Are There Two Gospels in the New Testament?
I just finished reading an article which had obviously been influenced by the idea that there are two distinct gospels in the New Testament. This insistence that there is a “gospel of the Kingdom,” which Jesus proclaimed to ethnic Jews, who rejected it insistently enough that they received a temporary retraction of the offer; and that this gospel is to be sharply distinguished from the gospel for the Church, as defined in I Corinthians 15:1-4; is a common Dispensational understanding (see Renald Showers’ book, There Really is a Difference, for an example of such argumentation). Frankly, this disturbs me greatly, first of all, because it makes nonsense of the whole tenor of New Testament teaching. If the “gospel of the Kingdom,” is a different gospel than that which is preached today, then why is this “gospel of the Kingdom,” which Jesus had been proclaiming throughout his ministry (e.g. Matthew 4:23, 9:25), the very same gospel that he said must be proclaimed in all the world before his return (Matthew 24:14)? Why is it that the apostles throughout the New Testament writings continued to proclaim this Kingdom-gospel (see Acts 20:24-25; 28:23, 30-31)? How can one justify adhering to a belief that is so eloquently argued against throughout the New Testament scriptures?
But this blatant lack of scriptural legitimacy is not the only reason that this philosophy so deeply disturbs me. Following are several further reasons that I am so opposed to it.
1. It minimizes the kingly glory of Christ
First, in that it minimizes the nature of his Kingdom. The Dispensational “gospel of the kingdom” understanding is driven by an urge to see this Kingdom restricted to a thousand year earthly reign of Christ over his ethnic people, Israel. This is in contradiction to the New Testament teaching on the Kingdom, which indicates, first, that the Kingdom arrived with the coming of Christ (see, for example, Matthew 12:27-28, which clearly states that the Kingdom of God has actually arrived, to which reality Christ’s power over demons bears certain witness); second, that the Kingdom of God is not merely a physical entity that comes with observation (see Luke 17:20-21), but rather consists of “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17), as well as “power” which is presently displayed in the Church (I Corinthians 4:20); and finally, that we who have believed today are Kingdom-citizens (e.g. Colossians 1:13, and Revelation 1:5-6, 9). Now, consider well: if one were to deny a great king a vast portion of his subjects, and greatly restrict the bounds of his kingdom from what he had declared them to be, would he not be offering that king a sharp insult, and robbing him of his royal dignity? When done to the King of kings, this is no small matter.
And second, in that it minimizes the present reality of his reign. For again, the Dispensationalists hold to this two-gospel idea so that they can say that Jesus is not now reigning, but he will in the future. However, the New Testament teaches us that when Jesus was raised from the dead, he ascended to the throne of David, is now reigning, and will reign until all things have been put under his feet (e.g. Acts 2:32-36; I Corinthians 15:20-28; Hebrews 1:8-9; Ephesians 1:18-23). This is not only an error, but a terrible slight against Jesus’ royal dignity.
2. It minimizes the unity of Christ’s redemptive work
In the gospels, we have a picture of Christ intent upon one purpose, namely the accomplishment of redemption; he is able to do nothing other than what the Father had planned for him in the pursuit of that accomplishment (e.g. John 5:19-20; 10:14-18; 17:1-10), and he is intentionally fulfilling all positive righteousness from the beginning of his ministry (e.g. Matthew 3:15), all the while resolutely setting his face to go to Jerusalem to fulfill likewise the passive righteousness of suffering for sins (e.g. Luke 9:51; Matthew 17:22-23). The Dispensational two-gospel idea, on the other hand, sees Jesus as offering a physical kingdom to the Jews, at first; and then, when he has been rejected, turning to accomplish a different work, namely, the purchase of our pardon on the cross.
3. It robs us of our part in Christ’s work on earth.
The effect that follows from our last observation, that Jesus was always intent upon his one redemptive purpose during his life on earth, is that we who have received his redemption have received the effects of his entire life’s work. This is absolutely vital for our eternal welfare, for we have need not just of forgiveness of sins, which Christ accomplished for us by suffering for our transgressions on the cross; but also, we have need of a positive righteousness, which Christ accomplished for us through his life of perfect obedience. If Jesus’ words and works were intended for the ethnic Jews, to offer to them a physical kingdom and to demonstrate his authority to make the offer, then we who are not ethnic Jews have no share in his accomplishments from this time period. And if we do not, we have no sufficient righteousness with which to approach the Father. Remember as well, that part of Jesus’ work in “bearing our sicknesses” was fulfilled in his ministry on earth (Matthew 8:16-17); but we are cut off from this aspect of Jesus’ substitutionary ministry if the Dispensational two-gospel scheme should be made to adhere.
4. It makes impossible for us a direct application of Christ’s earthly teachings
Jesus’ teachings on the blood-earnestness of Kingdom living, the riches that await Kingdom-citizens, the denial and eternal punishment that awaits those who do not take up their cross and follow him, and so on, are made useless with regard to the invigorating and soul-stirring effects that they ought to have upon us as Christians, if they actually set forth to the ethnic Jews the way to gain a part in a future physical Kingdom. Largely on the basis of this Dispensational teaching, there has emerged the false gospel of easy-believism, which asserts that mental assent to the factual truths of the crucifixion and resurrection is sufficient to ensure one of eternal salvation, even if he is not willing to follow Jesus as his Lord – for the statements that Christ made which indicate that one cannot follow him unless he takes up his cross, hates father and mother and even his own life, etc., are made to the Jews who stand to gain a temporal reward in the earthly kingdom, and have no connection with the different gospel, proclaimed to the Church. Oh, what riches we are denying ourselves, and oh, to what heresies we open ourselves up, when we call Jesus’ teaching a different gospel!
