ECT Which Gospel Preached During the Tribulation Period?

[john w]

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)?!

"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." -Jughead


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-"one gospel." 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)?


You won't. Deceiver.

 

[godrulz]

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?

Acts 2 disps do not agree with your ultradisp views.

Paul personally received a new revelation of the gospel to him. He received fuller understanding, but it was not a different (heterodox) gospel than Acts 2. You are trying to make Acts 2 disps agree with MAD. I have read Walvoord and Pentecost and I don't think they would deny that there is one post-cross gospel or that the Church/Body of Christ began at Pentecost, not Acts 9, etc.

There are a variety of Acts 2 views (Ryrie, etc.), so I do not know exactly what everyone believes, but I am suspicious when you cut and paste a sentence or two to try to make an Acts 2 disp support a MAD one. You have been accused of not being MAD, just a form of Acts 2. I am not interested in mastering your particular views and I don't trust isolated quotes apart from their full contexts. The Commentary we both use does not teach MAD, so I don't know why you try to use it to support your views. Again, I confuse your MAD with neo-MAD, so cut me some slack. I am also not an Anderson expert, one of your bigger influences.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Acts 2 disps do not agree with your ultradisp views.

Many of the leaders agree with me about Paul being the first to preach the "gospel of grace."

Paul personally received a new revelation of the gospel to him. He received fuller understanding, but it was not a different (heterodox) gospel than Acts 2.

To you the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

You are trying to make Acts 2 disps agree with MAD.

All I have to do is to quote them. That is not having to "try" to make their teaching agree with me on this point. Walvoord says the exact same thing that I have said from the beginning:

"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).

What is it about his statement do you not understand?

if the Acts 2 people had a proper understanding of what constitutes the beginning of the present "dispensation of grace" they would have to admit that the present dispensation did not begin until the Mid Acts period.

But they remain in the dark on this point. They really have no understanding of the basic Biblical dispensational arrangement. For the details of their errors click on the following link:

http://twonewcovenants.com/errors/errors1.html

I have read Walvoord and Pentecost and I don't think they would deny that there is one post-cross gospel or that the Church/Body of Christ began at Pentecost, not Acts 9, etc.

Even though Walvoord said that the gospel of grace was given to Paul as a "new revelation"? Is he going to argue that that the "gospel of grace," which was a "new revelation," was the same gospel which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost?

Of course not!

When it comes to reasoning things through you have no ability.

 

[Jacob]

Many of the leaders agree with me about Paul being the first to preach the "gospel of grace."

To you the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

All I have to do is to quote them. That is not having to "try" to make their teaching agree with me on this point. Walvoord says the exact same thing that I have said from the beginning:

"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).

What is it about his statement do you not understand?

if the Acts 2 people had a proper understanding of what constitutes the beginning of the present "dispensation of grace" they would have to admit that the present dispensation did not begin until the Mid Acts period.

But they remain in the dark on this point. They really have no understanding of the basic Biblical dispensational arrangement. For the details of their errors click on the following link:

http://twonewcovenants.com/errors/errors1.html

Even though Walvoord said that the gospel of grace was given to Paul as a "new revelation"? Is he going to argue that that the "gospel of grace," which was a "new revelation," was the same gospel which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost?

Of course not!

When it comes to reasoning things through you have no ability.

It was "new" for everyone, not just Paul.

2 Corinthians 3:15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;

Peter did not speak of the resurrection that was going to come (before it happened?)... he spoke of what already happened.

Victory over sin and death in Jesus Christ!

Now, did the prophets fortell this? Yes or No. Who was God's grace a new revelation to? Do we put limits on God's grace? A new thing?!

 

[Zeke]

.
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)...

Yaba daba doo.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It was "new" for everyone, not just Paul.

But Paul was the first to receive it. And that did not happened until years after Peter had preached a gospel on the day of Pentecost.

That can only mean that the gospel which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost could not possibly be the "gospel of grace."

Do we put limits on God's grace? A new thing?!

There is no limits on the grace of God but it was not revealed until Paul. That explains his words when he says, "But now...has been made known":

"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).

