ECT Which Gospel?

[Interplanner]

All you have to do is sort out message from response. None of the responses are the Gospel itself. Most of them are valid. They come in different lists in different places. But the message is that Christ sacrificed as an atonement for our sins and was raised because God approved his work.

 

[Shasta]

[Danoh;4402003]You are not being "objective" Shasta; compare Galatians 2 with Acts 15 and it becomes obvious why Paul met with the Jerusalem leadership privately first - because he had already had his time wasted by those not in authority and he had no desire for another round of that.

I don't know what you are getting at here. Of course he went privately to those in authority before he talked to anyone else. He wanted the Apostles to hear his side of the story. Once they saw that what the Judaizers had said about Paul's teaching and practice was wrong they joined forces with Paul.

And Paul relates that when he met with their Apostles and elders, they added nothing unto him, rather, that when they perceived the grace that was given unto him, they agreed they were no longer under the "go ye unto all nations" of Matthew 28; Luke 24; Acts 1, but were to now confine their ministry to the circumcision.

Nothing in the text says that the Apostles were released from the Great Commission. Is God so fickle that He gives his orders in one passage only to retract them in another? This is just another example of MAD meta-narrative.

In fact, we know from History that most of the Apostles did leave the Land to preach to the nations, and not just to the Jews but to the Gentiles too. Just because the Bible does not record their deeds and travels does not mean they did not occur. It certainly does not give you literary license to imagine what was and was not on their itinerary.

The Bible itself has Peter preaching to the Church of Corinth, a congregation of mixed Jews and Gentiles located to the west of Athens, Greece. Greece was not the sheltered enclave of Judaism that Judea was. It was a heavily pagan nation. Also since Peter addresses his first letter to all believers (not just those of Jewish decent) scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia we can safely assume he knew and had preached in those regions (1 Peter 1:1).

It is a well-known fact of history that the Apostle John the son of Zebedee ministered to the Churches of Asia Minor many of which Paul had started. I think was Ireneus who said his base of operations was in Ephesus (certainly Eusebius mentions it). John lived to an advanced age before writing his Gospel, his letters and the Book of the Revelation. At least 40 years after Peter and Paul had been executed John, was still teaching. I have seen MAD proponents claim that John's letters were among those written "for us not to us" but at the time they were written the Gentiles had become the majority in the Church and John gave no indication whatsoever that he was writing to a specifically Jewish population.

From antiquity it has been said that Thomas evangelized India. The Churches he is supposed to have founded were called “Nasrim” which is Hebrew for Christian (“Nazarene”) That this early name for Christians should be used in India is a sign of very early Christian influence. The "Mar Toma" Churches as they are called now have been in India for thousands of years have always claimed that Thomas was their founder. I suppose that since this is inconsistent with the MAD narrative it must be a myth but what does that say about objectivity?

It is simply not true that all the Apostles "confined" themselves to the Jews because Paul took over the work with the Gentiles. Peter preached to Gentiles just as Paul continued to preach to the Jews. As far as I can tell, the only one of the original leadership who did not go to the nations was James the brother of Jesus. He remained in Jerusalem and continued to reach out to the Jews in Jerusalem until he was killed in 70 AD. Josephus identifies James by name and describes how he was killed.

Sure enough, both before and after Paul's private meeting with their Apostles and elders, he is met with those against his ministry among the Gentiles absent circumcision and the Law twice more.

As for this grace given Paul; he relates what it is in 1 Corinthians 3; in Ephesians 3, and elsewhere, as does Peter in 2 Peter 3.

And it was information that radically changed the course of the Twelve's so called Great Commission.

The word "grace” as it is used here refers to a supernatural endowment of Divine ability which makes a person able to achieve results in a particular ministry. After Paul explained the fruit of his ministry among the Gentiles the Apostles saw that God had granted him the grace (or divine ability) to work in that sphere.

