ECT Which Gospel Preached During the Tribulation Period?

[Jerry Shugart]

Acts 2:23 speaks of Christ crucified. Together with the Hebrew knowledge of O.T. Scriptures, the Jews would understand the necessity of His blood offering to remit sins.

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23).

Speaking of the fact that the Lord Jesus was put to death on the Cross is NOT the same thing as saying that "Christ died for our sins."

As I said previously you really have no business on this thread since your knowledge of these things is so limited.

there is only one gospel message, and Jesus Himself taught what that message must contain.

despite what I have shown you previously you still cling to your ignorant ideas. Let me go through this again and perhaps you will understand the obvious this time. According to you we must believe that before the Cross the Twelve were preaching a gospel that declares that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor.15:3).

Here we see them preaching a gospel:

"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" (Lk.9:2,6).

However, that is impossible that they were preaching that "Christ died for sins" because they did not even know that the Lord Jesus was to die:

"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" (Lk.18:31-34).

How could they be telling anyone that Christ died for their sins since they did not even know that He was going to die?

Would you put your mind in gear and answer that question?

 

[Nang]

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23).

Speaking of the fact that the Lord Jesus was put to death on the Cross is NOT the same thing as saying that "Christ died for our sins."

As I said previously you really have no business on this thread since your knowledge of these things is so limited.

despite what I have shown you previously you still cling to your ignorant ideas. Let me go through this again and perhaps you will understand the obvious this time. According to you we must believe that before the Cross the Twelve were preaching a gospel that declares that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor.15:3).

Here we see them preaching a gospel:

"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" (Lk.9:2,6).

However, that is impossible that they were preaching that "Christ died for sins" because they did not even know that the Lord Jesus was to die:

"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" (Lk.18:31-34).

How could they be telling anyone that Christ died for their sins since they did not even know that He was going to die?

Would you put your mind in gear and answer that question?

The pre-cross question about the ministry of disciples is not relevant to the post-cross commission outlining the ministry of the Apostles and the specific gospel message those witnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ were given to preach.

You are grabbing at straws and resorting to nasty insults in order to keep from admitting you are wrong.

Very wrong . . .

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The pre-cross question about the ministry of disciples is not relevant to the post-cross commission outlining the ministry of the Apostles and the specific gospel message those witnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ were given to preach.

You are grabbing at straws and resorting to nasty insults in order to keep from admitting you are wrong.

Very wrong . . .

Why don't you answer my question since you think that you know it all? Here it is again:

How could they be telling anyone that Christ died for their sins since they did not even know that He was going to die?

 

[godrulz]

Why don't you answer my question since you think that you know it all? Here it is again:

How could they be telling anyone that Christ died for their sins since they did not even know that He was going to die?

Jesus knew he was going to die and told people so (Jn. 2). Peter knew he had died. Paul was not the first to clue in that Jesus died and rose from the dead or that faith in Christ alone leads to eternal life apart from works.

 

[Nang]

Why don't you answer my question since you think that you know it all? Here it is again:

How could they be telling anyone that Christ died for their sins since they did not even know that He was going to die?

Sinners are brought to faith by hearing the word of God promising salvation from sin, death, and the devil through the Savior provided by God . . . not always by hearing a set "gospel" formula, such as I Corinthians 15:1-5.

For example, Abraham was saved and declared righteous by faith in the covenant promises and grace shown to him by God. Genesis 22:9-18

And Abraham is said to the spiritual father of all believers in Christ. Romans 4:16-18; 20-22.

Did God proclaim to Abraham, a "formula gospel" such as I Corinthians 15:1-5 has become to some, or did God provide Abraham with faith to believe in the grace of God, which included the promise of a Savior?

Your question is simply not relevant and does nothing to support your very bad theology.

The pre-cross message was the promised, redemptive Savior and the provision of His everlasting, spiritual kingdom rule.

Any who received the grace of God and the provision of faith to believe this message, were saved, just as surely as those post-cross were saved by the revelation that this promised Savior had, by necessity, suffered death on the cross, and in three days overcame death to resurrect back to the Father.

Plus, there was Jesus Christ's revelation and teaching of Jonah being in the belly of the great fish for three days and nights, which you fail to mention. Christ Himself revealed this to be the Gospel message that brought many to repentance, and which sign of death and resurrection He intended to fulfill, long before He went to the cross. Luke 11:29-32; John 2:19

There was and is only one Gospel of Grace, and it has always been centered upon the fulfillment of Godly Covenants to provide a Savior from the seed of woman, who would destroy sin, death, and the devil.

Your attempts to deny this biblical truth are very unconvincing, and they reveal only a stubborn and sinful unbelief of God's words and purposes that abides in your soul.