5. It requires a different way of salvation for the pre-Pentecost ethnic Jews
This, because it is clear throughout the gospel accounts, that when certain Jews believed in the gospel-teaching of Jesus, they were not only granted kingdom-heir status, but they were forgiven of their sins. Now, if this was a different gospel, then the fact of the matter is, the Jews in Jesus’ day were saved by believing in a different gospel than that which we today believe in for salvation. Instead of believing in the person and work of Christ, they have to believe that, if their works are sufficiently righteous, they will be duly rewarded in a physical kingdom (for this is what the Dispensationalists say the gospel of the Kingdom entails – physical rewards for righteousness/faithfulness) – and then, their sins are forgiven. This is not much different from that Dispensational teaching which says that faith has always been the way of salvation, but the content of that faith differed from era to era. This is a very pernicious error, that cuts away every ground of hope for eternal salvation, which is only to be found in the Messiah and his substitutionary sacrifice.
6. It robs the true Jews of their greatest riches
It is ironic that Dispensationalists tend to think that they are the friends of ethnic Israel, boldly standing up for their peculiar privileges, whereas Covenant Theologians have minimized Israel’s status and importance. Just ask any ethnic Jew who has come to believe in the Messiah whether his greatest treasure is Christ, or a share in a thousand year physical kingdom that will be reserved for ethnic Israel alone. The physical glory of the Dispensational understanding of Jewish privileges falls vastly short of what we Covenant Theologians hope and pray for ethnic Israel, namely, that they might be granted repentance so that the full number of the remnant will be grafted back into their own natural tree, where they will share in the eternal glory of the imperishable Kingdom that now is, and that will one day find its ultimate realization in the new heavens and new earth. We trust that this full remnant will indeed return to the Lord, maybe even in great numbers, near the end of the age (see Romans 11); this is a far richer and more comfortable doctrine for our Israelite friends than that, after a “secret rapture,” they will face seven years of persecution while the Church (which is different than they) will be feasting with Christ as his true bride (which they are not); at the end of which time, they will reign over the earth in their imperfect bodies, living and dying, while the Church (which they are not) reigns with Christ in glorified bodies. This two-gospel idea seems somewhat anti-Semitic, in that it reserves for the Jews the gospel which is vastly inferior in the nature of its rewards.
Conclusion
Of all the Dispensationally-derived errors in the Church today, one of the most serious is this two-gospel teaching. It is in flagrant contradiction to the overwhelming tenor of New Testament truth, and it brings one to the brink of several very destructive heresies. I trust that most Dispensationalists have not fallen into these deep and fearful chasms which have been opened up around them by certain of their peculiarly Dispensational understandings, but I feel compelled to call out the warning that those chasms are indeed there, on the boundaries of all their good grazing land – and I fear lest, throughout the course of their generations, some such doctrine as the two-gospel error may swallow up many in some greater heresy to which it should give rise. I trust that God’s grace has enabled me to say these things in love, and out of genuine concern for my Dispensational friends, who like me have experienced the one true gospel of God’s free grace.
30 Responses to “Are There Two Gospels in the New Testament?”
Leave a Reply
Search
Advertisement
- Articles
-
- 01. Christ and the Cross (11)
- 02. Hermeneutics (5)
- 03. Covenant Theology (3)
- 04. Dispensationalism (9)
- 05. Apologetics (3)
- 06. The Atonement (5)
- 07. Doctrines of Grace (3)
- 08. The Law (5)
- 09. Baptism (6)
- 10. Unity (3)
- 11. Worship (5)
- 12. Missions (6)
- 13. Eschatology (10)
- 14. Book Studies (25)
- Leviticus (13)
- The Gospel According to Isaiah (5)
- 15. Exegetical Notes (6)
- 16. Personal & Misc. (6)
- 17. Devotional & Invitational (8)
- 18. New Testament Book Introductions (27)
- 19. New Testament Book Outlines (32)
- 20. Basic Greek Grammar (10)
- Site Information
- Storefront
-
- Recommended Links
Nathan,
Awesome exegesis and analysis! This has been disturbing me a great deal lately. Those in the Dispensatinalist “camp” seem to becoming quite hostile lately to the clear exegetical teachings that their ark is full of holes and is quite unbiblical.
Again, thanks for this fine piece.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Well now Nathan, it disturbs me too.
What then should we do with the Apostle Paul’s teaching here with regard to the Promises of God for us:::>
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” ….>
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith….>
These Words being removed from Our Faith or added too or taken away from brings these verses to naught then and our FAITH is of no effect for the salvation of our souls:::>
Rev 5:5 And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
And if He cannot justly open the “seven” seals, then all of the mystery of the “Seven Spirits” of God are useless :::>
Rev 1:20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
:::< and FAITH has no power for us. If we are excluded then, as their teachings imply, then Abram the “Hebrew” of Eber came in vain and the whole argument of the Dispensationalists has no foundation upon which to establish their TRUTH/FALSEHOOD! It might be said then that this dog is chasing his own tail! Around and around he goes. I just hope he tires soon!