 

[godrulz]

I give up. I can't make sense of Jerry's non-neo-MAD view (not that I am trying hard since I know there is only one post-cross gospel).

 

[Nang]

But Paul was the first to receive it. And that did not happened until years after Peter had preached a gospel on the day of Pentecost.

That can only mean that the gospel which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost could not possibly be the "gospel of grace."

There is no limits on the grace of God but it was not revealed until Paul. That explains his words when he says, "But now...has been made known":

"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).

This is just plain wrong.

Very wrong . . .

What gospel saved Abel, Seth, Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and all the N.T. saints prior to Paul's conversion?


It was the very Gospel of Grace proffered to Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:15) that promised a "Seed" from her body would destroy the devil and all ramifications of sin and death.

To believe these kinds of false Dispensationalist teachings, is to lose a majority of teachings from the Holy Scriptures.

Dispensationalists are very guilty of taking away from the Word of God. May God have mercy upon their souls!

Nang

 

[godrulz]

Dispensationalists are very guilty of taking away from the Word of God. May God have mercy upon their souls!

Nang

Dispensationalists vs Covenantalists do not need mercy on their souls since we both trust Christ alone for salvation?! Disps don't take away from the Word, just interpret it differently than you do (if anything, ultradisps add to the Word).

Rom. 4-5 shows that grace has always been the grounds for salvation with faith the condition for receiving it.

Acts 2 disp does not invent a second NT gospel of works, but MAD does (please don't lump us in with them). The issues are more corporate Israel vs Church, not individual salvation (all people must look to the grace of God to deal with our sin problem....whether looking forward to the Messiah or back on Him and His work on our behalf).

 

[The Graphite]

What gospel saved Abel, Seth, Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and all the N.T. saints prior to Paul's conversion?

It was the very Gospel of Grace proffered to Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:15) that promised a "Seed" from her body would destroy the devil and all ramifications of sin and death.

Nang

Nang, you probably think you have us right in your sights on this one... The pride is just oozing out of your pores (as is the case with most Calvinists like you). Well, let me ask you this:

Can you please point out to us where scripture says that Abraham believed THAT (a "Seed" from Eve's body would destroy the devil and all ramifications of sin and death) and it was accounted to him for righteousness?

Book, chapter verse? I wait with baited breath.

 

[godrulz]

Genesis 3 is the protoevangelium. It is the first prophecy of the Messiah who would redeem man. The gospel is about the person and work of the Messiah. This does not mean there is not an Old and New Covenant, Judaism and Christianity, Israel vs Church. The gospel is grace based on all dispensations.

Covenantal vs Dispensational deals with the nature of the continuity vs discontinuity of redemptive history. There is truth in both views, but the extremes (like ultradisp) should be avoided.

 

[Nang]

Nang, you probably think you have us right in your sights on this one... The pride is just oozing out of your pores (as is the case with most Calvinists like you). Well, let me ask you this:

Can you please point out to us where scripture says that Abraham believed THAT (a "Seed" from Eve's body would destroy the devil and all ramifications of sin and death) and it was accounted to him for righteousness?

Book, chapter verse? I wait with baited breath.

Genesis 22:18

Romans 4:16-22

The "Seed" promised to Eve was also promised to Abraham.

That "Seed" being the Savior and God/Man, Jesus Christ.

Nang

 

[The Graphite]

Genesis 3 is the protoevangelium. It is the first prophecy of the Messiah who would redeem man.

I agree. However, the question was - what was the "good news" to Abram/Abraham?

Scripture tells us what Abram believed so that it was accounted to him for righteousness, and it was not that Eve would have a seed from her body that would destroy the devil and all his evil works.

And Jews in Israel during Christ's earthly ministry heard the "good news" to them (a good news that Jesus forbade the disciples to take to the Gentiles) and that "good news" did not include the resurrection.

And the good news to you and me must have the resurrection in it, because, as Paul tells us, if there is no resurrection, then we are HOPELESS... And having "no hope" and being the most pitiful people on earth is not good news.