In reality, you deny the Gospel of Grace altogether.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Sinners are brought to faith by hearing the word of God promising salvation from sin, death, and the devil through the Savior provided by God . . . not always by hearing a set "gospel" formula, such as I Corinthians 15:1-5.

So you finally admit that the "gospel" which Paul speaks of at 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 is NOT the same gospel which was preached prior to the Cross?

For my efforts to help you understand this simple truth you tell me:

There was and is only one Gospel of Grace, and it has always been centered upon the fulfillment of Godly Covenants to provide a Savior from the seed of woman, who would destroy sin, death, and the devil.

Your attempts to deny this biblical truth are very unconvincing, and they reveal only a stubborn and sinful unbelief of God's words and purposes that abides in your soul.

In reality, you deny the Gospel of Grace altogether.

You are ungrateful and it seems to me that you care nothing about the truth and you are only interested in winning an argument.

You make a serious accusation against me, a false accusation that I "deny the Gospel of Grace altogether."

Now it is time to back up your accusation and quote anything which I said that even hints that I deny the gospel of grace altogether.

You shouldn't make such serious accusations against anyone unless you are prepared to back up that accusation. Where is your proof?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jesus knew he was going to die and told people so (Jn. 2). Peter knew he had died. Paul was not the first to clue in that Jesus died and rose from the dead or that faith in Christ alone leads to eternal life apart from works.

In case you missed it, the subject is what the Twelve knew PRIOR to the Cross.

Of course Peter knew that faith alone leads to eternal life and he also knew that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. But it was Paul who made known the "purpose" of the Cross, that "Christ died for our sins."

That was NOT preached on the day of Pentecost. Even the Acts 2 dispensationalists understand that the "gospel of grace" was not preached by anyone prior to Paul.

The second President of Dallas Theological Seminary, John F. Walvoord, wrote that "The gospel of Grace was given to Paul as a 'new' revelation" (Walvoord, "The Preincarnate Son of God", Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct.-Dec. 1947, Vol. 104, # 416, p.422).

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founding President of Dallas Theological Seminary, attempts to explain why the "gospel of grace" was not preached on the Day of Pentecost:

"Even after His resurrection and forty days of instruction concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3) they questioned Him as to the realization of the nation's hope: 'Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?' (Acts 1:6)...He does not tell them their kingdom is abandoned, or merged into a spiritual conquest of all nations: He plainly infers that every promise of God is still intact; but assigns to them the immediate ministry of the new gospel age. Even this they failed to comprehend" [emphasis added] (Chafer, The Church Which is His Body).

Imagine that! The Lord assigned to the Twelve the "immediate ministry of the new gospel age" but they were unable to understand the responsibilities assigned to them in regard to the "new gospel age." Therefore that explains why that "new gospel" was not preached on the day of Pentecost. We are supposed to believe Chafer's explanation despite the fact that the Lord had assured them that He would send the Holy Spirit unto them to guide them unto all truth:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you...when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth" (Jn.16:7,13).

Charles Feinberg wrote in Bibliotheca Sacra that it was Paul who revealed these things:

"After the resurrection of Christ the disciples were reconciled to the fact of His death, but it was Paul who, far from conceiving of the death of Christ as an untimely end of His work, showed that it was the consummation of all God's purposes for the salvation of man" [emphasis added] (Feinberg, "Pauline Theology Relative to the Death and Resurrection of Christ" Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1938, Vol. 95, Number 379, p.292).

 

[Nang]

So you finally admit that the "gospel" which Paul speaks of at 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 is NOT the same gospel which was preached prior to the Cross?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is an "everlasting gospel" that cannot and should not be limited to a simplistic formula based only upon I Corinthians 15:1-5.

The entirety of the Holy Scriptures contains, expresses, and conveys the saving Gospel of Grace in Jesus Christ.

You make a serious accusation against me, a false accusation that I "deny the Gospel of Grace altogether."

Now it is time to back up your accusation and quote anything which I said that even hints that I deny the gospel of grace altogether.

You shouldn't make such serious accusations against anyone unless you are prepared to back up that accusation. Where is your proof?

Your denial of the sole Gospel of Grace will be made more evident and proven on Judgment Day, unless God brings you to your senses and grants you repentance from your false beliefs and false teachings.

Nang

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is an "everlasting gospel" that cannot and should not be limited to a simplistic formula based only upon I Corinthians 15:1-5.

So was Paul wrong to put that gospel into a "simplistic forumula"?

The entirety of the Holy Scriptures contains, expresses, and conveys the saving Gospel of Grace in Jesus Christ.

The truths concerning the "grace" of God and what made that grace possible was not always revealed. That is why Paul says:

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).

Paul says "but now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known."

That can only mean that in the past that truth was not made known, much less the truth that reveals exactly how it is made possible for the believer to receive this righteousness from God--he is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

That "good news" is the gospel of grace.