We then if those things be so, are most miserable, those of us who believe we too can enter into the NEW SONG as defenders of the FAITH ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS:::>
Rev 5:7 And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, Rev 5:10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”
The last time I checked, none of those seven churches whose seals are opened were in present day Israel or anywhere close to the “OLD CITY” where they gather for prayers daily.
So I guess you can guess rightly who I agree with now, can’t you, you?
Thank you for your hard work. Not all dispensationalists are the same in degree of what they believe but even the “mild” dispensationalist’s doctrines takes away from portions of Christ’s work. John MacArthur is an example of a milder dispensationalist even if he does deny that he is one.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Sarah,
I agree that there are definitely different flavors of Dispensationalism, some of them definitely more problematic than others. I would also agree that MacArthur’s version is about the least problematic of them all — but I do think he could be much better off if he would get rid of all the old Disp. trappings.
Nathan,
…for some reason, that I have not been able to overcome, I am not able to directly comment on the Reformation Theology blog of late and the article posted there as here, grrrr?
However it does appear I am able with Grace from you to have my comments entered onto it through this comment window. Thanks.
I would add one thing as a directive comment to Brian’s simple problem.
It is here at Isaiah 53 that I direct him:
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.
Crushed here means, killed, put to death.
As you study Scripture three things apply to this verse. One, God rejected Reuben, the firstborn. Two, God rejected the “tribe” of Judah from whom Christ came forth. Three, and too, Ephraim also failed and was used then only to point to the need for GRACE.
Reuben and Judah:
1Ch 5:1 The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, so that he could not be enrolled as the oldest son; 1Ch 5:2 though Judah became strong among his brothers and a chief came from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph),
Ephraim:
Gen 48:20 So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you Israel will pronounce blessings, saying, ‘God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh.’” Thus he put Ephraim before Manasseh.
Psa 78:9 The Ephraimites, armed with the bow, turned back on the day of battle. Psa 78:10 They did not keep God’s covenant, but refused to walk according to his law.
You might say that God, by His Word, systematically eliminated the Jews in the sense the Dispensationalists embrace them from that “OTHER” Gospel. Scripture does support only one Gospel.
By thus eliminating all hope in Reuben, Judah and Ephraim, it leaves us all, all sons of Adam, in the same boat you might say; ALL MANKIND ARE IN NEED OF THE SAME SAVIOR BY ONE DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION. This is what God intended and this is what we are left with once Christ was crushed.
Yes, there is election, the Jew, CHRIST JESUS, born of a woman who is of the line of Judah. That’s the election. Among the twelve tribes, Judah is in as much need of the same Savior as the eleven and all the rest of the world.
But now that, as Paul describes it:::>
Rom 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
ALL THOSE UNDER THE LAW HAVE DIED TO THE LAW THROUGH THE BODY OF CHRIST, SO THAT ALL MIGHT BE RAISED FROM THE DEAD BY “ONE” GOSPEL IN ORDER THAT ALL MAY BEAR FRUIT FOR GOD.
And I add WHAT IS THE FRUIT WE BEAR? It is not my fruitbearing, my merits, as my fruit is unacceptable to God as is yours and as is all mankind, including the JEWS, past, present or in the future. I too now have need of His FRUITBEARING, that is Christ’s SALVATION. Salvation is of the Jews.
THE FRUIT IS THE LIFE OF CHRIST, THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD. The Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. God is the Creator of us all through Jesus Christ.
Yes, salvation is of the Jews. So that that “Jew” Jesus could be “crushed” as Isaiah, the Jewish Prophet points too in his prophecy in Isaiah 53 quoted above. I would add that by this crushing God is signifying that no “human race” is acceptable to Him. It is this “revelation” of a NEW LIFE,…CHRIST AND HIS BODY AFTER THE RESURRECTION, …this Body, those Seven Spirits of God revealed in the book of the Revelation given to John.
It is only one FAITH, delivered to all mankind that activates the Grace from God to all mankind. There is only one Name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved!
I understand that I do not understand it clearly, I only understand it dimly. What I see clearly is never for myself. If God intended for me to see things clearly enough for myself, I would have no need of His Savior, Jesus Christ the Lord who died for the sins of all the world, circumcised and uncircumcised, Greeks, Jews, Gentiles, Barbarians, Scythians, bond and free, you and me or the fellowship of His Holy Christian Church.
One Savior of the World. One resurrection. One BODY. One FAITH. One BAPTISM. One God and Father of us all!
No one is special in God’s sight and there is no need for “two” Gospels, one taylored for the Jews only and the other for all the rest of Adam’s race.
Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices Col 3:10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Col 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
I thought Rennie Showers book did a fantastic job of explaining the “2 gospels”. Whether you like the phraseology or not…Christ shifted His divine presentation from Ethnic Jew only… to, Go to all the world…everyone included…amen SAYS THE CHURCH!! So i don’t see why the original poster is so confused here…this not that difficult, sometimes our stubborn Will is though…Mine is at times too!
