• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Love God, and love one another!

    Share your love for the Lord and others with us

    https://christianforums.net/forums/god_love/

  • Want to discuss private matters, or make a few friends?

    Ask for membership to the Men's or Lady's Locker Rooms

    For access, please contact a member of staff and they can add you in!

  • Wake up and smell the coffee!

    Join us for a little humor in Joy of the Lord

    https://christianforums.net/forums/humor_and_jokes/

  • Need prayer and encouragement?

    Come share your heart's concerns with us

    https://christianforums.net/forums/prayer/

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

The Idea of Two Gospels

RichardBurger

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
261
Reaction score
0
There have been many discussions about the “gospel of the kingdom†and the “gospel of grace.†Most do not agree that there is any difference in them. This writing is my attempt at showing that there is a very big difference.

2 Cor 3:6-18 (NKJ) Paul writing.
6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the """new covenant,""" not of the letter (Law) but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,
8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?
9 For if the ministry of condemnation (the Law) had glory, the ministry of righteousness (grace) exceeds much more in glory.
10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels.
11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

What was passing away? According to the above it was "the ministry of condemnation, verse 9 (the law). What was taking its place? According to the above, verse 8, it was "the ministry of the Spirit." Therefore there were two ministries, two gospels. One was passing away (the law that Jesus and the 12 taught) and another was taking its place.

12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech--
13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away.
14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as ""by"" the Spirit of the Lord.

In the above we see that an old covenant was passing away.

Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began. ----- In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began. Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known. Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.

Many say that Abraham and the Jews were saved by the grace of God in the “â€same mannerâ€â€ as we are in this age. I intend to show that it isn’t true.

It is true that Abraham "believed God" and it was accounted as righteousness before God. Does that mean that Abraham was saved at that moment? Did it mean he was saved by the grace of God and could enter into heaven to be with God? If he were saved at that moment, under the grace of God, he would not have been required to do the works that God had him do later in life. If his later works were required he was not saved by grace. It would have been by works.

We know that the Holy Spirit was not given until after Christ died on the cross. Abraham was not reborn and sealed by the Spirit. If he had been he would not have been required to do any works. If we look in Luke 16:19--- and read the story of the rich man and the tax collector who died we see that Abraham was in a part of Hades with both of them but not in the bad part, but in a separate part Jesus called Paradise from the cross.

Abraham was accounted as righteous but he could not BE righteous until Jesus shed His blood on the cross to pay for his sins in the flesh. No one was ever saved until the sin debt was paid. Salvation was, and is, in the work that Jesus (God) did on the cross. Everything points to Christ. Everything begins and ends with what Jesus did on the cross. To say that salvation came before Christ is to say His death was not necessary.

When we read about Abraham we must consider the whole life he lived, we see that he was required to offer up his son, that he was required to circumcise himself and all the males in his family. God’s relationship with Abraham was modified as time went on and eventually the law was given through Moses. It is clear to me that, although Abraham believed God and it was accounted as righteousness before God, there were works that were added at a later date.

During the dispensation of the Law of Moses a person was righteous before God by having faith in Him and by demonstrating their faith by their works just as Abraham did. This is exactly what James is writing about in James 2. James uses Abraham as an example and the words “justified†by works. James is correct in what he has said. He was preaching the gospel of the kingdom.

We can see that Jesus told the Jews to keep the laws of Moses and we can see that the 12 were teaching the same thing. It was the gospel of the kingdom and it was faith plus (+) works. They, the Jews, were to accept Jesus as the Messiah and He would set up His kingdom rule on this earth. But they rejected Jesus and His gospel of the kingdom. This teaching did not change until Paul came on the scene. We can see that, by reading the early chapters of Acts. I believe Acts to be a transitional book.

Paul teaches that Abraham’s faith making him righteous before God was a

"""""foreshadowing""""foreseeing"""beforehand"""would be"""

of the gospel of Grace that was to come (Gal 3:7-9). This means this was to be true in the future.
7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
8 And the Scripture, """foreseeing""" that God """would""" justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham """beforehand,""" saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."
9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
(NKJ)

Therefore the mystery Paul spoke of was much more than an acceptance of the Gentiles. It was a whole new gospel that was not seen in the O.T. -- Peter acknowledges that the message has changed when he says that the Jews would ""NOW"" be saved in the same manner (way) the Gentiles are, see verse 11 below.