Your denial of the sole Gospel of Grace will be made more evident and proven on Judgment Day, unless God brings you to your senses and grants you repentance from your false beliefs and false teachings.

The gospel which Paul began preaching when he went to the Gentiles is the "sole" Gospel of Grace. I never said that there was more than one gospel of grace.

Despite this you make another false accusation against me. You just make up false accusations against me as fast as you can. It is you who needs to be brought to repentance.

Earlier you accused me of denying the gospel of grace and you provided absolutely no evidence to support your accusation and now you falsely accuse me of denying the sole Gospel of Grace. I am sure that you have no evidence to back up that false accusation because I never said that there is more than one gospel of grace.

 

[Zeke]

It was as Christocentric as Paul's.

The disciples were slow about various things, even after Jesus had been with them and teaching them. Jesus knew about His death and resurrection. He called men to follow Him, as did Paul. A fuller Church Age understanding does not mean Jesus and the disciples were clueless or had a different way to come to God apart from the person and work of Christ.

I thought they had the gift of the Spirit, but you say they where slow? maybe it was Gods plan to withhold the fact that the uncircumcisied could also be saved while dealing with the circumcision.
The Gentiles were brought into make them jealous Romans 11:11.

The gospel was strickly understood by the apostles to be under the guide lines of the law, Peters remarks in Acts 10:14, and Acts 10:28, also makes the case that the gospel was't yet within the free gift message that blossomed with Sauls ministery, Ephesians 2:8, wasn't the message in the early Acts period.

Acts 21:20, shows the time period belief of the Jerusalem church! and goes along with James 2:24, which contradicts Galatians 3:8, and Galatians 3:11, James needed to see outward proof of his fellow circumcised bretherns faith, and was the reason he told Paul to walk orderly in the law Acts 21:24. Those from James where the reason Peter was afraid, and needed rebuked Galatians 2:11,12, Paul puts those zealous of the law under the term sons of hagar in Galatians 4:21, and Galatians 4:25.
Paul was like them concerning the law Acts 22:3, but was now preaching grace without the works of the law which Galatians shows.

You should be shaving your head, and going through purification rituals if you think all the epistles are doctrinal truth for you! but you like most pretend the contradiction don't exist.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I thought they had the gift of the Spirit, but you say they where slow? ...... but you like most pretend the contradiction don't exist.

.
1. you thought 'they had the gift of the Spirit', which only goes to show you don't know Hebrew. they didn't.
2. re 'you say'.... you say, he say, she say.. no matter. so what?
3. 'pretend the contradiction don't exist.' . . no matter. so what?
.
.
the flesh / fleshly mind / worldly experience in toto for them and even more for us alive on earth today
is so completely devoid of truth experience from conception on through birth through pre-school through school, through higher education, through politics, shopping, tv, medico, et al etc etc etc ad nauseum.....
that it takes a long long long long long time for someone to be free.
.
it is a little, a tiny little bit, at a time to learn that EVERYTHING you knew was wrong before, that EVERYTHING anyone taught you was false(especially in the rcc, for example), that EVERYONE is wrong...
even when you start to learn truth from Abba(the only one Who is able to set you free from false/fake life) it is a little at a time over a very very very very long time. almost no one holds out to the end, very few people even bother to hold out for one full year, let alone 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, or more.
so , almost no one gets healed or remains immersed in Yahshua's Life... too many peple around them/you can't possibly comprehend nor begin to understand a life that is not a lie. they expect you to go along with them (whether they are your family, neighbors, church, politico group, school, whoever - doesn't matter, they want to keep you with them away from the Light, away from the Truth that can set you free)...

 

[godrulz]

Jesus knew what He was talking about whether men did or not. The gospel is based on the cross. The reality of the cross/Christ is the foundation and PRECEDES Paul (for those who think Paul was the first sinner saved?!). Paul fleshed out a fuller understanding of the truths of the gospel, but believers before him benefited from its reality/truth with or without perfect understanding. We are saved by Christ, not gnosticism. Peter could not be saved in a different way than Paul based on the cross, the crux of the gospel. Transitional understanding or issues relating to eschatological, national Israel should not undermine this. Jerry's MAD is less off than neo-MAD (his term), but no ultradisp view is the correct one. Covenantalism is also amiss, so we are left with some form of a moderate disp view.

 

[john w]

Jesus knew what He was talking about whether men did or not. The gospel is based on the cross. The reality of the cross/Christ is the foundation and PRECEDES Paul (for those who think Paul was the first sinner saved?!). Paul fleshed out a fuller understanding of the truths of the gospel, but believers before him benefited from its reality/truth with or without perfect understanding. We are saved by Christ, not gnosticism. Peter could not be saved in a different way than Paul based on the cross, the crux of the gospel. Transitional understanding or issues relating to eschatological, national Israel should not undermine this. Jerry's MAD is less off than neo-MAD (his term), but no ultradisp view is the correct one. Covenantalism is also amiss, so we are left with some form of a moderate disp view.