Grace is by no means synonymous with "knowledge"if that is what you are trying to say. Looking at the word in other contexts makes that clear.

“And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, have an abundance for every good work.” (2 Corinthians 9:8)

The verse does not mean “God is able to grant all information to you.” Rather, God’s gracious enabling makes one sufficient to meet any challenge and produce good results.

“But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.” (Ephesians 4:7)

Not “to each one information was given”

“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith …” (Romans 12:6)

Not “having gifts differing according to the information, given to us…”
In these verses grace is the endowment of divine “abilities”

“As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” (1 Peter 4:10)

Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith (Romans 12:6)

Our "gifts" differ not merely in kind but in accordance with the apportionment of God's power. Two people who teach may have different levels of power according to God's purpose.

The Twelve saw that Paul had an anointing to work with the Gentiles. His "grace" to do that work was demonstrated by the results.

A commission you and yours have yet to show you have ever properly understood.

By “proper understanding” you mean accepting the tenuous inferences of MAD instead of believing in solid exegetical proof.

Fact is Paul was not needed for that commission; the Twelve had been empowered from on High. There is another dynamic at work you and yours have never looked into - all you and yours do is parrot the same old off-base conclusions as to these issues.

First of all, the Great Commission was never about converting all Jewish people but about reaching out to all men in every nation not just Israel. I cannot see any way to emphasize universality of this call any more than Jesus did. Do you believe the Twelve had the power to accomplish this mission by themselves? The scope of the call was so broad that multiple generations and the countless sacrifices would be required and on an ongoing basis. Perhaps Jesus, after He went to the Father saw this was too much and he changed their orders. This rather diminishes His statement that He always spoke what the Father did. Maybe God changed His mind.

Where exactly does the Bible actually say that Paul’s assistance was not needed" in the Great Commission? Again, the meta-narrative intrudes on the Biblical narrative. Was Paul not also called to go into all the world making disciples of all nations? Is that not exactly what he did?

"Parroting" means repeating what someone else says without thinking about it or, perhaps, plagiarizing from the writings of others but I have done neither. Even if I had I done so it would not disqualify me from the discussion for few people have totally original thoughts. I cite sources usually when trying to arrive at the clearest meaning of scripture in the original language. I think understanding the scriptures as they were originally written should be the goal of every student.

If “parroting" means simply that my view is like the historical view of thousands of years then I plead guilty but I would rather be a “parrot” of ancient truths than to be a Mockingbird of new and exciting errors.
Your primary error is that you have become convinced of the verity of the MAD paradigm in the absence of explicit textual references. Once convinced you assume it everywhere so that the meta-narrative takes the place of the stated narrative.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

If someone were to preach any other gospel unto us than that which Paul preached, let him be accursed! That includes someone/anyone preaching the gospel of the kingdom as to us, the gospel of the circumcision as to us, the everlasting gospel in Rev as to us.

Preaching those things to you does not make them who preach it accursed .

Men are accursed if they preach another gospel than Christ and all the apostles preached whereby men may be saved and live righteously before God.


Eph 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

LA

 

[aikido7]

Gospel means "good news." It is an interpretation and the word "good" gives that away.

It originally meant "the Kingdom of God" but that has been largely ignored and forgotten.

Now all of us have our own unique, personal gospel that we preach to others and rarely follow it ourselves.

 

[Shasta]

flat out rebellion against 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV!

When I ask for explicit statements you offer assumptions and inferences. Where for instance does the word say the Twelve were released from the Great Commission? Where does it have Paul dazzling the Apostles with new revelations in Galatians. The minutes that contained those notes must have been lost for they are not in scripture. You have claimed that several gospels existed for the Jews and Gentiles. I have cited scriptures that state that one gospel was sufficient for both groups. You can rightly divide the words that actually exist but if they are assumed and superimposed on the text they are beyond scrutiny. Eisegesis is not exegesis.

