The Bible Fact of Different Gospels

[Right Divider]

The Bible Fact of Different Gospels​

https://graceambassadors.com/midacts/the-bible-fact-of-different-gospels

Justin Johnson

“No intelligent student of the Scriptures believes, or teaches, that there is only one gospel in the Scriptures…” – J.C. O’Hair. Unsearchable Riches of Christ. p 131.​

This statement describing the level of Bible study in the past century would now be considered offensive or shocking to the average Christian.

What has diminished is not the truth of O’Hair’s statement, but the number of intelligent Bible students.

What passes as Bible study today is opening the Bible and applying any verse to our present situation or preaching agenda.

Cursed be the context! Let the facts be gone!

If any work is put into this form of foolish Bible “study” it is in twisting the verse out of its context and spinning it to meet a particular belief system or thought.

Intelligent Bible Study

Intelligent Bible study requires collecting the facts of scripture and then letting the context make connections. Interpretation and application come after collecting of facts.

Depending on the facts of the matter, there may be little personal application of passages where we are not in the context.

No intelligent student of the Scripture would refuse to hear the facts before making an interpretation or application.

The facts are that the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God are different messages.

There is no deep interpretation to this conclusion, it requires only fact collection.

Fact #1: The gospel Paul preached includes Christ dying for our sins, his burial, and resurrection.

“…I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, … By which also ye are saved. … how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures;” – 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

Fact #2: Christ sent his disciples to preach the gospel of the kingdom.

“Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick…And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.” – Luke 9:1-6

Fact #3: The twelve disciples did not understand the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ while they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom.

“Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and 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. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.” – Luke 18:31-34

Conclusion based on the facts: The gospel of the kingdom and Paul’s gospel are different messages.

There is zero room for interpretation, and zero application in this conclusion, and yet it is rejected if not extremely offensive to a majority of Christians in the 21st century.

Conclusion #2: Christians in the 21st century are unaware of Bible facts regarding the gospels.

Intelligent Bible study collects the facts first.

Intelligent Bible study will lead you to confront mid-Acts Pauline dispensational right division.

No intelligent student of the Scriptures believes, or teaches, that there is only one gospel in the Scriptures.

The facts bear this out. No interpretation is needed.

If anyone says otherwise, then there is good reason to doubt their ability to study or their intelligence.

Let the dumb be dumb. Let the facts speak!

Published: July 5, 2014
Last Modified: August 18, 2018

 

[glorydaz]

That’s one view.
Here’s another one, but it requires the focus be on the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of Paul.

Jesus stated, in John 3:16 “whosoever believeth”.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

​

Then after preaching about the kingdom where they were to love and serve one another, our Lord went to the cross. That was the suffering servant, which we are also called to be by the apostle Paul. Coincidence? No.

Phil. 2:3-5​

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.​

Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:​

Col. 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; 13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. 14 And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.​

​

Paul is preaching the kingdom gospel to believers. Paul is preaching Kingdom living. The Kingdom of God is within you.

When Jesus went up to heaven, He left behind his teachings on kingdom principles. Love God and love your neighbor. We are to do just that. Jesus said so, Paul said so, and Peter says the same. That kingdom mentality is a matter of sanctification, not salvation. Instructions left behind on how to be righteous.

I’m quite pleased you brought this up. Now the kingdom plan is not a foggy future mist. I think when Jesus ascended into heaven, and the apostles stood and watched Him go, He already had a plan to send the Apostle Paul to elaborate on His John 3:16 statement. I just learned that Paul was the first to write his letters. The others were still waiting for His return.

I have no doubt that the Lord prompted the Gospel writers to go write down what they had seen, because the Truth spoken by our Lord while He was here among us are pearls of wisdom to live by.

On that note, I can only add, Justin could use a bit of kingdom mentality….he’s lacking grace if he wrote that last bit.

​

​

 

[DAN P]

That’s one view.
Here’s another one, but it requires the focus be on the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of Paul.

Jesus stated, in John 3:16 “whosoever believeth”.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

​

Then after preaching about the kingdom where they were to love and serve one another, our Lord went to the cross. That was the suffering servant, which we are also called to be by the apostle Paul. Coincidence? No.