For over the 10th time:
"Peter could not be saved in a different way than Paul based on the cross, the crux of the gospel"-clown rulz.

You asserted that Peter trusted the dbr-including the resurrection. Fine, now answer my questions, "scholar:"


When was Peter saved? "1 Cor. 15 makes the resurrection of Christ core gospel truth"-godrulz


Did he, or did he not, trust 1 Cor. 15:1-4, and when was that? Did he trust the resurrection? When?Answer this question, since it is re. "core gospel truth":

If a person denies the resurrection, does not believe it occurred(part of "the work of Christ"-your words) is that "godless unbelief"(your words)?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Paul fleshed out a fuller understanding of the truths of the gospel, but believers before him benefited from its reality/truth with or without perfect understanding.

Yes, Paul received a fuller understanding than did the other Apostles directly from the Lord Jesus.

When do you suppose he received this fuller understanding from the Lord Jesus?

Covenantalism is also amiss, so we are left with some form of a moderate disp view.

I have already quoted other dispensationalists with a moderate view, and they all agree that it was Paul who first preached the gospel of grace. You want more? In a Bible tract entitled Paul's Gospel Acts 2 dispensationalist William R. Newell wrote:

"The twelve Apostles (Matthias by Divine appointment taking the place of Judas) were to be the 'witnesses' (Acts 1:22) of Christ's resurrection--that is, of the fact of it. They were not to unfold fully the doctrine of it, as Paul was...But unto none of these twelve Apostles did God reveal 'the great body of doctrine for this age'...The great doctrines that Paul reveals may be outlined as follows...The fact and the Scripturalness of righteousness on the free gift principle--that is, of Divine righteousness, separate from all man’s doings, conferred upon man as a free gift from God" (Newell, Paul's Gospel).

After reading this Bible tract Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founding President of Dallas Theological Seminary, said:

"This is a great tract, a clear treatise on the truth of God for this age. The author was one of America's greatest Bible expositors. It glorifies the Savior as the author desired it to do. It should be distributed by hundreds of thousands" (Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1994, Volume 7:12).

Charles Ryrie, Professor Emeritus at Dallas Theological Seminary for many years, wrote the following:

"The apostle Paul was principally, though not exclusively, the agent of the revelation of the grace of God for this dispensation. Christ Himself brought the grace of God to mankind in His incarnation (Titus 2:11), but Paul was the one who expounded it" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.56).

These men are not just run of the mill Acts 2 dispensationalists but instead the leaders of the Acts 2 movement in the 20th century. No one will dispute this. And they agree with me in regard to the facts concerning Paul being the first to preach the gospel of grace.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Jesus knew what He was talking about whether men did or not.

I should hope so.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I should hope so.

LOL!

 

[godrulz]

LOL!

When I read these quotes (and what else did these authors say?) it only shows that Paul doctrinally developed the truths of the gospel unlike any other. This is not proof that he had a different gospel than Peter or John after the cross. There is one cross, one gospel after the cross. OT and pre-cross issues are not what I am disputing, just two NT gospels after the cross. The authors you quote do not support MAD. This is like JWs quoting trinitarians to disprove the trinity (misquote)?!

 

[beloved57]

The word ordained

The word ordained

Another word in the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom, denoting God's Sovereignty is the word ordain !

Websters: To decree, to appoint, to arrange, to prepare !

This goes for salvation and damnation, all the counsel of God !

Jude 1:

4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

This was written in the counsels of old !

acts 13:

48And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

The enemy will twist this truth and say as many as believed were ordained to eternal life !

eph 2:

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

These works were prepared of God for certain ones before the world began.

1 cor 2:

7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

hab 1:

12Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When I read these quotes (and what else did these authors say?) it only shows that Paul doctrinally developed the truths of the gospel unlike any other. This is not proof that he had a different gospel than Peter or John after the cross.

You not only pervert the teaching of the Scriptures but now to stay in practice you pervert the words of the Acts 2 dispensationalists.

John F. Walvoord, wrote that "The gospel of Grace was given to Paul as a 'new' revelation" (Walvoord, "The Preincarnate Son of God", Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct.-Dec. 1947, Vol. 104, # 416, p.422).

The "gospel of grace" was given to Paul as a NEW REVELATION!

But you say that this is not proof that Paul's gospel is different from the gospel which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost!

You prove that you will say anything to cling to your mistaken views, no matter how ridiculous.

Don't you ever tire of playing the fool?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Don't you ever tire of playing the fool?

Great question.


You and I disagree on several things, but I can respect you Jerry. You are very good at what you do, making biblical arguments. If godrulz would at least do that much, I could respect him.