Romans 11 is something I suggest all of you look at again…that’s a start anyway. As believers in God’s Divine pre-destination how can you throw out Gods Election of Jacob/Israel…? So instead your camp “Spritualizes it” Who gave you the right to do that…? Answer=Augustine of Hippo…who was he…A brilliant scholar indeed, but also the progenitor of the Catholic Church…So maybe revisit his work “City Of God”
This Replacement theology also has its roots in Platonic thought Which Origin based his views from and started the Alexandrian School of thought…Augustine was a Student this was a very liberal school, denying even the literal return of Christ.
Once again read “The City of God” and you will find even the most celebrated Amillarian…Augustian was originally a Pre-Millarian/Chiliast…His reasons for changing his view were purely political. So for 300 hundred years after Christ died on the Cross the prevailing teaching was Pre-millarianism…Not Amilarinism! aka Replacement theology..Supersessionism!
Yet you gentlemen go on and on regurgitating the same revisionist history. Do you realize the damage this has caused the Church as well as the Jews…?
Israel will come to a point soon…I think very soon, during Jacobs Day of Trouble,and a remanant of Israel will Repent of her unbelief and cry out to the One she pierced…Jesus…Then He will return. This was not 70ad…for any Preterists out there.
2 gospels or not…The Church HAS NOT replaced Israel and taken away all her promises. You would be messing with God’s credibility and His Divine sovereignty if your theology was right…thank Jesus it is not. I offer help, but better then is Dr. Arnold Fructenbaum..See Footsteps of the Messiah’
I could go on and on…point by point…I would love to do this face to face with Bible open as I do in our church; which by the way is a Amillarian church/Presbyterian. But time is so limited I apologize for my spelling. But not for believing the Bible in its plain sense lest it be non-sense
Robert,
The two gospel idea which Showers teaches is not that Christ shifted his attention from ethnic Jews to the whole world. He certainly did that. But what Showers (and many other dispensationalists) is saying, is that the content of the gospel which Christ was proclaiming changed dramatically when he shifted his attention from the Jews. That is a very serious error, which logically results in a dual way of salvation, as I pointed out above, and which minimizes the sufficiency and coherency of Christ’s redemptive work.
You have some history rather confused. The chiliasts were never a majority movement; broad-brushing everyone from Origen to Augustine with a Platonist stroke obscures the finer details of how individual exegetes were understanding and arguing for various eschatological paradigms, and asserts a fundamental causal relationship to a basically unrelated topic (for that matter, Dispensationalism seems to have much more in common with Platonic dualism than the historic teaching of the Church); and your confusion of Covenant Theology with Replacement Theology can only serve to obscure and impede the discussion. God did not replace Israel, he expanded her, cutting out her unbelieving branches and grafting in believing branches from the Gentiles. A good reading of Romans 11 would be a good idea for more than one of us here.
But anyway, a few points.
1.God has indeed fulfilled his promises to Israel literally, and he will continue to do so for eternity (e.g. 2 Chronicles 9:26). 2.Within ethnic Israel as a whole, there is a subset, elect, or true Israel, who actually receive the promises (e.g. Romans 2:28-29; 9:6-18; 11:1-10). 3.Ultimately, this subset consists of Christ alone, as was intended from the beginning, thus the singular usage of “seed” in the Abrahamic Covenant (e.g. Galatians 3:16). 4.Those who had been Gentiles may become a part of this true Israel, by being placed in Christ, the true seed of Abraham (e.g. Romans 2:28-29; 11:13-32; Galatians 3:7-9; 26-29; Ephesians 2:11-21). 5.It is to this expanded Israel (including both ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles) that all the promises will be literally fulfilled (e.g. Ephesians 3:6). 6.In fact, the promises themselves are expanded, so that, instead of just Palestine, God’s Israel will inherit the entire earth, etc. (e.g. Matthew 5:5; Revelation 21:1-4).
The New Testament is undeniably clear on all of these points. I know how impossible it is to see these things until the Spirit opens your eyes, because I was confused and blinded for many years by the same doctrines; but praise be to God, who teaches us through his Spirit what we had been unable to understand before, and shows us how clear, coherent, scriptural, and precious these truths are, that we had been aliens from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, but God grafted us in and made us full heirs! In the same way, he will graft back in the full remnant of believing ethnic Israel, and all of us will be one, enjoying the fulfillment of all the promises that God had ever made, which he fulfilled in Christ, for all who are in Christ. I pray that God would open your eyes as well, for these are rich and comforting truths, holding forth much hope for our dear friends the ethnic Jews, as well as all of us.
Blessings from the Seed of Abraham, in whom I am found today,
Nathan
P.S. I have argued for many of these points in much greater detail on various other posts in my “Dispensationalism” category. I would direct you there for a fuller explanation.
“Gospel of the Kingdom”/”Gospel of the death, burial, reurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Yet another doctrine “wrongly divided” by Dispensationalism.
Captain,
I’m definitely in agreement. Thanks for stopping by.
Great article, Nathan. Read it earlier, just wanted to leave a positive comment.
Bob,
Thanks. Positivism is always appreciated :).
Pitchford,
I cannot help but disagree. When I say the word “gospel,” I simply mean “Good News.” The word “gospel” is used in more than one way in the NT.
Case in point: The word “gospel” in 1 Cor 15 is defined by Paul as the message that Christ died for our sins, and was raised again.
