ECT Which Gospel?

[Danoh]

And so, what does Gal 3:8 tell you about how Scripture is self-organized before any dastardly theolog writes about it? Answer the question that matters, please, not the jab you live for that you get to make by posting.

Come on, you know I live for more than that; just as I know you live for more than your jabs :banana:

By the way, your view of Galatians 3:8 is in some ways similar, not only to those who hold to what is known as the Acts 28 Position, but also; to those within Mid-Acts, of which I am not one in this; who hold to the view that Galatians 3:8 is asserting that Paul’s Gentile preaching in Acts had been a prophesied gospel.

Anyway, to the passages….

Galatians 3: 5. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6. Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

What needs to be understood is the principle that Paul is relating as to that “Scripture” he relates, “foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel to Abraham, saying that in thee shall all the nations be blessed.”

All Paul is relating is that just as when Abraham received some good news from God; that in him, all nations shall be blessed, he believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness; know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Paul is simply relating that Scripture foresaw the principle "of faith" as a constant. That is all.

Later, he will relate this same faith principle - of “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness,” in Romans 4. How that, as concerning this righteousness which is "of faith" that Abraham had been an example of:

20. He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21. And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24. But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

And Paul brings this up because he is basically relating that those of Abraham after the flesh – those Jews who were asserting some superiority in circumcision and the Law - were simply off base, for the issue always was faith – Romans 4:

9. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10. How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12. And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

What Scripture foresaw in Abraham, then, was the fact that regardless of what good news of God He might announce; the issue always was the issue "of faith."

For example, we read in Mark 1: 14. Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15. And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

That was some three and a half years before Christ died for sin.

The good news in that gospel there in Mark one is that “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”

What would an Israelite do in faith do with regard to that good news at that time?

He would “repent” or change his mind and turn back to the God of his fathers, “all” they “like sheep” had “gone astray” from “…and believe the gospel” that “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.”

In that gospel at that time before the Cross, the issue was also the issue "of faith."

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
that Galatians 3:8 is asserting that Paul’s Gentile preaching in Acts had been a prophesied gospel.

!!!

So bogus. The verse tells you: the events were ancient and happened to Abraham! Abraham saw Christ's day and rejoiced, Jn 7. Abraham talked with the KING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS Melchi-Zedek. Abraham knew the Seed was coming because the promises were about the Seed, the one person, Christ. That's where his offspring are from, by faith.

 

[heir]

I think, if I were Mid Acts, I'd tend to remind people there is only one gospel for us today.

We have to constantly reiterate that there is presently, but one today. They never hear that.

There is really no need to wonder if there is one gospel or more than one.

No one here suggests there are presently two~

 

[heir]

So bogus. The verse tells you: the events were ancient and happened to Abraham!

Galatians 3:8 shows that the Galatians were heirs according to the promise (Genesis 12:3 KJV, Galatians 3:29 KJV).

Not so with us!

Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV


Just the facts, Jack!

 

[heir]

Galatians 3:8 shows that the Galatians were heirs according to the promise (Genesis 12:3 KJV, Galatians 3:29 KJV).

Not so with us!

Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV


Just the facts, Jack!

The Galatians blessing as per Genesis 12:3 KJV came in the form of a mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest:

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Romans 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Romans 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

 

[heir]

There was a gospel before the Cross.

There most certainly was and it wasn't the good news that "Christ died for our sins" that Paul preached!

People today can't even count to two. It's the new math, the "core curriculum" of the religious, denominational system courtesy of Satan and his teachers 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV as the mystery of iniquity doth already work (2 Thessalonians 2:7 KJV).

 

[heir]

At the time Galatians was written both Paul and Peter were preaching.

And Galatians 2:7 KJV shows us there were two gospels! Peter didn't even know "that gospel" that Paul preached until Paul went up by revelation and communicated it unto them! It was then that "they saw" it (Galatians 1:1-7 KJV)! It was then that they "perceived the grace" given unto Paul (Galatians 2:9 KJV)!

According to the dual gospel hypothesis their gospels were similar in that they both came from Jesus (in person to the disciples and by a vision to Paul) and in the fact what both could bring salvation.

