming? That would make no sense.

You know why this is so, just like you know why Paul called his teaching "my Gospel." It is because the the Judaizers were still teaching circumcision and other rituals that they thought the Gentile converts should have to adhere to. Paul wanted to distinguish his Gospel, based on the finished work of Christ, from that which the Judaizers were still demanding of Gentile converts. The Judaizers would come behind him after he had taught otherwise and preach condemnation to the Greeks/Gentiles who had not been circumcized. This is hardly enough distinction to provide a reason to start an entirely new theological system of Bible interpretation. If so, then let's have the "colt" theology and the "donkey" theology and the "***" theology to argue which Christ sat upon as He entered Jerusalem.

 

[godrulz]

Acts 28:28-31 (late in Paul's ministry)

The kingdom of God is the rule of God. The way to get in the kingdom is by grace through faith in Christ alone. This is true in the Tribulation, Acts 2, Acts 9, etc. The kingdom concept also covers a variety of issues (it is now, but not yet, etc.). MAD is making it too narrow and also confusing eschatological, corporate issues with individual redemptive issues.

 

[beloved57]

The next word to consider is elect continued

The next word to consider is elect continued

The First and beginning source of all grace is election, hence the election of grace rom 11:5

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

This is both with Christ the Saviour and those of us to be saved by Him. Yes for even Christ was Chosen of God, and by a eternal , immutable decree, given to be our Saviour and Head, and so it is stated of Him " foreordained before the foundation of the world 1 pet

1:20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

And those of us whom Christ was to redeem were given to Him by the same decree Jn 17:

2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

To as many as denotes a fixed limited number !

eph 1:

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Many adversaries of the Truth of the Gospel, will admit that Christ is God's elect or chosen, but when they do, unwittingly are admitting to our election as well, for thats the only way there is a election of grace because He was the Head of that election of Grace.

Christ and His body in eternity past are of the one and same act of election, hence heb 2:

11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

They are all of one election, for He is the Head and Elder Brother, The Firstborn.

They were given to Him to be His Body and Members, and He was given to them to be their Head and Lord, to be saved by His blood and power and merits, and therefore the book of election is called the " The book of the life of the lamb. rev 13:

8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Not only because life is to be obtained in virtue of His being slain, but also because He takes up the first page [ in all things He has the preeminence] of the book, the Head of the rest of God's elect, the Firstborn among many brethren, and joint heirs with them rom 8:

17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ

29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

If the eldest brother was elect, then the many brethren to follow are elect as well, for its a Family of elect.

 

[Lighthouse]

No, Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom:

Acts 14 21And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, 22Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. ​

Please show me one single verse where the phrase "gospel of the kingdom" is used in regard to what Paul preaches.

 

[godrulz]

Please show me one single verse where the phrase "gospel of the kingdom" is used in regard to what Paul preaches.

Acts 28:28-31

This affirms that Jew and Gentile will be one in Christ, the King now and that together they will share in the millennial kingdom (eschatological). There is a now, but not yet aspect to the kingdom. Christ, Paul, Peter, John, etc. understood the rule of God, but MAD chops it up into boxes and charts.

 

[beloved57]

Preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom

Preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom

The next word of the Gospel of the Kingdom which is related to the preceding ones, chosen and elect, its election.

Websters states:

Divine Choice, predetermination of God, by which persons are distinguished as objects of mercy, become subjects of grace, are sanctified and prepared for heaven, the elect !


Lets look at some scripture

rom 9:

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

Paul is teaching here in rom 9 the Gospel of the Kingdom !

rom 11:

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

1 thess 1:

4Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

2 pet 1:

10Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

This is the Apostles doctrine.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You know why this is so, just like you know why Paul called his teaching "my Gospel."

Paul called it "my gospel" because he received it directly from the Lord Jesus and iit was a different gospel than the one which was preached on the day of Pentecost.

The biggest critic of the ideas of Mid Acts dispensationalism and the idea of two gospels is H.A. Ironside, and he said the following:

"All through those OT dispensations, the gospel was predicted, and when Jesus came, the gospel came with Him. When He died, when He was buried, and when He rose again, the gospel could be fully told out to a poor lost world. Observe, it says, 'that Christ died for our sins.' No man preaches the gospel, no matter what nice things he may say about Jesus, if he leaves out His vicarious death on Calvary's Cross" [emphasis added] (Ironside, God's Unspeakable Gift [London: Pickering & Inglis, 1908], Chapter 2).

The gospel which was preached on the Day of Pentecost said nothing about the "grace" of God nor anything about the "vicarious death on Calvary's Cross."

When we look at the day of Pentecost we can see Peter speaking a gospel or "good news" about Christ from Acts 2:14 to Acts 2:36. This sermon is not interruppted and men are being saved by this gospel.

But not one word is said about the fact that "Christ died for our sins" or anything else about the "vicarious death on Calvary's Cross."

On the day of Pentecost Peter used the facts of the death and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus in order to prove that He is Israel's promised Messiah (Acts 2: 23-35). And then he summed up his argument by saying:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2: 36).