Acts 15:7-11
7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them:"Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."
NKJV

The above verse 11 begs the question, in what manner were the Jews saved before???

My only conclusion is that the gospel for the Gentiles is a unique gospel given to Paul for the age of the grace of God. Although it was told to Abraham """beforehand""" it was not ""in effect"" and applied until Jesus died on the cross.

I see that the gospel of faith + works is a gospel that is suited for religion since it requires men to do religious things. I also see that Jesus did not think very highly of man’s religious works.

I see that the gospel of grace is not a religion. It is about a covenant relationship with God in the heart based on belief in God‘s work on the cross. It is a relationship of Father to son. It is a relationship of belief, faith, trust, and confidence in our heavenly Father and His work on the cross. If you have this relationship God does not require anything else.

Richard
 
RichardBurger said:
I see that the gospel of grace is not a religion. It is about a covenant relationship with God in the heart based on belief in God‘s work on the cross. It is a relationship of Father to son. It is a relationship of belief, faith, trust, and confidence in our heavenly Father and His work on the cross. If you have this relationship God does not require anything else.
Although you state "the gospel of grace is not a religion," the beliefs that follow which you use to back up that very statement mean that it is a religion.

And no, I do not think the "gospel of the kingdom" and the "gospel of grace" are two different gospels.
 
Free said:
RichardBurger said:
I see that the gospel of grace is not a religion. It is about a covenant relationship with God in the heart based on belief in God‘s work on the cross. It is a relationship of Father to son. It is a relationship of belief, faith, trust, and confidence in our heavenly Father and His work on the cross. If you have this relationship God does not require anything else.
Although you state "the gospel of grace is not a religion," the beliefs that follow which you use to back up that very statement mean that it is a religion.

And no, I do not think the "gospel of the kingdom" and the "gospel of grace" are two different gospels.

Oh but I do!

Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began. In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began. Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known. Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.
 
This issue lies in the misunderstanding of both the kingdom power available in this life, and the grace that makes such power available to all who call upon the Lord by faith.
 
Richard, is it possible that the Prophets preached it but no one understood it? Is it possible that it was proclaimed openly but an good understanding was secret until Christ came? Is that possible?
 
amen to the last two posts! That is exactly the truth. what is being missed here is that Jesus did not preach the letter of the law- but the Spirit same as paul did. Jesus taught that the kingdom is IN US- same as paul taught. Jesus taught we must be born from above by faith- So did paul!

Paul clearly shows that they mysteries that he revealed were the same things that the prophets and saints desired to look into.- Paul continually quotes the law and prophets so that he can REVEAL the mysteries that were IN the word of God that were not ever understood until then.

In fact what Jesus and paul taught were the same teachings and the length people must go to desire to much to create these divisions that Christ died to break down shows that they are heretics. The meaning of heretic is one who causes divisions.

The word of God declares that it was the new covenant in grace and truth that Jesus taught, NOT THE LAW.

Jhn 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


Jesus taught salvation was by FAITH IN HIM and His blood in the new covenant. He did not teach the law to be saved. and He taught a greater righteousness than what was in the law.
 
RichardBurger said:
What was passing away? According to the above it was "the ministry of condemnation, verse 9 (the law). What was taking its place? According to the above, verse 8, it was "the ministry of the Spirit." Therefore there were two ministries, two gospels. One was passing away (the law that Jesus and the 12 taught) and another was taking its place.

I never heard of the "old covenant" refered to as "GOOD NEWS" (gospel)... there is only one Gospel, the Gospel of Grace, the culmination of God's saving plan in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.

RichardBurger said:
I see that the gospel of grace is not a religion. It is about a covenant relationship with God in the heart based on belief in God‘s work on the cross. It is a relationship of Father to son. It is a relationship of belief, faith, trust, and confidence in our heavenly Father and His work on the cross. If you have this relationship God does not require anything else.