The content of the “gospel” of Revelation 14:6 is that of judgment — especially of the judgement against Babylon.
The “gospel” in the New Testament is not always about salvation, but about good news concerning the fulfillment of the plan of God. Thus, the gospel of the kingdom found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is simply “the kingdom of heaven is near.” (Now I realize that you and I understand “kingdom” differently. I very much like McClain’s idea of a mediatorial kingdom that was rejected, i.e. that when the king left the kingdom left. I would assume that you would hold a typical amil view of the kingdom) This “gospel of the kingdom” is not a gospel that has salvific promise. It includes salvation, but is not limited to salvation.
While you may disagree that the gospel of the kingdom is different than the gospel of the grace of God, hopefully you do agree that the term “gospel” can be used in more than one way – hence 1 Cor 15 vs. Rev 14.
Chris,
My major point isn’t that the mere term “gospel” always has its technical theological force in the NT (although any case in which it might be used in a more general way would be a rare exception, and I can’t think of any offhand). My point is rather that Jesus’ favored technical term, “the Gospel of the Kingdom”, which is the very gospel he said must be proclaimed among all the nations, is the same gospel that the disciples did indeed begin to proclaim among the nations, and further expounded upon and even defined, most notably Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. If you say that 1 Corinthians 15 is a different gospel than Jesus’ message, then you run into major problems, and that is the point I was making.
I’m not necessarily endorsing any minimalistic views of the technical theological “gospel” from I Corinthians, either. Yes, the bare bones historical facts of the gospel are nothing but Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; but the meaning which inhered in these events and the effects which followed from them are legion. For instance, Jesus died and rose again to become the Lord of the living and the dead, the one who would judge all mankind. Integral to the gospel, then, is his judging the world. That part of the gospel, which truly is good news for his oppressed saints, as it entails their deliverance and being avenged, comes to the fore in Revelation, and I believe 14:6 is emphasizing that aspect. But it’s still part and parcel of the 1 Cor. 15 “gospel”, at least in my opinion.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Sarah sent me over here to read your articles on Dispensation beliefs.I am glad to know that Covenant theology does not embrace Replacement theology,something that would have been a big problem for me.I had felt that I had dispy beliefs in my understanding of Scriptures and mentioned it at Old Truth and so I am here.In this article it explains the two gospels that dispys believe.I had never heard of such a thing until the other night when I had read an article mentioning it.It didn’t seem right.Now I know where they are coming from!Thank you for the points you listed in reply to Robert-They are points that I do believe and have been taught.God bless you and your ministry to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.I am looking forward to reading your other articles on dispy beliefs.
Sherry,
Thanks for dropping by. Feel free to browse around and comment on any article. My own theology has changed at times due to the comments of various readers, so I take the opportunity to hear different viewpoints as a very helpful means of doctrinal growth.
Blessings in Christ,
Nathan
I am very glad to have this site in my favorites!You are very good at explaining things!I suffered a mild stroke in Dec.05 so I am relearning everything.Just prior to that God was opening my eyes to some erroneous teachings I was believing as truth and so,out of disgust I threw all of my study notes in the garbage!And my bookshelf is rather bare,too.So I am truly relearning everything!You are now part of that process.God sure has blessed me in lifting me out of erroneous teachings and leading me aright.Have a truly blessed Lord’s Day.BTW,I was fretting that I might be a dispy but the Replacement theology bothered me more.Your answers to Robert gave me a sigh of relief!Keep up the good work for His Kingdom,by His power and for His glory!
I should probably mention that my study of Replacement Theology followed my journey out of Dispensationalism, so some of my earlier anti-Dispensational writings might retain some Replacement elements that I am now convinced are not biblical. I should probably go back and revise my first post on Dispensationalism, but for now, just be aware that I might have said some things I no longer believe. Just be discerning :).
hey!
i just reading through the comments, i have faith in christ, i not part of any organisation, church or doctrine club, i often been told i into calvinism, but i never read anything of calvin, i into paulism, who recieved it all from christ, so its jesusism, i also been labelled a dispensationlist, for the last year i been listening to the nkjv on my ipod during my work on the farm, and i cant help but need to see the difference between, before christ and after, for example, jesus said carry cross, paul said your dead already, jesus, john, peter and james are too much different to paul, there gospel of kingdom in different to pauls gospel of grace, especially james and paul, james is writing bout keeping the law, in acts 21 he tells paul the jews believe and are zealous for the law, israel rejected christ, God chose paul to go gentiles to provoke to jealousy, and when gentiles reach fullness, israel will believe, this is just basic outline of what i been understanding, be good to read your feedback, stuart
Stuart,
Good to hear from you. Glad to hear you’re more devoted to following Paul, as he reveals Christ through the Spirit, than any theological system. I would agree that there are some changes that have come into effect because of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but I would emphasize that these changes are all a progression from more obscure to more clear, etc., and do not involve any essential contradiction in the scriptures. I would be especially careful about speaking of the differences between James, Paul, Jesus, etc. Different NT authors may have had different emphases, but they fit together well, and never contradict each other. That’s probably what you meant, but I just wanted to clarify.
Blessings in Jesus, Nathan
Nathan,
Just a note on the two Gospel theary.