Phil. 2:3-5​

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.​

Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:​

​

Col. 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; 13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. 14 And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.​

​

Paul is preaching the kingdom gospel to believers. Paul is preaching Kingdom living. The Kingdom of God is within you.

When Jesus went up to heaven, He left behind his teachings on kingdom principles. Love God and love your neighbor. We are to do just that. Jesus said so, Paul said so, and Peter says the same. That kingdom mentality is a matter of sanctification, not salvation. Instructions left behind on how to be righteous.

I’m quite pleased you brought this up. Now the kingdom plan is not a foggy future mist. I think when Jesus ascended into heaven, and the apostles stood and watched Him go, He already had a plan to send the Apostle Paul to elaborate on His John 3:16 statement. I just learned that Paul was the first to write his letters. The others were still waiting for His return.

I have no doubt that the Lord prompted the Gospel writers to go write down what they had seen, because the Truth spoken by our Lord while He was here among us are pearls of wisdom to live by.

On that note, I can only add, Justin could use a bit of kingdom mentality….he’s lacking grace if he wrote that last bit.

​

​

and I have to agree with Right Divider on this issue .

if you see the Greek word nomos // law is aways speaking about the Law of Moses , no ??

dan p

 

[glorydaz]

and I have to agree with Right Divider on this issue .

if you see the Greek word nomos // law is aways speaking about the Law of Moses , no ??

dan p

I couldn’t figure out what RD was trying to say with that post from Grace Ambassadors. I found it prideful and offensive, truth be told.

He’s talking about about there being two gospels, and I’m simply trying to explain that it’s the same Gospel being sent to mankind. Unless you look from a kingdom perspective that fact will be missed. A kingdom perspective as was intended from the beginning.

But, I always enjoy hearing your thoughts, Dan, so please join in the discussion.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I couldn’t figure out what RD was trying to say with that post from Grace Ambassadors. I found it prideful and offensive, truth be told.

He’s talking about about there being two gospels, and I’m simply trying to explain that it’s the same Gospel being sent to mankind. Unless you look from a kingdom perspective that fact will be missed. A kingdom perspective as was intended from the beginning.

But, I always enjoy hearing your thoughts, Dan, so please join in the discussion.

Talk about confirmation bias and begging the question...

 

[Right Divider]

Talk about confirmation bias and begging the question...

Bible facts just do not inform some people.

 

[glorydaz]

Talk about confirmation bias and begging the question...

I realize you guys have your canned responses, and that must mean something, but how about you explain your comment in a simple and succinct manner?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I realize you guys have your canned responses,

That wasn't a canned response.

and that must mean something, but how about you explain your comment in a simple and succinct manner?

If I present you with an image that looks like a rabbit from one perspective, and a duck from the other, and all you can see is the duck, it's not going to matter how much I explain to you that the image shows a rabbit, until you shift your perspective. Until you do so, you will not be able to see the rabbit, and will continue to insist that the image only shows a duck.

Your post was, in its entirety, begging the question and confirmation bias.

 

[Derf]

That wasn't a canned response.



If I present you with an image that looks like a rabbit from one perspective, and a duck from the other, and all you can see is the duck, it's not going to matter how much I explain to you that the image shows a rabbit, until you shift your perspective. Until you do so, you will not be able to see the rabbit, and will continue to insist that the image only shows a duck.

Your post was, in its entirety, begging the question and confirmation bias.

Are you saying you cannot convince us of your point until we are already convinced of your point? You sound like a Calvinist.

 

[Derf]

and I have to agree with Right Divider on this issue .

if you see the Greek word nomos // law is aways speaking about the Law of Moses , no ??

dan p

No.
Galatians 6:2 KJV — Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Not to mention:
Romans 2:14 KJV — For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are you saying you cannot convince us of your point until we are already convinced of your point? You sound like a Calvinist.

No, I'm saying I cannot convince you of my position if you are not willing to even understand it.

It's a refusal on your part.

 

[Clete]

The Bible Fact of Different Gospels​

https://graceambassadors.com/midacts/the-bible-fact-of-different-gospels

Justin Johnson

“No intelligent student of the Scriptures believes, or teaches, that there is only one gospel in the Scriptures…” – J.C. O’Hair. Unsearchable Riches of Christ. p 131.​

This statement describing the level of Bible study in the past century would now be considered offensive or shocking to the average Christian.

