ECT Which Gospel Preached During the Tribulation Period?

[Nang]

"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven" (1 Pet.1:10-1).

Here Peter is saying that the prophets searched diligently in an effort to determine what the prophecies concerning Christ's suffering did signify but it was not revealed unto them.

These revelations prophesied by the O.T. Prophets came from the very Spirit of Christ who was in them.

". . No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Spirit." II Peter 20-21

The O.T. Prophets might not have known the full significance of the prophesies given through themselves, but they knew what they themselves said and wrote. They heard their own words; knowing they were words from God.

Even the Twelve Apostles, those closest to the Lord Jesus, did not realize that He was going to die (Lk.18:31-34) or be resurrected (Jn.20:9).

Jesus Christ told them of His death and resurrection. The disciples did not want to hear the truth, and suppressed the truth given to them directly.

Which is a common malady amongst men . . .especially for those who look for an earthly kingdom and an earthly King.

They certainly did not know the "purpose" of the Cross, that "Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Pet.3:18).

No sinner knows the spiritual purposes of God until he is regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit who brings the sinner into such knowledge.

From the beginning, blood was shed to make atonement for sin, and the men of God (Abel, Seth, etc.) knew the necessity of offered blood for the remission of sin.

All of the tabernacle and temple ordinances established through Moses and the kings of Israel typified the sufferings, death, and resurrection of the future Messiah.

Perhaps most of the old world understood it not, but a remnant of saved souls, anointed by the Spirit of Christ, comprehended the covenant promises that spoke of a Savior provided for the remission of sins and resurrection to a heavenly kingdom.

You make the mistake of believing all O.T. souls were kept in the dark about the purposes and promises of God, but this is untrue. Most of the world was not given the ordinances and words of God like the nation of Israel was given, and most of the Jews remained unbelievers, but there was and always will be a Godly remnant that have been spiritually enlightened to the truths and prophecies of the Christ.

I could match your quoted commentary with dozens more views of other theologians, but for what purpose? One either believes the Holy Scriptures and what it teaches about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and His grace, or one does not. For such belief in the revelation of Holy Scripture is the "work of God" alone.

Nang

 

[john w]

If you let Scripture interpret Scripture, you will find explanation of this in John 6:29, where Jesus revealed: "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

Belief is the "work of God." Not our work. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

"Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven" (1 Pet.1:10-1).

Read it: "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves.."

The prophets did not "get it." And, as JR stated, this revelation to the 12.....was later. The dbr was "hid from them." They were clueless, and did not believe
__
"Belief is the "work of God." -Nang

"John 6:29, where Jesus revealed: "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." -Nang

This "work of God" was referencing the miracles, so that they would believe in Him, not that "Belief is the 'work of God'." Read what came before in John 1-5.

 

[Lighthouse]

Like all MADists, you try to build your belief system from silence.

Here is the scripture:

(John 8:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

How does that say, "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?":liberals:

Here is your exact quote:

As the "gang" can see, you are making fun of me for suggesting that sources other than the KJV are needed to understand what is in the KJV.

The two examples I gave were Hanukkah & Epimenides.

Without other sources there is no way anyone could learn where Hanukkah came from in John 10:22 by just using a KJV.

Without other sources there is no way anyone could know who Paul was quoting when Paul said "All Cretans are liars" in Titus 1:12 with only a KJV.

Well, I was actually going to defend you and offer up that one must certainly understand King James English in order to understand the KJV, but after reading your argument here all I can wonder is why does any of that matter? Why does it matter who Paul was quoting? Why does it matter from whence Hanukkah came? And what version uses that term anyway? Certainly not the KJV, nor the NKJV.:idunno: And what is Epimenides?

 

[Nang]

T

Give us your interpretation of the question and the answer which was given.

Just did . . . but I will expand a bit . . .

Whenever you read any Scripture verse that speaks of "believing God" in order to find life, you are reading a reiteration of the original commands given to Adam in the garden. You are reading a reiteration of Law.

God through His Holy Law demands all men believe in Him in order to live.

Of course, no sinner can obey this command; nor is any sinner, by nature, willing to obey this command.