This is quite a hot topic. Brave of you to address it and know you will be getting feedback on it. For and Against.
Christ has always been and always will be the focal point of the gospel down through history as recorded in the Bible. From the promise to Adam concerning a coming redeemer to current day Gospel of Christ Crucified. I believe even the Jewish Law when taken as a whole was never about a system of rules to follow, but rather a system that pointed to Christ who would one day come as the Perfect sacrifice for sin. Sin, because the Jewish law could never be upheld. It was in place to condemn, no save. Their Faith in the coming perfect sacrifice is what saved them, just as Abraham their forfather. Christ would have had to die whether the Jews accepted Him as Messiah or not. There was not other way, or plan of God. Christ was slain from before the foundation of the world.
Maybe, the difference is not Which Gospel, but rather Who God has chosen to use as His channel to the World at this point in time.
I do believe that God has promised certain specific blessings for the Nation of Israel that have not been promised to the Church, and the same goes for the Church vs. Israel. Also, in the book of Revelation, it is pretty clear that God is not yet done with the actual Nation of Israel. Again, maybe to Gospel of Christ has not changed, but the method that God is using to tell the entire world has changed.
In Christ, and because of His Faithfulness James
Hi James,
Thanks for the comment — I much appreciate your clear testimony to the centrality of the gospel even in OT Israel.
I would disagree with your last paragraph, however. All the promises of God have been fulfilled in Christ (2 Cor 1:20); therefore, everyone who is in Christ is an heir of all the promises, and is in fact a true Israelite, one of Abraham’s children, and thus in possession of all the promises made to Abraham (Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 4, Eph, 2, etc.). God’s true Israel is all those ethnically descended from Abraham who still believe, and also all those who have been grafted in by faith, and made children of Abraham and part of God’s one people (Rom. 11). This true Israel will inherit all God’s promises, and it is this true Israel that is spoken of in Revelation.
Man, you’re all over the place on this, ain’t'ya? I’ll start with the first two of your questions that caught my eye and we can take it from there (if you want…if you don’t, it’s OK and no hard feelin’s).
1: If the “gospel of the Kingdom,” is a different gospel than that which is preached today, then why is this “gospel of the Kingdom,” which Jesus had been proclaiming throughout his ministry (e.g. Matthew 4:23, 9:25), the very same gospel that he said must be proclaimed in all the world before his return (Matthew 24:14)?
Who was we talking to; the Jewish disciples/Apostles or the Church, the body of Christ? Do you think they’re the same?
2: And second, in that it minimizes the present reality of his reign.
You think the Lord Jesus Christ reigns on earth today? How do you figure that? David’s throne, by the way, wasn’t some spiritual throne; it was an actual throne that David farted on when he was sittin’ there and had to do so. The Lord Jesus Christ ain’t gonna sit on no invisible “spiritual” throne; He’s going to sit on an actual throne made out of stuff available on earth and it’s going to be in Jerusalem or else the Prophets were lying. He’s doin’ a mighty poor job if He is, by the way. You ever tangle up with Hogweed or Stinging Nettle? Ever been raped? You think the curse of sin has been lifted?
You want to respond to this, go ahead. I ain’t really sure why I bothered to write, I’ve run into y’all before that believe such neat things like that the Lord wasn’t physically ressurrected, it was only a “spiritual” ressurrection ‘caue of what they read in Rev. Eyes of fire, burning feet and whatever else sparked their interest.
You keepin’ the Law? Confessing your sins according to 1 Jn 1:9? Makin’ sure you got works ’cause, as you can read in James, “Faith without works is dead?” If you’re working on the “Ten Commandments” take heart, there’s only 603 other ones. The “Ten” are less than a 60th of the Law.
If you have time or the interest I’d love to set you free from the confusion you’re operating under but it really ain’t up to me.
Peace
Robert Finney [email protected]
Finney,
I’ll dialogue with you if I can convince myself that it’s apt to do any good, but right now, the general tone of your post leaves me skeptical on that point. At any rate, to answer the first question, yes, the twelve [eleven] Jewish disciples that Jesus was teaching in his earthly ministry are the same as the apostles he sent out to build his Church. Those apostles did in fact build the Church on those doctrines that he had been teaching them. The NT epistles are built on the teaching of Jesus, which we find related in the historical accounts of the gospel (with some other later revelation given particularly to the apostle Paul). Any severe disjunction between the gospels and the epistles, therefore, whether a liberal “Paul vs. Jesus” or a Dispensational “Israel vs. the Church” is misinformed and dangerous.
Second, yes, Jesus reigns from the Throne of David, even today. Read Acts 2, for instance. And he must continue to reign until all things, even death (and thorns and thistles) are put beneath his feet (1 Cor. 15).
Finally, the belief that Jesus’ resurrection was only spiritual and not physical is the most thoroughly non-Reformed idea there is. It is heresy pure and simple, and I strongly reject it. I think you’re very confusedly lumping all non-dispensational Christians together, and failing to recognize that a wide divide exists between orthodox Reformed beliefs and heretical camps of various persuasions.