Those who believed this gospel were born of God and saved the very moment when they believed (1 Jn.5:1-5).

One has to throw their reason to the wind in order to imagine that the gospel preached on the day of Pentecost is the same gospel which declares that "Christ died for our sins."

 

[godrulz]

I have read Ironside's articles on the subject. Quote all of his early and late teaching instead of a few sentences out of context of all that he taught. He does not support MAD as you know. Our beef is post-cross issues, not the distinction between pre and post-cross (though Jesus obviously was looking ahead and giving revelation that was not just applicable to Jews before the cross; God did not come to earth just to give a bit of truth for a few Jews in the first century; He was transitioning from Old to New and giving universal truths that were more fully fleshed out by Paul after the cross).

Jesus was revealed as the Lamb of God who takes away sin early in His ministry. This is the foundation of the gospel (Jn. 1). He also revealed His death and resurrection, core Pauline gospel truth, early on (Jn. 2). Jn. 3 then calls us to faith in Him alone, apart from works. His anticipatory teaching is not divorced from Paul's fleshing out of it after the actual death/resurr. (cf. Acts 2 has all the elements of His person and work before Paul converted; the gospel is based on the reality of Christ/cross which predates Paul and is independent of him).

 

[Nick M]

I have read Ironside's articles on the subject. Quote all of his early and late teaching instead of a few sentences out of context of all that he taught. He does not support MAD as you know.

Added to the autorulz cliche post.

Jesus was revealed as the Lamb of God who takes away sin early in His ministry. This is the foundation of the gospel (Jn. 1). He also revealed His death and resurrection, core Pauline gospel truth, early on (Jn. 2). Jn. 3 then calls us to faith in Him alone, apart from works. His anticipatory teaching is not divorced from Paul's fleshing out of it after the actual death/resurr. (cf. Acts 2 has all the elements of His person and work before Paul converted; the gospel is based on the reality of Christ/cross which predates Paul and is independent of him).

You vile pervert. You were just shown the truth for the 891,123 time just on TOL, and you ignore it.

Jesus taught about His d, b, r (we look back on it; they looked forward to it, all by grace through faith). Salvation is trusting the person and work of Christ. This was not a mystery until Paul.

See what I mean about subtil. He says Christ taught it. Then skips the part of it was hidden from them, then says it wasn't a mystery. Very sneaky, you perverted demonic pig from hell. Caught again in a lie.

Luke 18

31 Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.

32 For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon.

33 They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.”

34 But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken.

It was hidden from them. He said so we could look back with hindsight. It was a mystery revealed through Paul.

Romans 16

25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began

26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith—

27 to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen

Why did God hide it from men? Because godrulz would not have crucified Jesus knowing the world might be saved.

1 Corinthians 2

6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,

8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

 

[notreligus]

Paul called it "my gospel" because he received it directly from the Lord Jesus and iit was a different gospel than the one which was preached on the day of Pentecost.

The biggest critic of the ideas of Mid Acts dispensationalism and the idea of two gospels is H.A. Ironside, and he said the following:

"All through those OT dispensations, the gospel was predicted, and when Jesus came, the gospel came with Him. When He died, when He was buried, and when He rose again, the gospel could be fully told out to a poor lost world. Observe, it says, 'that Christ died for our sins.' No man preaches the gospel, no matter what nice things he may say about Jesus, if he leaves out His vicarious death on Calvary's Cross" [emphasis added] (Ironside, God's Unspeakable Gift [London: Pickering & Inglis, 1908], Chapter 2).

The gospel which was preached on the Day of Pentecost said nothing about the "grace" of God nor anything about the "vicarious death on Calvary's Cross."

When we look at the day of Pentecost we can see Peter speaking a gospel or "good news" about Christ from Acts 2:14 to Acts 2:36. This sermon is not interruppted and men are being saved by this gospel.

But not one word is said about the fact that "Christ died for our sins" or anything else about the "vicarious death on Calvary's Cross."

On the day of Pentecost Peter used the facts of the death and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus in order to prove that He is Israel's promised Messiah (Acts 2: 23-35). And then he summed up his argument by saying:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2: 36).

Those who believed this gospel were born of God and saved the very moment when they believed (1 Jn.5:1-5).

One has to throw their reason to the wind in order to imagine that the gospel preached on the day of Pentecost is the same gospel which declares that "Christ died for our sins."

Before the foundation of the world, did God not envision the Church? Do you think He told Peter about one Church and Paul about another? I hope not because that would be absurd and go against everything that Christ accomplished on the cross.

 

[tetelestai]

Paul called it "my gospel" because he received it directly from the Lord Jesus and iit was a different gospel than the one which was preached on the day of Pentecost.

Hi Jerry

Paul says "my gospel" a whopping three times in the Bible.

Paul also says "our gospel" three times in the Bible.

So if Paul says "my" and "our" the same amount of times, what makes you think his gospel is different?

BTW
Another Sunday in the NFL; another Steelers win and another Cowboys loss.