Thus, in order for a sinner to follow this command, he must be regenerated, changed, renewed, converted, and enabled, by the grace and power of God that grants the necessary faith and repentance. Thus, the acts of believing and turning from sin are the works of God, provided by God, to whom He wills (John 5:21) as Jesus taught in John 6:29.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Most of the world was not given the ordinances and words of God like the nation of Israel was given, and most of the Jews remained unbelievers, but there was and always will be a Godly remnant that have been spiritually enlightened to the truths and prophecies of the Christ.

If anyone was enlightened to the truths of the Christ it was the Twelve, and they did not even realize that the Lord Jesus was going to die!!!

But that means nothing to you. If we are to believe your ideas every believer knew that He was going to die EXCEPT THOSE CLOSEST TO HIM!

If we are to accept your ideas we must believe that the Twelve were preaching a gospel that declared that Christ died for sins even though they did not even know that He was going to die!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Just did . . . but I will expand a bit . . .

Whenever you read any Scripture verse that speaks of "believing God" in order to find life, you are reading a reiteration of the original commands given to Adam in the garden. You are reading a reiteration of Law.

What Scriptures can you give to support this wild assertion?

 

[john w]

"Jesus Christ told them of His death and resurrection. The disciples did not want to hear the truth, and suppressed the truth given to them directly."-Nang

Yes, of it as an impending event, but not as pertaining to 1 Cor. 15:1-4. They were clueless, it was hid from them, they never preached 1 Cor. 15:1-4 as a basis for their/anyone's justification, at least prior to the dbr, in Mt.-John. You made that up. Even after the resurrection had ocurred, they did not believe it. They were clueless. Like you. Face you. We have.

 

[Nang]

"Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven" (1 Pet.1:10-1).

Read it: "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves.."

The prophets did not "get it."

I beg to differ with you.

They "got it," but they also knew it was prophecy meant to minister to persons at a future time. It was not revelation given just for their sake, but prophecy given for the sake of others, too.

This was no "mystery" or mystical happening. It was a matter of administration. Through the Holy Prophets, God administered differently than when He later spoke through His Son. (Hebrews 11:-2)

Same truths taught through the O.T. Prophets to the nation of Israel as brought into the world at large through the Son, Jesus Christ. Same good news, but different administrations and details.

A message of grace that would come via the suffering Savior. One Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Salvation does not depend upon any set amount or quality of knowledge. That is Gnosticism.

Salvation depends upon faith, and God in His great mercy and grace, grants the amount of faith necessary to work salvation for each of His own. Even if one's measure of faith is tiny and compares to a mustard seed, and his knowledge is incomplete . . . if it comes from the grace of God, that faith will save that soul!

 

[john w]

Just did . . . but I will expand a bit . . .

Whenever you read any Scripture verse that speaks of "believing God" in order to find life, you are reading a reiteration of the original commands given to Adam in the garden. You are reading a reiteration of Law.

God through His Holy Law demands all men believe in Him in order to live.

Of course, no sinner can obey this command; nor is any sinner, by nature, willing to obey this command.

Thus, in order for a sinner to follow this command, he must be regenerated, changed, renewed, converted, and enabled, by the grace and power of God that grants the necessary faith and repentance. Thus, the acts of believing and turning from sin are the works of God, provided by God, to whom He wills (John 5:21) as Jesus taught in John 6:29

.

If they are already generated,changed, renewed, converted,i.e., have the resurrected life of the Lord Jesus Christ, His life, for what reason do they have to "believe," by your argument(not mine)?- "demands all men believe in Him in order to live." They are already alive, "live."


That, Dear Watnangson, is the question.

 

[john w]

I beg to differ with you.

They "got it," but they also knew it was prophecy meant to minister to persons at a future time. It was not revelation given just for their sake, but prophecy given for the sake of others, too.

This was no "mystery" or mystical happening. It was a matter of administration. Through the Holy Prophets, God administered differently than when He later spoke through His Son. (Hebrews 11:-2)

Same truths taught through the O.T. Prophets to the nation of Israel as brought into the world at large through the Son, Jesus Christ. Same good news, but different administrations and details.

A message of grace that would come via the suffering Savior. One Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Salvation does not depend upon any set amount or quality of knowledge. That is Gnosticism.