While I agree that God wrought effectually in Peter and mighty in Paul (Galatians 2:8 KJV), there was a difference in the salvation each preached. Peter preached:

1 Peter 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1 Peter 1:6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

1 Peter 1:8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

1 Peter 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

1 Peter 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

We're not waiting for the "grace that should come unto us" as they are! Paul preached that we're already saved ("are saved" 1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:2 KJV, Ephesians 2:5 KJV) by grace through Christ's faith! It's the gift of God!

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Romans 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.



Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Ephesians 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

However, Paul, in the verse I cited (Galatians 1:7-8) said there was NO OTHER GOSPEL BUT HIS. This means there was only ONE gospel.

When you make things up, expect to be corrected! Paul never says there "was no other gospel than his". The key to understanding what Paul is saying is number one, believe what IT says. Second, the key to understanding Galatians 1:8-9 KJV is "unto you". And look at how many times Paul writes it. He's emphatic! Paul is telling the Galatians that if any man including himself and an angel from heaven preached any other gospel UNTO THEM (the Galatians) than that which Paul and those who accompanied him preached UNTO THEM, let him be accursed!

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

We have to constantly reiterate that there is presently, but one today. They never hear that.

No one here suggests there are presently two~

What was the "good news" found in the gospel described as the "gospel of the circumcision"?:

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (Gal.2:7).​

In other words, when Peter preached the "gospel of the circumcision" what did he tell the Jews? What was the "good news" which he told them?

 

[heir]

What was the "good news" found in the gospel described as the "gospel of the circumcision"?

Acts 2 and 3

Go look for it.

 

[heir]

The reason we are saved is because Christ died for our sins but is it absolutely necessary for us to know this in order to be saved or is faith in God and his Son and the grace of God enough?

There is a reason that Paul tells us that the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Romans 1:16 KJV). It's because IT is (Romans 1:17 KJV)!

We are partakers of God's promise in Christ by the gospel (Ephesians 3:6 KJV)!

 

[aikido7]

In the final analysis, the gospel is actually the coming/present Kingdom of God. Unfortunately Jesus--like the religious figure he was--spoke of this kingdom in parabolic form.

His parables overturned--actually dislocated--the default world of his day and ours.

Judging by the many thousands of Christians I have known and loved over the years, as well as the diverse comments on this very website, pretty much prove that we ALL have our own "gospel" and can all give religious proof for our beliefs.

 

[Interplanner]

Acts 2 and 3

Go look for it.

JerryS,
you are working from a grammatical mistake as though it was correct. The grammar does not support a gospel for circ and a gospel for uncirc. It says the same gospel was going to the circ that was going to the uncirc. Gospel is always singular there, and even apart from the grammar, the story tells us this. If Peter hadn't been trying to add on the one gospel, why did Paul confront?

If two gospels was correct, there would have been no confrontation.

You need to know stories better and not theology. Fortunately this 'doctrinal' issue, or discussion of it, contains an actual story exchange going on to understand.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

If two gospels was correct, there would have been no confrontation.

If it was the same gospel to two groups, and Paul agreed to limit his audience to the uncircumcision, why did he immediately break the agreement?

 

[Danoh]

If it was the same gospel to two groups, and Paul agreed to limit his audience to the uncircumcision, why did he immediately break the agreement?

Believe me; you've lost him with that one; he thinks this is all about a passage or two in Galatians, misunderstood by us.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Acts 2 and 3

Go look for it.

Here is the "good news" which was preached there:

"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).​

Dr. Stanley D. Toussaint, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes the following commentary on Acts 2:36:

"Here is the conclusion to Peter's sermon. The noun 'Lord', referring to 'Christ', probably is a reference to Yahweh. The same word 'kyrios' is used of 'God' in verses 21, 34, and 39 (cf. Phil. 2:9). This is a strong affirmation of Christ's deity" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck, [ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983], 359).​

The Jews who believed that Jesus is Christ, God come in the flesh, were "born of God". Dr. Zane Hodges, past Chairman of the New Testament Department at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes the following in regard to Peter's words:

"Peter concludes his address with the assertion that 'God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ' (2:36). His hearers then reply, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' (2:37). But such a reaction presumes their acceptance of Peter's claim that they have crucified the one who is Lord and Christ. If this is what they now believe, then they were already regenerated on Johannine terms, since John wrote: 'Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1; cf. John 20:31) " (Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 101).​

Here are the verses to which Hodges makes reference:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1,5).​

On the day of Pentecost those who believed the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were "born of God" and saved.