Steeles undefeated and all alone in first place in their division, and the Cowboys winless and all alone in last place in their division.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi Jerry

Paul says "my gospel" a whopping three times in the Bible.

Paul also says "our gospel" three times in the Bible.

So if Paul says "my" and "our" the same amount of times, what makes you think his gospel is different?

read my post above and you can see the difference.

Another Sunday in the NFL; another Steelers win and another Cowboys loss.

Steeles undefeated and all alone in first place in their division, and the Cowboys winless and all alone in last place in their division.

Despite all of their injuries the Cowboys are just one game out of the lead in their division with 14 games left to play. And the last time they started 0-2 they won the Super Bowl!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Before the foundation of the world, did God not envision the Church? Do you think He told Peter about one Church and Paul about another? I hope not because that would be absurd and go against everything that Christ accomplished on the cross.

I thought that the subject was whether or not Paul preached a different gospel. Evidently you could find nothing wrong about what I said in my latest post so you decided to just change the subject!

 

[godrulz]

I thought that the subject was whether or not Paul preached a different gospel. Evidently you could find nothing wrong about what I said in my latest post so you decided to just change the subject!

You are ultradisp. The two gospel theory also is tied in with two church theories post-cross. He is not changing the subject nor is it an admission that there is nothing wrong with your logic. Don't be so arrogant. Every time someone does not respond to your post does not mean we cannot, just will not. You overestimate your own infallibility.

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

notreligus,

I apologize for my absence over the last couple of days. After reading through all the posts, you, nang, godrulz and others still have not answered my question. I said,

Please feel free to explain why Peter says Paul's epistles are difficult to understand...

You reply,

Peter's statement that you quoted is in keeping with what I posted. You've shown no distinction. You are making up distinctions where they do not exist. At best you are just hair-splitting.

The Book of Acts is a book that shows the doctrinal transition of the Church from one that was steeped in Judaism to one with an emphasis on faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross for salvation. I showed the context of what I posted. How about you doing the same thing?

I always show context, and I exegete passages. How about you doing the same? You posted 1 1/2 chapters from Acts and never really explain your point.

Here's the point for you, nang and the others with simimlar views...

Many here claim that the "gospel" has been the same throughout all time. Many here claim that Peter, James, John, etc... preached the same "gospel" that Paul preached. If this is true, then why does Peter say Paul's writings are difficult to understand?

2 Peter 3:16a as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,

If you and I were teaching the same math classes to two groups of students using the same curriculum that every teacher before us used, and we both teach that 2 X 2 = 4, it would seem silly for me to say, "notreligus and I both teach and agree that 2 X 2 = 4, but when notreligus says '2 X 2 = 4' it is hard to understand." If we are teaching from the same curriculum, there should be no difficulties in understanding what the other teaches.

Secondly, Peter writes his second epistle approximately 40 years after Pentecost. Paul's ministy is going strong and we do not see Peter actively converting new believers. Again, if they have been teaching the same message for many years, Peter should clear on Paul's teachings. However, he says Paul's epistles are hard to understand.

Jerry Shugart makes a great point too. I would like to elaborate on his point. If Peter and Paul are teaching the same message, why does Paul find it necessary to communicate the gospel he is teaching to them? Shouldn't they already know? Why does Paul communicate the gospel he preaches "privately" to those of reputation in the Jerusalem church?

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain."

Luke records the same event Paul describes in Galatians 2 in Acts 15.

Acts 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

We know why Paul went to Jerusalem to speak to "those of reputation," the apostles and elders of the church. There were Judaizers from Judea who were perverting Paul's gospel. Paul and Barnabas argued with them and then decided to go to the leaders of the Jerusalem church.

Acts15:3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.

As Paul and Barnabas make their way from Galatia to Jerusalem, they describe the truth of Paul's ministry, and cause great joy. When they arrive, they explain to the apostles and elders (those of reputation) about Paul's ministry he received from the resurrected and ascended Lord Jesus Christ. Now it gets interesting...

Acts 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

Pharisees who believe argue that "it is necessary to circumcise them (the gentiles Paul has ministered to), and to command them (same group) to keep the law of Moses. This implies that what Paul and Barnabas communicate to the apostles and elders is different than what the believing elders believe to be the truth of the gospel.

Now, the heart of the question... If Paul and Peter are preaching the same message, why does Paul need to communicate in private, to those who are of reputation, the message he now preaches? Shouldn't they already know? Secondly, why do the Pharisees who believe argue that circumcision and law keeping are necessary? If this has never been true, where did they come up with this idea?

To summarize:

1. If Peter, James, John, etc... preached the same "gospel" that Paul preached, then why does Peter say Paul's writings are difficult to understand? (2 Peter 3:16a)

2. If Peter, James, John, etc... preached the same "gospel" that Paul preached, then why did Paul need to communicate "privately' to the apostles and elders in the Jerusalem church?

3. Why do "the Pharisees who believe" argue that circumcision and law keeping are necessary?

God bless,

Jeremy