 

[Shasta]

And all you have to do is prove your case.

But you can't. Your every other sentence is the history is this, the history is that...

You are book learned, rather than Book learned.

That you would find difference given this great error of yours is no surprise.

That you would conclude we got ours out of a book is no surprise either - its where you and yours think all the answers are, so long as said so called books match your endless books.

Try your nonsense with Jerry - now he did get his Mid-Acts out of books.

This is evident in his/your same practice of isolating one passage that it fit the error he asserts through one or another passage.

I gave you passage after passage after passage. You gave me your books learned manner of reasoning into a thing.

You are, in short, one more books learned fool.

I have refuted your passages giving evidence at times from the original languages that you have misinterpreted or bent the meaning of the text to your own ends. I have also exegeted passages which show that ONE gospel was sent to two populations (Jew and Gentile). If you have such an open and shut case where is your rebuttal to my posts?

While you have shown yourself quite capable of fitting things into the MAD paradigm most often what you have presented as direct evidence has turned out to be presuppositions and presumptions imposed on the text. Actual evidence drawn out of the text is lacking. For instance, you say that during the meeting with the Apostles some change occurred in the terms of the Great Commission but when we actually read the passage nothing whatsoever is said about it. That entire event was superimposed and read as if it were there. It seems that MAD is a system supported by eisegesis rather than exegesis.

If you say you did not read any books before you made up you mind about MAD I believe you but books are not the only sources of error. Anyone is perfectly capable of getting into error all by their lonesome. Some of the people here at TOL seemed to have come up with the most bizarre doctrines imaginable apparently in their own private studies. Honestly, to date I have not read one book on MAD. I might at some point but thus far I have not. I am not following a script.

It is really irrelevant where a person got their ideas. What matters is what is true. My own critique of MAD is based upon what I know about history and an exegetical approach to studying scripture. In both of these methodologies I try to remain factual first. Only after I have what I think is fact will I begin to extrapolate and generalize. I notice that though you object to the historical arguments you do not deny them nor do you offer counter-explanations, say, for the disappearance of MAD by the end of the First Century. I would be very interested to see what kind of imaginative explanation you would invent for that.

I will not fall into the trap of thinking that the cogency of my arguments are measured by your acceptance of them. You are obviously very invested in your system. Few people are willing to change their minds about a belief they have fought for. I have actually changed my mind about a belief I used to fight for here but that was due more to what I thought long after leaving. My mind is not easily changed. I am honest enough to admit when I don't know something. If that happens I will say so.

 

[Shasta]

It's really the same thing the Catholic Church does. They've been doing it for years so it must be right. :nono:

Right. It is all a conspiracy. Really? Is that your defense? Unlike the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages no one group controls the output of information now, nor did they in the Early Centuries when Christianity was a minority religion.

An argument based solely on antiquity would not be rational. However, my argument was historical. If an important event was supposed to have happened in the past, historians look for documentary evidence. If existing documentation does not provide evidence for the event but intead demonstrates that something else happened you would wonder if the event had ever happened or if it was the product of later invention.

There is abundant evidence that the Church Fathers believed there was only one gospel and that this gospel was the same that proclaimed by Jesus, the Apostles and Paul. You would think, if MAD were true, SOMEthing would have been passed on about it to the early leaders but there is no discussion nor any debate about Jewish and Gentile gospels. Also the Early Church unanimously held that the entire NT was inspired and authoritative for all believers. This is why Marcion's canon (which excluded all authors but Paul) was considered aberrant.

So you see this is not an argument from antiquity, nor is it an argument from silence. What was explicitly written in the first four centuries (before the Catholic church formed) contradicts MAD.

 

[Danoh]

I have refuted your passages giving evidence at times from the original languages that you have misinterpreted or bent the meaning of the text to your own ends. I have also exegeted passages which show that ONE gospel was sent to two populations (Jew and Gentile). If you have such an open and shut case where is your rebuttal to my posts?