What has diminished is not the truth of O’Hair’s statement, but the number of intelligent Bible students.

What passes as Bible study today is opening the Bible and applying any verse to our present situation or preaching agenda.

Cursed be the context! Let the facts be gone!

If any work is put into this form of foolish Bible “study” it is in twisting the verse out of its context and spinning it to meet a particular belief system or thought.

Intelligent Bible Study

Intelligent Bible study requires collecting the facts of scripture and then letting the context make connections. Interpretation and application come after collecting of facts.

Depending on the facts of the matter, there may be little personal application of passages where we are not in the context.

No intelligent student of the Scripture would refuse to hear the facts before making an interpretation or application.

The facts are that the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God are different messages.

There is no deep interpretation to this conclusion, it requires only fact collection.

Fact #1: The gospel Paul preached includes Christ dying for our sins, his burial, and resurrection.


Fact #2: Christ sent his disciples to preach the gospel of the kingdom.


Fact #3: The twelve disciples did not understand the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ while they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom.


Conclusion based on the facts: The gospel of the kingdom and Paul’s gospel are different messages.

There is zero room for interpretation, and zero application in this conclusion, and yet it is rejected if not extremely offensive to a majority of Christians in the 21st century.

Conclusion #2: Christians in the 21st century are unaware of Bible facts regarding the gospels.

Intelligent Bible study collects the facts first.

Intelligent Bible study will lead you to confront mid-Acts Pauline dispensational right division.

No intelligent student of the Scriptures believes, or teaches, that there is only one gospel in the Scriptures.

The facts bear this out. No interpretation is needed.

If anyone says otherwise, then there is good reason to doubt their ability to study or their intelligence.

Let the dumb be dumb. Let the facts speak!

Published: July 5, 2014
Last Modified: August 18, 2018

Excellent post!

Of course the modern conception of bible "study" goes well beyond something as obvious as there being more than one gospel. It is literally the difference between objective and subjective bible study, if the later can even be rightly referred to as "study" in the first place. Many, if not most, Christian give lip service to the existence of "absolute truth" and most would also at least verbally acknowledge that the bible is objectively true and yet this almost totally subjective method of reading, teaching and apply the scripture to the issues we deal with from day to day is in direct opposition and even open contradiction to such beliefs.

 

[Derf]

No, I'm saying I cannot convince you of my position if you are not willing to even understand it.

It's a refusal on your part.

I think I do understand, but it is inconsistent with scripture. (Surely you can understand MY position here.)

 

[glorydaz]

I think I do understand, but it is inconsistent with scripture. (Surely you can understand MY position here.)

I do understand his position, and have found it to be false. Too much of Scripture is discounted. That leads to a certain blindness concerning the Gospel of salvation. It is actually so simple even the slowest among us can hear.

 

[Idolater]

No.
Galatians 6:2 KJV — Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Not to mention:
Romans 2:14 KJV — For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

So there are different Gospels AND different Laws then.

 

[Clete]

So there are different Gospels AND different Laws then.

There certainly has been different laws. Isn't that sort of intuitively obvious?

• God commanded that the murderer Cain not be executed. Now He commands that all murderers should be executed - your Pope's unrighteous pleading to the contrary not withstanding.
• Before Abraham there was no circumcision at all, then circumcision was required to the point that God was on His way to kill Moses for having failed to circumcise his son and now if you permit yourself to be circumcised (for religious reasons) Christ will profit you nothing.
• There was a time when all animals were on the menu, then there was a time when certain animals were not permitted to be eaten and now its back to all animals being on the menu again.
• At one time it was a capital offense for anyone in Israel to work on a Sabbath day. Now there's good reason to be worried about one's salvation if you are submitting yourself to such regulations.

On and on I could go. The rules God has had for His followers has changed on more than one occasion and for incredibly wise reasons.

 

[Idolater]

There certainly has been different laws. Isn't that sort of intuitively obvious?

• God commanded that the murderer Cain not be executed. Now He commands that all murderers should be executed - your Pope's unrighteous pleading to the contrary not withstanding.