When you share the "good news" with an unbeliever, I am fairly sure that you don't tell them "From Eve's body would come a Seed that would destroy the devil and all of his evil works." And in fact, I didn't have to believe anything about Eve or her body when I was first saved, when I repented and believed, when I first called on the name of the Lord and was justified and baptized by His Holy Spirit into Christ.

 

[Nang]

Genesis 3 is the protoevangelium. It is the first prophecy of the Messiah who would redeem man. The gospel is about the person and work of the Messiah. This does not mean there is not an Old and New Covenant, Judaism and Christianity, Israel vs Church. The gospel is grace based on all dispensations.

You express a very common misunderstanding about what are the "old" and "new" covenants.

Such is not a contrast between Judaism and Christianity or between Israel and the church.

It is rather the contrast between the "old" Covenant of Works (Law) which holds all men in bondage due to the original sin of Adam, and the "new" Covenant of Grace that is provided by God's grace through Jesus Christ, who frees souls from the condemnations of the Law.

Nang

 

[The Graphite]

Genesis 22:18

Romans 4:16-22

The "Seed" promised to Eve was also promised to Abraham.

That "Seed" being the Savior and God/Man, Jesus Christ.

Nang

And so you go into the requisite Calvinist twisting of scriptures and practically rewriting them.

Gen. 22:18 refers to Abraham's seed, not Eve's! It says in Abraham's seed, all nations would be blessed. I was talking about Eve's seed destroying Satan. You're either very confused or dishonest. Should I give you the benefit of the doubt on your intelligence, or your character? You can't have both.

Romans 4 again refers to Abraham's seed, not Eve's seed. Nowhere in this passage does it say that God promised Abraham that his seed (or Eve's, for that matter) would destroy the devil. What was he told that he believed? That, as the stars in the sky, "so shall your descendants be."

Making up doctrine is bad enough. Pointing to scriptures that say one thing, and claiming they say something quite different is just as bad, if not worse.

 

[Nang]

And so you go into the requisite Calvinist twisting of scriptures and practically rewriting them.

Gen. 22:18 refers to Abraham's seed, not Eve's! It says in Abraham's seed, all nations would be blessed. I was talking about Eve's seed destroying Satan. You're either very confused or dishonest. Should I give you the benefit of the doubt on your intelligence, or your character? You can't have both.

Romans 4 again refers to Abraham's seed, not Eve's seed. Nowhere in this passage does it say that God promised Abraham that his seed (or Eve's, for that matter) would destroy the devil. What was he told that he believed? That, as the stars in the sky, "so shall your descendants be."

Making up doctrine is bad enough. Pointing to scriptures that say one thing, and claiming they say something quite different is just as bad, if not worse.

Chill, mister . . . breathe deep . . . and learn . . .

Abraham's seed (spiritual offspring) who were promised by God, would produce that very Savior who would bless the nations, who is the same "Seed" promised would issue forth from Eve.

Check out the genealogy of Christ in Luke 3:23-38.

Jesus Christ was the "Seed" of Eve, produced through the seed of Abraham; conceived by the Holy Spirit in the seed of Mary.

Same "Seed." Same promise. Same Gospel. One Savior.

 

[The Graphite]

Chill, mister . . . breathe deep . . . and learn . . .

Abraham's seed (spiritual offspring) who were promised by God, would produce that very Savior who would bless the nations, who is the same "Seed" promised would issue forth from Eve.

Check out the genealogy of Christ in Luke 3:23-38.

Jesus Christ was the "Seed" of Eve, produced through the seed of Abraham; conceived by the Holy Spirit in the seed of Mary.

Same "Seed." Same promise. Same Gospel. One Savior.

Nang, once again you are obfuscating the issue and confusing different topics with each other.

Yes, it is an historical fact that Jesus is descended from Abraham. It is a fact that Jesus has defeated Satan at the cross (and will complete that victory on the day of judgment, along with all of the Adversary's evil works). The Bible is full of historical facts.

I didn't ask you to list historical facts. I asked you what was the gospel - the "good news" - spoken to Abraham. I asked you to show scriptures backing up what you claimed his "good news" was, and you have not done so. And you won't do so, because it's not there. It doesn't say that Abraham believed Eve would have a seed from her body that would destroy Satan. It's just not there, no matter how much you strain and wince and grit your teeth and try to make it true.