While you have shown yourself quite capable of fitting things into the MAD paradigm most often what you have presented as direct evidence has turned out to be presuppositions and presumptions imposed on the text. Actual evidence drawn out of the text is lacking. For instance, you say that during the meeting with the Apostles some change occurred in the terms of the Great Commission but when we actually read the passage nothing whatsoever is said about it. That entire event was superimposed and read as if it were there. It seems that MAD is a system supported by eisegesis rather than exegesis.

If you say you did not read any books before you made up you mind about MAD I believe you but books are not the only sources of error. Anyone is perfectly capable of getting into error all by their lonesome. Some of the people here at TOL seemed to have come up with the most bizarre doctrines imaginable apparently in their own private studies. Honestly, to date I have not read one book on MAD. I might at some point but thus far I have not. I am not following a script.

It is really irrelevant where a person got their ideas. What matters is what is true. My own critique of MAD is based upon what I know about history and an exegetical approach to studying scripture. In both of these methodologies I try to remain factual first. Only after I have what I think is fact will I begin to extrapolate and generalize. I notice that though you object to the historical arguments you do not deny them nor do you offer counter-explanations, say, for the disappearance of MAD by the end of the First Century. I would be very interested to see what kind of imaginative explanation you would invent for that.

I will not fall into the trap of thinking that the cogency of my arguments are measured by your acceptance of them. You are obviously very invested in your system. Few people are willing to change their minds about a belief they have fought for. I have actually changed my mind about a belief I used to fight for here but that was due more to what I thought long after leaving. My mind is not easily changed. I am honest enough to admit when I don't know something. If that happens I will say so.

So you believe.

And Church History, give me a break.

Romans 11:25-29 was being ignored by the Church even before it was written [the reason for its writing to begin with].

The only thing I am invested in is objectivity. Read my post on the "Rightly Dividing" thread linked below. Then call me invested in this subjectivity you are talking about even as you fail to see you are the one bogged down in thinking you are being objective.

Post # 172

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4405225#post4405225

 

[Shasta]

If someone were to preach any other gospel unto us than that which Paul preached, let him be accursed! That includes someone/anyone preaching the gospel of the kingdom as to us, the gospel of the circumcision as to us, the everlasting gospel in Rev as to us.

I presume it would be equally inappropriate for a Gentile to receive the Jewish Gospel during Paul's time and yet that is apparently what happened in Corinth. In this large Church where membership included Gentiles and Jews, Peter peached as well as Paul and Apollos. Peter was supposedly the main proponent of the "Jewish Gospel" but here he is preaching to a mixed congregation. You would think that when Paul wrote the letter to Corinth he might have reminded the two populations of the boundaries of their respective messages. At least he could have defined the two gospels for them so they could tell the difference but, as always, he leaves out all mention of it though it might easily have caused division.

As it turned out factions formed around the personalities of the ministers (1 Corinthians 1:11-13). Paul had to tell them that he, Peter and Apollos were all on the same team. Paul as the architect might have laid the foundation but the others laid the bricks on the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:10). Paul might have planted the seeds of the Church but others had watered and cultivated the field (1 Corinthians 3:4-7). The Corinthians were the structure, the field, the project, the Church which must not be divided (1 Corinthians 3:9).

Though there was a plurality of workers, the Church was ONE, as was the ONE Gospel that had brought them all to salvation.

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach THE GOSPEL, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. 18 For THE WORD OF THE CROSS is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God… 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of THE MESSAGE preached to save those who believe.
(Corinthians 1:18-2)

The ACT of preaching is not any more foolish than the persuasive speeches of Demosthenes. Paul was not speaking of the act of preaching but of the CONTENT.

22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Paul and company preached one message called here by different names: “The Word of the Cross,” “The Message” or simply “Preaching Christ Crucified.” For different reasons This Gospel was offensive to both Jews and Gentiles but Paul did not attempt to reach them by using different Gospels. There was no need for a special Jewish gospel even in a Church where many Jews attended. The One Gospel was sufficient for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles.