Pope Francis is not particularly skilled in nuance, true. Even though he basically changed nothing, he did in effect, exercise his Ex Cathedra power here, something that also the Pope in the 11th century exercised when he doubled down on the Filioque clause being added or accreted to the Creed. Except not that extreme of a change. Basically all he did was say, we shouldn't be thinking death penalty recklessly. Which is what the Church taught before, it just wasn't so clear before, and now it is very clear. This was basically no change, it was basically a nothing burger, but if you listen to certain non-canonical Roman Catholic branches, like those who call the Pope Bergolio, they excoriate the Pope over his change in emphasis in the Church's teaching on the death penalty in John Paul's Catechism.

• Before Abraham there was no circumcision at all, then circumcision was required to the point that God was on His way to kill Moses for having failed to circumcise his son and now if you permit yourself to be circumcised (for religious reasons) Christ will profit you nothing.
• There was a time when all animals were on the menu, then there was a time when certain animals were not permitted to be eaten and now its back to all animals being on the menu again.
• At one time it was a capital offense for anyone in Israel to work on a Sabbath day. Now there's good reason to be worried about one's salvation if you are submitting yourself to such regulations.

On and on I could go. The rules God has had for His followers has changed on more than one occasion and for incredibly wise reasons.

So it is clear that when Paul says Law or any other part of the New Testament, we need to ask, Which Law? Like the Law of Christ is not the Law of Moses, for example, right?

 

[Clete]

That’s one view.
Here’s another one, but it requires the focus be on the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of Paul.

If such were the correct path, there would be no need at all for Paul's ministry to exist.

I Corinthians 4:14 I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. 15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Therefore I [Paul] urge you, imitate me.​

And then again a few chapters later....

I Corinthians 11:1 Imitate me, just as I [Paul] also imitate Christ.​

​

Name me one other biblical author that says anything similar. You can't because there aren't any others.

Indeed, it is not even possible to be a Christian at all without focusing on Paul. If your focus was on Jesus' earthly ministry, you'd be a practicing Messianic Jew. You'd be worshiping on Saturday, avoiding pork at all costs and observing the entire rest of the law. As Jesus stated....

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.​

And as James taught...

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;​

The reason you aren't as zealous for the law as James' followers were is because of Paul and for no other reason whatsoever.

 

[Clete]

Pope Francis is not particularly skilled in nuance, true. Even though he basically changed nothing, he did in effect, exercise his Ex Cathedra power here, something that also the Pope in the 11th century exercised when he doubled down on the Filioque clause being added or accreted to the Creed. Except not that extreme of a change. Basically all he did was say, we shouldn't be thinking death penalty recklessly. Which is what the Church taught before, it just wasn't so clear before, and now it is very clear. This was basically no change, it was basically a nothing burger, but if you listen to certain non-canonical Roman Catholic branches, like those who call the Pope Bergolio, they excoriate the Pope over his change in emphasis in the Church's teaching on the death penalty in John Paul's Catechism.

The pre-1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church accepted the death penalty as a legitimate tool of justice when proportionate to the crime and necessary for public safety and did not explicitly challenge the morality of the death penalty itself. Then in 1997 Pope John Paul II added the "practically nonexistent" comment at the end of paragraph 2267....

1997 version, paragraph 2267:

“Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.​

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.​

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.'”​

Then in 2018 , Pope Francis revised the Catechism of the Catholic Church to state that the death penalty is "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person."

After 2018 (current version, paragraph 2267):

“Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.​

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.​

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,’ and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”​

Your idiot Pope thinks that he's wiser than God, Idolater! He thinks that God just somehow forgot that human beings were created in His own image when He commanded that murderers, kidnappers, rapists, adulterers and sexual perverts be executed upon conviction. The fool uses the exact reason God based the death penalty on as a reason to abolish it!

Genesis 9:6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.

So it is clear that when Paul says Law or any other part of the New Testament, we need to ask, Which Law? Like the Law of Christ is not the Law of Moses, for example, right?

Why limit such a question to the New Testament? Context is everything throughout the scripture.

 

[Derf]

So there are different Gospels AND different Laws then.

There's only one way to have eternal life, and that's through the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whatever law you think is going to save you, that's the one the DBR is good news about.