"Religion" is a means of man worshiping God. I do not see that as contradictory to the Gospel of Grace, since we are called to obey God - and God desires that we have faith in Him and SEEK HIM OUT - which means via "religious" means. For some reason, "religion" has taken on a new meaning for some people. "Religion" as defined does not necessitate that a person has no relationship with God, that is fallacy and presumes that everyone sitting in a pew is merely sleeping robots going through the motions. "Religion", by definition, is a person seeking a relationship with God.

Regards
 
That is a good point. the law the old covenant is not called " good news" it is called the ministration of death.-2Cr 3:7 ¶ But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away:

and the ministration of condemnation-2Cr 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation [be] glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

There is only ONE gospel by which men are saved. for ALL TIME-Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
 
RichardBurger said:
Free said:
RichardBurger said:
I see that the gospel of grace is not a religion. It is about a covenant relationship with God in the heart based on belief in God‘s work on the cross. It is a relationship of Father to son. It is a relationship of belief, faith, trust, and confidence in our heavenly Father and His work on the cross. If you have this relationship God does not require anything else.
Although you state "the gospel of grace is not a religion," the beliefs that follow which you use to back up that very statement mean that it is a religion.

And no, I do not think the "gospel of the kingdom" and the "gospel of grace" are two different gospels.

Oh but I do!

Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began. In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began. Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known. Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.
Wow. Your ideas just get weirder by the day. :screwloose

Perhaps 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 will help shed a little light:

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has m prepared n for those who love himâ€â€”

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?†But we have the mind of Christ.

It's the same message. It's a secret for those unregenerated and made known to those with "the mind of Christ" (aka the elect, those regenerated by the Holy Spirit)
 
It was said:

""Religion" is a means of man worshiping God. I do not see that as contradictory to the Gospel of Grace, since we are called to obey God - and God desires that we have faith in Him and SEEK HIM OUT - which means via "religious" means. For some reason, "religion" has taken on a new meaning for some people. "Religion" as defined does not necessitate that a person has no relationship with God, that is fallacy and presumes that everyone sitting in a pew is merely sleeping robots going through the motions. "Religion", by definition, is a person seeking a relationship with God.

You have just given the dictionary meaning of religion. It is definded as "WHAT MAN DOES FOR THE GOD OF THEIR IMAGINATION. --- So, to you, your Chritianity is "WHAT YOU DO FOR GOD."

Well that means I am right. True Christainty is not what man does for God. It is what God has done for man. But you resist that idea because you love your religion.
 
RichardBurger said:
You have just given the dictionary meaning of religion. It is definded as "WHAT MAN DOES FOR THE GOD OF THEIR IMAGINATION. --- So, to you, your Chritianity is "WHAT YOU DO FOR GOD."

It's not what I do for God, but HOW I RESPOND TO GOD...

I read the Scriptures, I hear the Gospel, I see and experience God working in my life and the life of others. I come to believe that God's love warrants a response of love in return. I don't "do things" for God to earn anything.


RichardBurger said:
Well that means I am right. True Christainty is not what man does for God. It is what God has done for man. But you resist that idea because you love your religion.

Who ever said that Christianity is what I do for God??? Before you have a parade for yourself, maybe you should stop attacking the strawman.

Religion is man's response to God. We all respond to God, and that response is a religious response. Your cliches are tiring, to say the least... God is a God of love, and it appears that you are not familiar with what that entails.
 
Christianity begins through what God did for man. But it does not stop there. The purpose of God's actions is that man would now live through God.
 
My only conclusion is that the gospel for the Gentiles is a unique gospel given to Paul for the age of the grace of God. Although it was told to Abraham """beforehand""" it was not ""in effect"" and applied until Jesus died on the cross.

Richard:
Thank you for a wonderful post. You make a good clear presentation of the gospel of Grace under which we are now living through the blood of Christ.
 
EarthSalvation.Com said:
My only conclusion is that the gospel for the Gentiles is a unique gospel given to Paul for the age of the grace of God. Although it was told to Abraham """beforehand""" it was not ""in effect"" and applied until Jesus died on the cross.

Richard:
Thank you for a wonderful post. You make a good clear presentation of the gospel of Grace under which we are now living through the blood of Christ.

Thanks for your support. --- What is clear is that the religious on this forum never deal with the scriptures I give that supports what I say. It is as if they are blinded to them. Case in point.

Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began. In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began.

Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known.

Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.