I am very specific about what was said in the "gospel of the circumcision." On the other hand, you give no specifics. Obviously, you do not even have an idea as to what was said by Peter when he preached the gospel of the circumcision.

You have strong opinions but you are unable to give any evidence from the Scriptures to support your opinion. Therefore, I can only conclude that your faith is based on what some people say about the Scriptures and not the Scriptures themselves.

 

[Danoh]

Here is the "good news" which was preached there:

"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).​

Dr. Stanley D. Toussaint, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes the following commentary on Acts 2:36:

"Here is the conclusion to Peter's sermon. The noun 'Lord', referring to 'Christ', probably is a reference to Yahweh. The same word 'kyrios' is used of 'God' in verses 21, 34, and 39 (cf. Phil. 2:9). This is a strong affirmation of Christ's deity" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck, [ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983], 359).​

The Jews who believed that Jesus is Christ, God come in the flesh, were "born of God". Dr. Zane Hodges, past Chairman of the New Testament Department at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes the following in regard to Peter's words:

"Peter concludes his address with the assertion that 'God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ' (2:36). His hearers then reply, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' (2:37). But such a reaction presumes their acceptance of Peter's claim that they have crucified the one who is Lord and Christ. If this is what they now believe, then they were already regenerated on Johannine terms, since John wrote: 'Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1; cf. John 20:31) " (Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 101).​

Here are the verses to which Hodges makes reference:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1,5).​

On the day of Pentecost those who believed the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were "born of God" and saved.

I am very specific about what was said in the "gospel of the circumcision." On the other hand, you give no specifics. Obviously, you do not even have an idea as to what was said by Peter when he preached the gospel of the circumcision.

You have strong opinions but you are unable to give any evidence from the Scriptures to support your opinion. Therefore, I can only conclude that your faith is based on what some people say about the Scriptures and not the Scriptures themselves.

So, one passage, two "Doctors" and your specific, ur "very specific" opinions.

And that's my very specific opinion - no passages, and no Doctors, lol

 

[Shasta]

heir;4398772

When you make things up, expect to be corrected! Paul never says there "was no other gospel than his". The key to understanding what Paul is saying is number one, believe what IT says. Second, the key to understanding Galatians 1:8-9 KJV is "unto you". And look at how many times Paul writes it. He's emphatic! Paul is telling the Galatians that if any man including himself and an angel from heaven preached any other gospel UNTO THEM (the Galatians) than that which Paul and those who accompanied him preached UNTO THEM, let him be accursed!

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Your explanation - that Paul used the singular word “gospel” because he was speaking only TO the Galatians about their “Gentile Gospel” - would satisfy only someone who had already made up their mind about it. It is a weak argument for anyone outside the “dual gospel” camp. All it amounts to is an attempt to explain the lack of supporting evidence in the passage. It is not a direct appeal to contextual evidence in the passage. When the actual words that are used here and elsewhere are considered, a different meaning emerges.

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different (heteros) gospel— 7 not that there is another, (allos) one but there are some who trouble you and want to distort THE Gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:6-7 ESV).

Paul uses the singular form of the word “Gospel” adding that the Judaeizers were attempting to distort this message thereby turning it into a “different” (false) gospel. Only the gospel as he originally delivered to them could save them. He neglected to say there was yet another valid gospel. You say he just did not bring it up. The telling point is that he did not bring it up at any other time either.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that there were two gospels. First, Jewish as well as Gentile believers were living in the region of Galatia. This can be seen by internal evidence in their knowledge about the Law by also external historical evidence. The Jewish believers presumably would have been following the teachings of the “Jewish Gospel” which Paul knew very well since it was his custom to peach that message in the synagogues every Sabbath

Since Jewish believers were in the Church as well as Gentiles would it not have been necessary to teach them how to differentiate their Jewish Gospel which COULD save from the message of the Judaeizers which could NOT? It seems to me that the Christian Jews would have been even more tempted by the Judaizer’s teaching than the Gentiles. This would have been the perfect occasion to lay out exactly what the two gospels were in unambiguous language but Paul, the “wise master builder.” leaves this vital issue unresolved though it could have caused apostasy and Church fragmentation. In fact, this would have been an important point to make in every Church where the Judaizers were a threat.

