Are they different or are they the same Gospel to different people groups?
Theology Club: The Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of Grace
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Yeah, thought I'd put it under the right heading.
Doormat
New member
No problem. There are some topics worth revisiting, like this one.
Seeing as how the gospel of the kingdom being preached by Jesus and the 12 before the cross did not include the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and even after Acts 2 Peter still held to the law and works [see Acts 10] and the 12 and their converts preached it [see Acts 15 and James 2] and the gospel of grace as preached by Paul was made clear to be separate from the law and works [see Romans] I'm going to say they are two different messages, each for different sets of people.
There is one post-cross true gospel of Jesus, two two gospels post-cross. This is the majority view because it is right and biblical. This one gospel was preached to two different target audiences by two ministry teams (Gal. 2 demarcation of ministry).
The gospel of the kingdom relates to the King. Even though the kingdom emphasis declined when Israel rejected the King, it will be resumed in the future Tribulation period.
There was a historical shift from a Jewish Christian to Gentile Christian center over time in the early church (Peter to Paul), but this is not evidence of two gospels, just an expansion of the one gospel beyond sectarian, cultural circles.
(see, did not even have to mention that MAD is wrong...oops.).
The gospel of the kingdom relates to the King. Even though the kingdom emphasis declined when Israel rejected the King, it will be resumed in the future Tribulation period.
There was a historical shift from a Jewish Christian to Gentile Christian center over time in the early church (Peter to Paul), but this is not evidence of two gospels, just an expansion of the one gospel beyond sectarian, cultural circles.
(see, did not even have to mention that MAD is wrong...oops.).
Then explain Acts 10 and 15...
Acts 10 and 15 are not a problem for Acts 2 disp. Acts is transitional, selective history, not didactic, systematic theology. The issue is paradigm, exegesis, etc. There is a reason most credible Christian thinkers through the centuries disagree with your MAD minority view.
e.g. Acts 15 is Paul and the Jerusalem Church standing together against a false Judaizer heresy and hypocritical believers, not an affirmation of a shift from one true gospel to another. You are misreading the evidence. We would have to walk through the whole book, the context of the chapter, etc. You have a hyper-disp paradigm that you read into the text. Alternate understandings are more biblical in my mind.
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
-Acts 15:28-29
This was after Peter had spoken up. Why did the council want Paul to continue to preach to abstain from things offered to idols, and things strangled, if they agreed that the law was put away?
And why in Acts 2:38 does Peter call for baptism if what Paul preached was now the case? Why even call Paul to be sent to the Gentiles? And why, if Jesus' commission to the 12 was part of the same message given to Paul, was Paul not sent to baptize?
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
Acts 13
26 “Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. 27 For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him.
42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue,[j] the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath...47 For so the Lord has commanded us: I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
Hmmm, Paul goes to the Jews with his message yet says he has the gospel of uncircumcision.
Acts 18
3 So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
Nope, Paul clearly is not just a minister for the gentiles, but the minister of the gospel of uncircumcision. So when he says Peter to the circumcision, he isn't speaking of whom he is preaching to, but what he is preaching.
Acts 13
26 “Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. 27 For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him.
42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue,[j] the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath...47 For so the Lord has commanded us: I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
Hmmm, Paul goes to the Jews with his message yet says he has the gospel of uncircumcision.
Acts 18
3 So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
Nope, Paul clearly is not just a minister for the gentiles, but the minister of the gospel of uncircumcision. So when he says Peter to the circumcision, he isn't speaking of whom he is preaching to, but what he is preaching.
Acts 15 were concessions of wisdom with those of Jewish Christian background. They were not gospel truths or evidence of two true gospels post-cross. Works cannot save in any dispensation (Rom. 4-5).
Baptism was a normative public expression of faith (that saves), even under Paul's ministry. Billy Graham was called to a certain ministry and Paul was called to a certain ministry. This is not evidence of two messages, but two messengers of the one message. The proof text in I Cor. about Paul not baptizing just means he did not personally baptize all his own converts. He was baptized, did baptize, but not everyone (left it to others as most evangelists do). I use the verse to refute baptismal regeneration, a heresy in all disps. Baptism never was germane to the gospel. MAD misunderstands and distorts the most basic Pauline truths to retain a wrong view.
Remind me to not buy your commentary or publish your posts. Your exegesis is not accepted by most for a reason.
Whether Jew or Gentile, Peter or Paul, we are part of God’s kingdom because of the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. Jesus spoke of his impending death to his disciples. He also spoke of his resurrection. Whether one believes there’s one or twenty gospels, the Good News is centered around the death and resurrection of Christ. No resurrection, no kingdom for anyone. How does one become part of this kingdom? Allegiance to the King, of course. Sounds like one gospel to me.
Then refute it.
The shelves are lined with greater thinkers than you and I who refute your pet peeves.
What's there to refute? It is clear from Acts ff. that the gospel is about the death and resurrection of Christ. Thinking Peter, James, John, etc. had a faith+works gospel supplanted by Paul's grace gospel is gross error. The burden of proof is on you (all you did was quote a verse without exegeting it in context and then giving your preconceived idea in a sentence as if it is true...it is not).
cf. Gal. 2:7 proof text is a demarcation of ministry, but you quote KJV vs other versions without dealing with the Greek genitive issue here. It is not proof of two true gospels post-cross (contradicted by the whole warp and woof of the NT), but about taking the one gospel to two target audiences. Again, the burden of proof is on you vs me as to why only modern MAD fringe guys differ from virtually all other believers who see something different in the NT.
MAD is not a credible disp theory and relies on proof texts out of context and certainly avoids underlying Greek issues, context, theology that do not support the view.
Then leave if you do not want to discuss the Mid Acts Dispensation of grace.
Hi, Doormat.
By this statement, do you mean:
- There is only one gospel TODAY.
- There is only gospel in the scriptures
- There is only one gospel that saves
- Other
Thanks,
Randy
This is nothing more than opinion.
You have failed to give a reason they were still preaching the law, and continued to do so even after this.
You have also failed to explain why the 12 did not follow the great commission, or why James made works out to be necessary while Paul stated quite the opposite.
This isn't an answer. Paul was not given the same commission as the 12, but he was still an apostle. So why the difference?