Okee Doke and fair enough. I’m not so sure as to what ‘dialogging’ is (as opposed to just talking or writing) but I’m willin’ to take a crack at it. We’ll do one at a time so we don’t get to driftin’ off into other topics and, in fact, I shouldn’t've started out with two questions myself. That was my mistake and I ‘pologize for it. From now on I’ll try to keep it to one at a time and… due to time constraints I might not be able to get back to you real quick-like all the time. If you don’t hear from me for a while it doesn’t necessarily mean I ain’t got no reply, just that I ain’t got the time that I’d like right at the moment (or a bunch of ‘em, really).
Let’s start here with Luke. In Lk 9:22 the Lord first tells His disciples about His upcoming death and does so again in Lk 9:44. Scripture records the same thing three different ways (so it can’t be missed) about the disciples and their understanding of the Lord’s impending death, to wit: But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying (Lk 9:45). They understood not, it was hid from them, they perceived not. OK, lets go twice as deep into Luke and see how the understanding of the disciples has progressed concerning the death of the Lord at Calvary and it’s meaning. In Luke 18, starting at the 31st verse and running through the 33rd, the Lord tells the twelve quite clearly that “all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.” Now read the next verse! Lk 18:34 says “And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.” See it? Three times again (for absolute clarity; so there can be no mistake) scripture records that the twelve didn’t get it! We’re 18 chapters deep into Luke and the disciples have no jumbo clue that the Lord Jesus is going to be killed by any means whatever, let alone die on the cross (Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree). They’re not that far from the actual event and they still don’t know that He’s even going to die, let alone be resurrected. It gets better! The women come from the tomb (this is in the very last chapter of Luke!) to tell the disciples (the eleven and all the rest) what they’d been told by the two men in shining garments and relate to them the fact of the empty tomb and what does the scripture record? They rejoiced mightily that their sins had been forgiven and the resurrection proved it? No! Lk 24:11 says “their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.” Let’s make sure we’re reading the same thing here: “They Believed Them NOT!!” They still don’t know what’s happened and even after being with the Lord for over three years, after Him telling them face to face that He’ll be put to death and raised the third day, ‘they perceived not’, if you will. I wrote all that to ask you this one question: In Lk 9:6, before all that other stuff pointed out above takes place, it’s recorded of the twelve disciples that “they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere.” You want to tell me what gospel they were preaching? I know for a fact that they weren’t preaching the gospel of believing on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as all that’s necessary for salvation today because clear to the end of the book they didn’t even know He was going to die and after He did they didn’t believe the people that told them about His resurrection. What were they preaching that scripture records as “the gospel?” As I said, they couldn’t have been preaching the good news about the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ at Calvary. They couldn’t have even been preaching about His death, let alone His resurrection.
We’ll work on the throne of David thing later; this should last us quite a while on its own.
finney
PS We can do the same thing in Matthew, Mark and John and will if you need further evidence concerning what they preached and what we’re s’posed to be preaching. This ain’t some argument to win points for me; this is an argument to put you into grace alone, apart from works and the law. It’s not a game for me, bud, and we’ll talk as long as you want but I ain’t gonna spend a lot of time goin’ over the same ground again and again to no apparent avail. Tell me what they were preaching that the scripture records as “the gospel.”
Finney,
I understand the constraints of your schedule and only ask for the same leniency if I am unable to respond in a timely fashion.
I understand your point: the disciples (the twelve and the seventy) went out to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom; at that time, they did not understand that the Lord had to die; therefore, when Paul sums up the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15 as being integrally concerned with the death and resurrection of the Lord, he must therefore be speaking of a different gospel.
This is the answer to your cavil: the disciples were in fact bringing the Good News of the Kingdom to the tribes of Israel — that is, the Good News that the Messianic Kingdom prophesied in the scriptures had come to them, and was at the point of breaking in. They did not yet realize, although they should have, that this Kingdom could only come by the passion and resurrection of Christ, for the same scriptures also prophesied that the Christ would die, be buried, be raised again the third day, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name to all the nations. So then, the gospel that the Kingdom had drawn nigh to them and was about to break upon them was the same gospel that Jesus would suffer and die for sinners, and be raised again for their justification, because that was the prophesied way in which this Kingdom would indeed draw nigh to them, and break in unto them. So then, when they announced the gospel that this Kingdom had come, they did not understand the necessary implications of that good news, until after the resurrection the Christ gave them his Spirit, to open their eyes.
What this means is that, the good news which was prophesied everywhere in the OT scriptures, of the coming of the Kingdom by the death and resurrection of Christ, was not understood in previous generations, until the apostles received the revelation of the mystery of Christ. Then, those things which were hidden in shadows and types, they began to proclaim to all the world with plainness. They took the same piece of good news (the gospel) that the seventy went out to proclaim, namely, that the time of God’s prophesied Kingdom had come — but they showed what that meant far more clearly, since they had been given wisdom to understand the OT scriptures and the things that our Lord taught while he was on earth, but which, before his resurrection, the disciples were unable to understand. That Jesus taught the gospel but the disciples did not clearly understand it is taught in the passages you mention, as well as others; that they would understand it after the resurrection, when he gave them his Spirit is taught in some of the same passages, as well as in John chapters 14-16; that, after the resurrection he did in fact open their eyes to understand the gospel that he had taught before and that he had prophesied everywhere in the OT scriptures is taught most particularly in the end of Luke 24 and also in Acts 2; that the gospel which the apostles had been taught before but did not understand was the same good news of the Kingdom proclaimed later in the NT is taught in such places as Acts 28:31; and that this gospel message is the same message that the OT prophets everywhere taught, of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord is most evidently taught in places such as 1 Cor. 15, unmistakably at the end of Romans 16, and in many other such places where the “mystery” revealed to Paul is according to the OT scriptures, the full significance of which had been hidden as with a veil from the eyes of everyone until the Spirit came after the resurrection of Christ. So then, the Gospel of the Kingdom preached by Christ and announced by the seventy was the same gospel (viz., of the death and resurrection of Christ which would bring in the Kingdom) that the OT proclaimed, and the same gospel that the apostles later proclaimed, when they had finally been granted wisdom to understand it more fully after their reception of the Spirit.