Was Jesus descended from Abraham? Yes. Did he defeat Satan? Yes. Was this spoken to Abraham, and/or did he have any awareness, whatsoever, that God would become a man, live a perfect life, die and rise from the dead? That is not scriptural. Scripture does not say Abraham believed that.

And yet, today, the resurrection is a mandatory part of the good news to the lost. If you tell people that Eve's body had a seed and it destroyed Satan, but that He is still dead.... is that the gospel, today? No. And yet, it contains every word of what you said the over-arching "good news" is... just with the resurrection explicitly denied. And yet, people recieved the good news before Paul and were able to be saved and justified unto eternal life without believing anything about Eve's body OR the resurrection.

When will you admit that?

 

[Jacob]

But Paul was the first to receive it.

? Do you have a verse for that? It sounds like that is simply the impression you have adopted.

And that did not happened until years after Peter had preached a gospel on the day of Pentecost.

? What reason do you have to press your argument? You are actually arguing that Paul taught Peter what to say and only then did he know the truth?

That can only mean that the gospel which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost could not possibly be the "gospel of grace."

Of course it was. What "gospel of grace" do you refer to?

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

Titus 2:12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Acts 5:31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."

There is no limits on the grace of God but it was not revealed until Paul.

Jerry, what are you talking about? Why do you deny God's revelation prior to Paul coming on the scene?

That explains his words when he says, "But now...has been made known":

Yes, has been made known... but not only to Paul.

"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).

Yes, religious lawkeeping never was a way to God. But some had adopted it. Jesus Christ was presented in the gospel, and in Him people were saved. That is, this revelation perpetuated itself in the fruit of labors born in God. People were saved... God's word not returning empty but accomplishing what it was set out to do.

 

[beloved57]

nang

Jesus Christ was the "Seed" of Eve,

Yes, which makes Him the seed of Adam lk 3:23-38

This proves that Adam and Eve were elect of God. Christ could not come through a non elect seed.

 

[Nang]

Nang, once again you are obfuscating the issue and confusing different topics with each other.

Yes, it is an historical fact that Jesus is descended from Abraham. It is a fact that Jesus has defeated Satan at the cross (and will complete that victory on the day of judgment, along with all of the Adversary's evil works). The Bible is full of historical facts.

I didn't ask you to list historical facts. I asked you what was the gospel - the "good news" - spoken to Abraham. I asked you to show scriptures backing up what you claimed his "good news" was, and you have not done so. And you won't do so, because it's not there. It doesn't say that Abraham believed Eve would have a seed from her body that would destroy Satan. It's just not there, no matter how much you strain and wince and grit your teeth and try to make it true.

Was Jesus descended from Abraham? Yes. Did he defeat Satan? Yes. Was this spoken to Abraham, and/or did he have any awareness, whatsoever, that God would become a man, live a perfect life, die and rise from the dead? That is not scriptural. Scripture does not say Abraham believed that.

And yet, today, the resurrection is a mandatory part of the good news to the lost. If you tell people that Eve's body had a seed and it destroyed Satan, but that He is still dead.... is that the gospel, today? No. And yet, it contains every word of what you said the over-arching "good news" is... just with the resurrection explicitly denied. And yet, people recieved the good news before Paul and were able to be saved and justified unto eternal life without believing anything about Eve's body OR the resurrection.

When will you admit that?

I really do not know what you are thinking . . . are you denying O.T. saints knew about the resurrection powers of God?

Not so.

Read about the knowledgeable faith of Abraham in Hebrews 11:17-19.

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, Isaac, in obedience to God's commands, in full faith that "God was able to raise him up." Hebrews 11:19

You underestimate the revelations given to the O.T. saints by the Holy Spirit of God. You have no concept of the progressive teachings from one Godly covenant to the next, throughout history. The faithful believers in the O.T. were taught and hoped in Godly resurrection, through knowledge of the covenant promises from God, as surely as N.T. believers.

Their faith was founded upon the promises of God which included promises of resurrection to heavenly glory and everlasting life. If you think otherwise, you have not read your bible very carefully.

Nang