MAD’s paradigm can be assumed here or be inferred to be here but it cannot be found here. The explicit teaching of these scriptures is that there was one Gospel.

 

[Danoh]

I presume it would be equally inappropriate for a Gentile to receive the Jewish Gospel during Paul's time and yet that is apparently what happened in Corinth. In this large Church where membership included Gentiles and Jews, Peter peached as well as Paul and Apollos. Peter was supposedly the main proponent of the "Jewish Gospel" but here he is preaching to a mixed congregation. You would think that when Paul wrote the letter to Corinth he might have reminded the two populations of the boundaries of their respective messages. At least he could have defined the two gospels for them so they could tell the difference but, as always, he leaves out all mention of it though it might easily have caused division.

As it turned out factions formed around the personalities of the ministers (1 Corinthians 1:11-13). Paul had to tell them that he, Peter and Apollos were all on the same team. Paul as the architect might have laid the foundation but the others laid the bricks on the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:10). Paul might have planted the seeds of the Church but others had watered and cultivated the field (1 Corinthians 3:4-7). The Corinthians were the structure, the field, the project, the Church which must not be divided (1 Corinthians 3:9).

Though there was a plurality of workers, the Church was ONE, as was the ONE Gospel that had brought them all to salvation.

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach THE GOSPEL, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. 18 For THE WORD OF THE CROSS is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God… 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of THE MESSAGE preached to save those who believe.
(Corinthians 1:18-2)

The ACT of preaching is not any more foolish than the persuasive speeches of Demosthenes. Paul was not speaking of the act of preaching but of the CONTENT.

22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Paul and company preached one message called here by different names: “The Word of the Cross,” “The Message” or simply “Preaching Christ Crucified.” For different reasons This Gospel was offensive to both Jews and Gentiles but Paul did not attempt to reach them by using different Gospels. There was no need for a special Jewish gospel even in a Church where many Jews attended. The One Gospel was sufficient for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles.

MAD’s paradigm can be assumed here or be inferred to be here but it cannot be found here. The explicit teaching of these scriptures is that there was one Gospel.

You are assuming you understood what we mean, and then successfully proving that assumption false. But said assumption is not what we are talking about.

Why have you done that? Because you are not being objective - objectivity would check its conclusions about another's assertions with them first.

Rom. 11:25-29 relates that Rom. 15:8-12, which was prophesied [Israel's rise first], Isaiah 60:2-3, was interrupted by Rom. 15:13-21.

Compare Isaiah 60:2-3's "rising" with Romans 11:11's "fall."

 

[tetelestai]

I presume it would be equally inappropriate for a Gentile to receive the Jewish Gospel during Paul's time and yet that is apparently what happened in Corinth. In this large Church where membership included Gentiles and Jews, Peter peached as well as Paul and Apollos. Peter was supposedly the main proponent of the "Jewish Gospel" but here he is preaching to a mixed congregation. You would think that when Paul wrote the letter to Corinth he might have reminded the two populations of the boundaries of their respective messages. At least he could have defined the two gospels for them so they could tell the difference but, as always, he leaves out all mention of it though it might easily have caused division.

Yep, heir's "two gospel" theory falls apart when tested with scripture.

Paul told the Galatians that if anyone preaches a different gospel to them, they are to be accursed (Gal 1:8)

Years later, Peter preached to the Galatians (1 Peter 1:1)

According to heir, Peter preached a different gospel than Paul. If so, then that would mean Peter should have been accursed.

Peter even acknowledged to his audience that Paul had previously written to them

(2 Peter 3:15) Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

Peter was not accursed when he preached to the Galatians years later after Paul wrote to them because Peter preached the same gospel.

heir's "two gospel" theory is a mess.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yep, heir's "two gospel" theory falls apart when tested with scripture.