But the religious rationalize that Peter and Paul are saying the same thing so that they can cling to the blended, harmonized gospel taught by religious man.
 
RichardBurger said:
It was said:

""Religion" is a means of man worshiping God. I do not see that as contradictory to the Gospel of Grace, since we are called to obey God - and God desires that we have faith in Him and SEEK HIM OUT - which means via "religious" means. For some reason, "religion" has taken on a new meaning for some people. "Religion" as defined does not necessitate that a person has no relationship with God, that is fallacy and presumes that everyone sitting in a pew is merely sleeping robots going through the motions. "Religion", by definition, is a person seeking a relationship with God.

You have just given the dictionary meaning of religion. It is definded as "WHAT MAN DOES FOR THE GOD OF THEIR IMAGINATION. --- So, to you, your Chritianity is "WHAT YOU DO FOR GOD."

Well that means I am right. True Christainty is not what man does for God. It is what God has done for man. But you resist that idea because you love your religion.
Are you responding to me?? :confused I have no idea where you would've gotten that from my post since it was 90% Scripture.
 
RichardBurger said:
Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known.

Faulty logic based on the worship of rational thought...

One can know that something exists, some basic ideas about something, but it doesn't follow that introducing some knowledge to someone means they are now experts and know everything about it...

Case in point. People married for quite a long time, they think they know their spouses very well.

And then they are proven wrong. Happens all the time. We are dealing with relationships and a transcendant Being, not the color of an apple... Even when people reveal something about themselves, it doesn't mean we know everything about them.
 
francisdesales said:
RichardBurger said:
Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known.

Faulty logic based on the worship of rational thought...

One can know that something exists, some basic ideas about something, but it doesn't follow that introducing some knowledge to someone means they are now experts and know everything about it...

Case in point. People married for quite a long time, they think they know their spouses very well.

And then they are proven wrong. Happens all the time. We are dealing with relationships and a transcendant Being, not the color of an apple... Even when people reveal something about themselves, it doesn't mean we know everything about them.

Funny how you focused on that one part and totally ignored the others.

Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began. In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began.

Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known.

Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.

How about rationalizing the other two.
 
RichardBurger said:
Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.

How about rationalizing the other two.
OR it's clear that Paul was the Apostle sent to the Gentiles and Peter was the Apostle sent to the Jews and since the theological backgrounds of their audience would've been different, then the presentation of the message (not it's content) would have differed in order to effectively comunicate.
 
Those troublesome words "BUT NOW."

Romans 6:22
22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.
NKJV

Romans 7:6
6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
NKJV

Ephesians 2:13
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
NKJV

Hebrews 8:6
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
NKJV

Hebrews 11:16
16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.
NKJV
 
I've debated the twin gospel idea before, its origin coming from a cetain cult among Dispensationalists.

The twin gospel idea is a front. It's used to try and make Gentile believers feel they are more special than God's chosen Israel, by teaching that Gentiles will be raptured prior to the tribulation, while Israel is "Left Behind" to go through the tribulation.

They like to misuse Scripture like Galatians 2, where Apostle Paul mentioned about his going to the Gentiles with the gospel of uncircumcision, while Peter took the gospel of circumcision to the Jews. In reality though, Paul was talking about two different ADMINISTRATIONS of The One Gospel of Jesus Christ, not two separate Gospels. Even how Paul used the word "dispensation" is about 'administration' of The One Gospel.

On a deeper note in Galatians and Romans, Paul even shows how all those of Faith are the children of Abraham. That's pointing DIRECTLY to Abraham's Faith by belief on The Son (as evidenced by our Lord Jesus Christ at the end of John 8). And God imparted Abraham's Faith to him as righteousness. That stands in direct opposition to any idea of The Gospel being different between Israelites and Gentiles.

The only reason the 'administration' is different with The Gosepl going to Israel compared to Gentiles, is that to Israel was committed the oracles of God (Rom.3). Even within the "nation" which Christ said His vineyard would be given to in bringing forth fruits involves Israelites scattered among the Gentiles, and not just Gentiles among themselves only.

It especially appears one of the main purposes of the twin gospel false doctrine is to try and trap Gentile believers into accepting the false "secret rapture" doctrine.
 
Back
Top