Salvation depends upon faith, and God in His great mercy and grace, grants the amount of faith necessary to work salvation for each of His own. Even if one's measure of faith is tiny and compares to a mustard seed, and his knowledge is incomplete . . . if it comes from the grace of God, that faith will save that soul!

_
Nope. It was hid from them. You made that up.

"One Gospel of Jesus Christ."-Nang


Here is what we know: While the 12 were preaching "the gospel of the kingdom," including Judas, at least prior to the dbr, in Mt. John, they had no idea that the Lord Jesus Christ would die, and be raised. It was hid from them. Peter tried to prevent the Lord Jesus Christ's death, a death, which according to you, part of this "One Gospel of Jesus Christ, if he believed it, would justify him, along with believing in the resurrection-1 Cor. 15:1-4. Later, even after the resurrection ocurred, he did not believe it.

The gospel of the kingdom is not equivalent to the gospel of Christ. You made that up.

 

[john w]

"Salvation does not depend upon any set amount or quality of knowledge. That is Gnosticism."'-Nang

I see. You argue that Peter and the gang were preaching in Mt.-John, at least prior to the dbr,

"Christ will die for your sins...be buried...raised again for your justification....believe it to be justified!"- 1 Cor 15:1-4, Romans 4:25

even though they did not know He would die, did not know He would be raised, did not believe He had been raised, even after the fact. That is not only agnosticism, that is mysticism, Buddhism.

That is anti thing. Thanks for your cooperation, and the report.

 

[godrulz]

That was many years after Paul first preached the gospel of grace.

So why does MAD relegate/limit Petrine/Johannine writing to circ Jewish Christians before Paul and Tribulation saints in the future (vs Body/Church)?

 

[Jacob]

I say that there is absolutely no evidence that Peter preached the "gospel of grace" to anyone on the day of Pentecost.

But this is because you believe "the gospel of grace" which you envision was only held by Paul.

No, I am not saying that. Men have been saved by grace since the beginning of time but the "gospel of grace," which is centered on the fact that Christ died for our sins, was not preached earlier.

Victory over sin and death. Freedom for all who believe. How is that not Christ crucified?

The Twelve were preaching a gospel while the Lord still walked the earth (Lk.9:6) but yet at that time they did not even know that He was to die (Lk.18:31-34).

Right, you pointed that out. But this nowhere says that Paul is the first person to preach God's grace, or Christ crucified. Paul did find out that the others were not going to add to what he knew to be true, so he was confident in his gospel (message, word).

So it is evident that they were not preaching a gospel that is centered on the fact that "Christ died for our sins." Yet those who belived during that time were saved by the grace of God.

Why do you say it is evident when you are trying to prove a negative? That is, you say that for a lack of evidence, the preaching of the grace of God and Christ dying for our sins was not preached. You negate what was preached as not being in the same vein as what you perceive to be superior (you create a compare and contrast, bringing the gospel message down while you are thinking you are seeking to elevate it).

I just quoted a verse that contains that phrase but for some reason you just overlooked it. Here it is again:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).

No, I read it, and THEN stated that it does not contain the phrase you are looking for, in case you will take a hint and look closer. The GRACE OF GOD is the message, not "a gospel of grace".

The "gospel of grace" is a gospel where the subject is "grace," just as the subject of the "gospel of the kingdom" is the kingdom.

The subject, if you see it that way, is the grace of God, not merely grace. Just as we also see the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven.

Here Paul speaks of preaching that gospel and the result was that those who heard and believed it "knew the grace of God in truth" (Col.1:5-6).

I never said anything that even hints that I believe that.

You said that the grace of God did not come until some time after Paul believed.

Now I will ask you a question. The Apostle Paul said that he received the gospel which he preached to the churches in Galatia directly from the Lord Jesus (Gal.1:12).

Please tell me when you believe that Paul received that revelation.

I would venture at his conversion on the road to Damascus or before he went up at Jerusalem. It is true he speaks of his own message, and I believe it is because he was showing his own diligence to what he had received. I just don't believe he is the only one who believed Christ died for our sins, as you seem to desire to relate. You are calling upon your perceived lack of evidence from others apart from Paul to solidify your perspective of the evidence pertaining to Paul. Did Paul preach something that was not in the scriptures even before Christ('s life death burial resurrection ascension)???