Paul told the Galatians that if anyone preaches a different gospel to them, they are to be accursed (Gal 1:8)

Those who deny that two gospels were preached during the Acts period quote the following verses to attempt to prove that their assertion is correct:

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 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" (Gal.1:6-8).​

Paul does not say that there is only one gospel. He knew that there were two gospels and he also knew that those preaching the other gospel would not be preaching that gospel to the Gentiles:

"...they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter...when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal.2:7,9).​

So there is nothing written at Galatians 1:6-8 that proves that only one gospel was preached during the Acts period.

Years later, Peter preached to the Galatians (1 Peter 1:1)

That is not right but even if it was we can see that Peter was presenting the same gospel which Paul preached to the Gentiles (1 Pet.1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18).

Those in the MAD camp have always maintained that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period and 1 Peter was written after the events of Acts had ended.

 

[tetelestai]

Those who deny that two gospels were preached during the Acts period quote the following verses to attempt to prove that their assertion is correct:

When do you claim gospel #1 ended, and gospel #2 began?

Also, did those who received gospel #1 convert to join with the gospel #2 people?

Or, did those under gospel #1 continue in a different program from those under gospel #2 until they died out, leaving only the gospel #2 program to carry on?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You are assuming you understood what we mean, and then successfully proving that assumption false. But said assumption is not what we are talking about.

Why have you done that? Because you are not being objective - objectivity would check its conclusions about another's assertions with them first.

Rom. 11:25-29 relates that Rom. 15:8-12, which was prophesied [Israel's rise first], Isaiah 60:2-3, was interrupted by Rom. 15:13-21.

Compare Isaiah 60:2-3's "rising" with Romans 11:11's "fall."

No Danoh.

You need to compare Isaiah 60:2-3 with Peters epistle.



2 Peter 1:19 KJV


19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed , as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn , and the day star arise in your hearts:


The darkness is in men's hearts and it takes due time for the day star to arise after one believes.

This due time is not the covenant being put on hold that Dispensationism teaches.

 

[HisServant]

There is only one gospel and only one baptism.

Why are we continuing to argue that there are more?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When do you claim gospel #1 ended, and gospel #2 began?

Also, did those who received gospel #1 convert to join with the gospel #2 people?

Or, did those under gospel #1 continue in a different program from those under gospel #2 until they died out, leaving only the gospel #2 program to carry on?

I see that you have no answer to what I said. Now you want to quickly run to something else in the hope that no one will notice that you have no answers. Now to answer what you asked.

Neither good news ended. It still remains the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And it still remains the truth that the believer is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).

After the Acts period ended the gospel that Christians are given to preach is the gospel of the grace of God. And here Peter makes it plain that he too was given that stewardship:

"Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms" (1 Pet.4:10).​

Now a question for you. Do you believe that the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is a gospel which resulted in salvation to those who believed it?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

There is only one gospel and only one baptism.

Why are we continuing to argue that there are more?

Just because you say so means absolutely nothing!

Where is your proof?

 

[HisServant]

Only One Gospel

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

Why do you teach another Gospel?.... the Gospel is the good news that the Messiah (Jesus) has come and redeemed us from our sins if we believe on him.

That is all there is.

 

[tetelestai]

Now a question for you. Do you believe that the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is a gospel which resulted in salvation to those who believed it?

Yes, salvation can only come from faith.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, salvation can only come from faith.

So you admit that belief in the gospel or "good news" which declares that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, results in salvation for those who believe it.

Anyone with the slightest bit is spiritual discernment knows that that gospel is not the same gospel which declares that believers are " justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).

So I have demonstrated that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period and belief in either gospel brought salvation.

So you no longer have a leg to stand in when you assert that only one gospel was preached during the Acts period.

Or are you so lacking in spiritual discernment that you are willing to argue that the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is the same "good news" that the believer is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"?