OK, I clearly understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think you can back it up. I’m going to quote a brief passage from your response and then I’m going to ask you a question related to it. Here goes: ” They did not yet realize, although they should have, that this Kingdom could only come by the passion and resurrection of Christ, for the same scriptures also prophesied that the Christ would die, be buried, be raised again the third day, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name to all the nations.”
Why should they have realized that? What I’m after here is where would they have gotten those particular details from the 39 books of what we commonly refer to as the ‘Old Testament?’ They didn’t have anything else, you know.
I’m usin’ asterisks where I’d like to use an italicized type.
The Apostles (I assume you refer to the 11 or the 12 after Matthias) never preached that. Peter in Acts never once mentions anything like what you’re saying and they didn’t even know about the universal application of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord ’til Paul told ‘em about it. You can say all day long that they were preachin’ about His resurrection for our justification but that’s not why Peter says He was raised from the dead, and he’s speakin’ by the Holy Ghost! Peter doesn’t say a thing about His resurrection being any thing other than a sign and that He (the Lord Jesus) was raised to sit on David’s throne. That’s it! There ain’t no salvation message there, just Peter blaming the Jews for killing their Messiah. I don’t know where you get this; somebody teach it to you, is it part of your church’s tradition or what? I don’t get how you can say these guys were preachin’ anything having to do with the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord when scripture clearly records that they knew nothing about it and didn’t believe it after the fact.
Be that as it may, what I’d really like to see is your evidence that they should have known of these things from the OT.
I’ll be here this week but next I won’t and I’m leavin’ the ‘puter behind purposely, so startin’ ’bout Sunday comin’ or so I’ll not be responding to anything you (or anybody else, for that matter) write.
Hunh! I didn’t realize that puttin’ asterisks around a word would cause it to show up italicized. Cool! Here’s something I wanted to add: It doesn’t matter what I say about any particular issue here nor does it matter what you say. Now I don’t mean we shouldn’t tear into this or that what we say or believe doesn’t matter, what I mean is that it’s what the Bible says that matters. Not our interpretation of what it means, not our reading into it stuff that isn’t there, not our failing to read stuff that is there, but what it just flat out says. Wanted to add that, just so’s you’d know where I’m comin’ from that way.
“Why should they have realized that?”
To answer your question, I will quote our Lord, who addresses that very question, rebuking the slowness of his disciples for not believing those very things from the OT:
“How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”
A little later he expounded further: “‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
True to our Lord’s words, the disciples, who finally understood what they should already have understood, that the OT everywhere did proclaim the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord, did in fact become witnesses, and took that message of him to all the nations.
So, just as I mentioned to you, Paul, who proclaimed the death and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, declared that this message was directly from the OT scriptures (see Rom. 16:25-27); and also Peter, who preached the same gospel (see Gal. 2:7-8), declared that the prophets all wrote things about the Christ — his suffering and later glories — that were intended for all of us, concerning our salvation which comes by faith (1 Pet. 1:8-12). This is what all the apostles taught.
Finney, the things I’ve said were all proclaimed directly by our Lord, and repeated by his apostles. I gave you a list of scriptures at the end of my last post that clearly establish all of those points; and when you show careful interaction with those scriptures, I will give you more. I perceive that your eyes are still hidden to those clear and strong themes of the NT, that the Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, and the salvation which comes from faith in him, was all according to the OT scriptures. I pray that God will open your eyes to the glorious truths of his gospel.
As you say, “it’s what the Bible says that matters”; therefore, I feel it would be unwise to continue the discussion until you’ve dealt with the passages I’ve given that establish all those points. Then, if the need remains, we can adduce many further such passages.
That’s your post of August 10, 2010 at 10:00 am? I see there’re various verses or chunks of ‘em referred to throughout your missive but I didn’t notice a list of ‘em, so for now I’m just gonna work on the assumption that you’re talkin’ ’bout the scripture references scattered throughout the last paragraph of the aforementioned post. If there’s a list somewhere that I didn’t get that differs from the scripture references I’m talkin’ ’bout please let me know. It’ll take some time; don’t expect to hear from me for at least a couple of weeks. I’ll check this site tomorrow to see if you got this and to see if I’m correct in my assumptions concerning the verses you’re talkin’ ’bout but after that, as I said, I’ll be out for a while. Part of that’ll be this week coming where I won’t have a ‘puter.
2 Timothy 3
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
there was no New Testament at the time this was wrote…the Holy Scriptures Paul was referring to were the Old Testament and that what was contained in them was sufficient to make anyone wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.