 

[godrulz]

Jerry S. I wonder if part of your problem is that you are forgetting that Acts is selective, transitional history, while much of Paul is didactic? As well, Peter adopted the gospel to a Jewish audience at Pentecost, so he would emphasize that Christ is the Son of God/Messiah, in addition to the crucified Lamb and risen King. When Paul was talking to pagan audiences, he might have to emphasize the existence of God, monotheism, in addition to the same death/resurrection truths of the Son of God/Son of Man. In all this, there is only one NT gospel because there is only one Christ and one work on the cross. Other corporate, eschatological issues relating to Israel vs Church should not be mixed in with individual redemptive issues where Jew/Gentile become one in Christ through the cross, even before Paul (by the Spirit).

I did not read this in a book, but I think these principles are important in taking ultradisp views off the table as unviable options.

What did I just say? STP, johnw, interpret my tongues.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry S. I wonder if part of your problem is that you are forgetting that Acts is selective, transitional history, while much of Paul is didactic? As well, Peter adopted the gospel to a Jewish audience at Pentecost, so he would emphasize that Christ is the Son of God/Messiah, in addition to the crucified Lamb and risen King.

Do you think that the "good news" that "Christ died for our sin" is the same "good news" that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"?

Anyone in their right mind knows for a fact that they are not the same "good news."

And the word "gospel" means "good news" so anyone with the slightest amount of common sense recognizes that these sets of "good news" represent two separate and distinct gospels.

But this is all above your understanding. At some point in time someone told you that there was only one gospel preached during the Acts period and you believed it and from then on nothing can be said to change your mind. You prove that you are willing to argue that the "good news" that "Christ died for our sins" is the same "good news" that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"!

 

[Nang]

Do you think that the "good news" that "Christ died for our sin" is the same "good news" that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"?

Uh . . . since only the Christ, the Son of God, qualifies to be the only One qualified to atone for sin. . . your denial falls flat and only reveals your condition of spiritual unbelief.

 

[Sheila B]

At some point in time someone told you that there was only one gospel preached during the Acts period and you believed it and from then on nothing can be said to change your mind. You prove that you are willing to argue that the "good news" that "Christ died for our sins" is the same "good news" that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"!

No human being could atone by death. Only God Himself could take the penalty accrued by humanity against God.

So, the good news encompases both Who Jesus is (God) and what Jesus has done (paid the price). They are two sides of one coin.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But this is because you believe "the gospel of grace" which you envision was only held by Paul.

You need to pay more attention. I did not say that but instead I said that Paul was the first person to preach the "gospel of the grace of God" and it was not preached on the day of Pentecost by Peter. I said:

We can see a complete sermon by Peter on the day of Pentecost from Acts 2:14 until Acts 2:36. Included in that sermon was a gospel, and those who believed that gospel were saved. But that sermon will be searched in vain for any mention of the "purpose" of the Cross. There is no mention of the grace of God either.

This is all you said about that:

Do you mean to say that God's grace was not for these people who received the good news?{/quote]
I answered that question for you so now please answer a question for me. Look over Peter's sermon from Acts 2:14 until Acts 2:36 and tell me exactly where the "gospe of the grace of God" was preached in that sermon.

Next, I said:

The Apostle Paul said that he received the gospel which he preached to the churches in Galatia directly from the Lord Jesus (Gal.1:12).

Please tell me when you believe that Paul received that revelation.

To this you answered:

I would venture at his conversion on the road to Damascus or before he went up at Jerusalem. [/QUOTE]
Do you mean his visit to Jerusalem as mentioned at Acts 9:26?

So you think that it was possible that he was baptized with water by Ananias and was filled with the Holy Spirit before he believed a gospel?

 

[Nang]

No human being could atone by death. Only God Himself could take the penalty accrued by humanity against God.

So, the good news encompases both Who Jesus is (God) and what Jesus has done (paid the price). They are two sides of one coin.

Exactly.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So why does MAD relegate/limit Petrine/Johannine writing to circ Jewish Christians before Paul and Tribulation saints in the future (vs Body/Church)?

You mix up the original MAD teaching and Neo-MAD. MAD does not teach that.