If MAD is true then Paul consistently neglected to teach on the nature of the Jewish Gospel comparing and contrasting it to the Gentile Gospel. He does not even use the plural of "Gospel" At least with Baptism, while one scripture seems to indicate that there is only one (Ephesians 4:5) others go on to explain the different "baptisms" in unambiguous terms (e.g., Matthew 3:11). The Bible also establishes a plurality of Baptisms through using the plural form of the noun “baptism.” (Hebrews 6:2). There is no need to read between the lines to see that there is more than one baptism.

Yet, to what passage shall we turn to see a comparison and contrast of the Gospels of the Jews versus that of the Gentiles? Despite the supposed importance of making a distinction between the two, the Bible does not address this very important matter. Instead we are left to come to that conclusion through inferences and assumptions.

What the Bible EXPLICITLY says about the Gospel is not hard to discern, so long as we accept prima fascia what the passage says and avoid importing ideas from outside the text.

For I am not ashamed of THE gospel, for it is THE power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in IT the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”(Romans 1:16 ESV)

Here Paul speaks of a singular gospel but contrary to your claim in Galatians - that when he used the singular of "Gospel" he meant only the Gentile Gospel - here he says that THE Gospel is invested with THE power to save both Jew and Gentile. Two gospels need not be preached. One was sufficient for both.

Here is another passage:

18 For THE WORD of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is THE power of God…22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ THE power of God and THE wisdom of God. (Ephesians 1:18,22-24)

THE WORD of the cross is the same as THE PREACHING of the cross or the Message of the Cross all of which are equivalent to the Gospel of the Cross. As with the previous scriptures I have cited, THE WORD, is written in the singular form meaning that there is one. You can parenthetically say "not including the Jewish Gospel" but this is what the text says. This single message is invested with THE power to save BOTH Jew and Gentile. No other special gospels are needed. Paul did not even try to adapt his message to suit the Jews and Gentiles though the one message was a stumbling block to both.

Lastly, I do not know how you can say I made up anything since my conclusion was based, not on my personal opinion but on linguistic data and historical sources (which I cited). You are free to deny it, of course, but a denial is not a rebuttal and unless you can add something of substance I am going to take what you said as a gratuitous assertion. I will come back to this issue soon.

 

[Daniel1611]

There's one Gospel. Jesus had the disciples teach it to Israel then he gave them the commission to teach it to all nations. If Paul wasn't preaching the Gospel that the disciples preached first to Israel then to all nations, there is a problem. You would have one Gospel in Israel and at least 2 going into the other nations. It doesn't even make sense. THE Gospel of Christ IS the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. To the Jew first and also to the greek. Jew or Greek, there is ONE Gospel. Anything besides is far outside of orthodoxy.

 

[Shasta]

I think, if I were Mid Acts, I'd tend to remind people there is only one gospel for us today. The talking point of two gospels is to ensure that all people understand the gospel as it is. From my perspective, I do not believe in a works based salvation apart from Christ but rather one that is enable because one is in Christ. That said, the gospel is that Christ died, was buried, and rose again to redeem and save man from his/her sins/sin nature. We, our sins, were buried with Christ in death. We are raised to life with Him, in Him, kept wholly in Him and by Him.

The question/debate is whether Jews had to keep some laws for grace, or for other promises. For me, they had agreements with God, not just for salvation, but for physical promises. Because of that, I don't think they were keeping the law for salvation reasons and so see the gospel message as needed and the same for them, especially now. That said, I've no problem if someone disagrees or even if I'm proven wrong on this particular since the gospel message for both gentiles and Jews is the same today. Salvation is found in no one else. There is no other name, given to men, whereby men can be saved (by grace Ephesians 2:8-10).

In Christ,

Lon

If this were merely a discussion of several early beliefs systems that existed within the stream of orthodoxy in the First Century Church the matter would be academic but there are corollaries to believing in MAD. One leads to the conclusion that none of the writings of the NT except those of Paul are mandatory, authoritative in the life of a modern believer. Even the words of the Savior are said to be of another dispensation, "written for us but not to us." The writings of the other Apostles are similarly downgraded. The end of such thinking is a canon of scripture rather like that of the heretical Marcion.

 

[Bright Raven]

1 Corinthians 15:1-4Modern English Version (MEV)

1 Now, brothers, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which you have received, and in which you stand.
2 Through it you are saved, if you keep in memory what I preached to you, unless you have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: how Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 was buried, rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,