ECT Which Gospel Preached During the Tribulation Period?

[SaulToPaul 2]

Where in the Bible is there any evidence of Paul preaching a so called "gospel of uncircumcision".

Review Galatians, the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith. Paul refers back to Abraham, before circumcision, which is the basis of his gospel. Both Jews and Gentiles whom Paul preached to received this gospel.

 

[Jacob]

Why do you need to find mercy & grace?


2 Cor 12:9 (KJV). You already have his grace.

Because *I*, that is whoever is listening, have sinned...

Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Mark 2:17 And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Luke 5:32 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."

I think you are talking about God's gracious choice.

Romans 11:5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.

Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

"No longer on the basis of works" is talking about *their* perception of how a person would be saved.

 

[Jacob]

Review Galatians, the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith. Paul refers back to Abraham, before circumcision, which is the basis of his gospel. Both Jews and Gentiles whom Paul preached to received this gospel.

I don't call this gospel people were saved by through Paul the gospel of uncircumcision, for it (the message Paul preached) was for circumcised (Jew) and uncircumcised (Gentile) alike. Romans 1:16.

I believe the passage you are talking about in Galatians is confused by many. The preposition is confused there between translations, whether it says "of" or "to", and certainly the circumcised and the uncircumcised are both mentioned in the gospel (one occurance of the word gospel in the original greek and not two as in some translations). But they are mentioned because Paul had turned to the uncircumcised that they also would receive the gospel. Just as Peter had seen the salvation of Gentiles by the power of God.

 

[Nang]

Maam. When you say old covenant, I feel you are going back to sin and death in Adam. But, the term "old covenant" is specifically used in the Bible for the testament in Moses God made with the people of Israel. Have you recognized this yet? Your terminology is being borrowed from theologians who have not accepted this distinction, as far as you are revealing.

We have been over this before . . . and I agree we are differing over terms.

But the Law given through Moses was a fully developed and formal set of laws already established in the garden of Eden. God gave commands to Adam (which Adam broke) and God gave MORE commands to the nation of Israel (which the Israelites broke).

All of this law-giving constitutes the Covenant of Works. Which covenant no human being has performed or kept. All persons are imputed guilty of sin for breaking this covenant, just like Adam disobeyed the commands of God.

Only one Man performed and kept the Covenant of Works, which qualified Him to establish the better Covenant of Grace.

Every single soul lives under one of these covenants or the other. One is either condemned for failing to keep contract with God through obedient works or one is saved by grace through faith in Christ's righteous works.

I'm glad you revere God's statutes. Hopefully His law is included in that.

I consider the Word of God; God's Law; God's Holy Statutes to all be one and the same. Every word spoken by God is a command, and by the grace of God alone, sinners are able to live according to the Words of God (Holy Scripture).

Some people make divisions at weird places, when they try to communicate their dear concepts. Just wondering. I assume you know no one was ever saved by works (of the law, or otherwise).

Agreed. No man has ever found salvation according to good works or by obedience to the Law. Not because the Law is bad, but because men are sinners by nature.

That is why a new and better covenant was necessary.

That is why Father and Son established an everlasting Covenant of Redemption and the Christ came in flesh as Mediator to reconcile sinners with the Father according to the Covenant of Grace (versus "works")

Then it makes sense that we would never say God made a covenant of works for salvation with His people.

Did God speak words of command to Adam?

Was Adam responsible and accountable to obey those commands?

Was there a moral consequence revealed if Adam disobeyed God's Word?

If so, there is a moral and legal basis for contract and covenant between God and Adam.

And Adam failed to keep his part of the contract.

Because Adam was given moral agency and created as head of the human race, his disobedience not only broke covenant with God, but it corrupted his nature, which has been passed down to all his natural seed. So that none of his descendants have been able to keep the commands of God, either.

The formal law was given through Moses to emphasize this predicament of the human race. The nation of Israel was elected by God to typify the wretched condition of all mankind. Through the detailed Decalogue, the Law was given to reveal through the nation, how sinful all men are, and how they needed a Savior.

All the civil laws and tabernacle/temple ordinances were types of that Savior, promised by the grace of God to Eve, a godly lineage of pre-diluvian men up to and including Noah, to Job, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob . . . all pointing to that Savior who was the only remedy for the multitude of failures and sins committed according to the Ten Commandments!

Nang

 

[Jacob]

We have been over this before . . . and I agree we are differing over terms.

But the Law given through Moses was a fully developed and formal set of laws already established in the garden of Eden. God gave commands to Adam (which Adam broke) and God gave MORE commands to the nation of Israel (which the Israelites broke).

All of this law-giving constitutes the Covenant of Works. Which covenant no human being has performed or kept. All persons are imputed guilty of sin for breaking this covenant, just like Adam disobeyed the commands of God.

Only one Man performed and kept the Covenant of Works, which qualified Him to establish the better Covenant of Grace.

Every single soul lives under one of these covenants or the other. One is either condemned for failing to keep contract with God through obedient works or one is saved by grace through faith in Christ's righteous works.



I consider the Word of God; God's Law; God's Holy Statutes to all be one and the same. Every word spoken by God is a command, and by the grace of God alone, sinners are able to live according to the Words of God (Holy Scripture).



Agreed. No man has ever found salvation according to good works or by obedience to the Law. Not because the Law is bad, but because men are sinners by nature.

That is why a new and better covenant was necessary.

That is why Father and Son established an everlasting Covenant of Redemption and the Christ came in flesh as Mediator to reconcile sinners with the Father according to the Covenant of Grace (versus "works")




Did God speak words of command to Adam?

Was Adam responsible and accountable to obey those commands?

Was there a moral consequence revealed if Adam disobeyed God's Word?

If so, there is a moral and legal basis for contract and covenant between God and Adam.

And Adam failed to keep his part of the contract.

Because Adam was given moral agency and created as head of the human race, his disobedience not only broke covenant with God, but it corrupted his nature, which has been passed down to all his natural seed. So that none of his descendants have been able to keep the commands of God, either.

The formal law was given through Moses to emphasize this predicament of the human race. The nation of Israel was elected by God to typify the wretched condition of all mankind. Through the detailed Decalogue, the Law was given to reveal through the nation, how sinful all men are, and how they needed a Savior.

All the civil laws and tabernacle/temple ordinances were types of that Savior, promised by the grace of God to Eve, a godly lineage of pre-diluvian men up to and including Noah, to Job, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob . . . all pointing to that Savior who was the only remedy for the multitude of failures and sins committed according to the Ten Commandments!

Nang

A covenant is an agreement. What do you believe your treasured covenant of works entails? What has been agreed upon? What contract? What terms for their relationship? Is there a covenant of disobedience (since obedience is not "works")? I contend that this covenant of yours is made up. It is not found in the Bible. It is a way of describing, but not a Biblical way. The terminology is not Biblical, even though it is "theological". There is a lot of misunderstanding when you invoke these words. You make the gospel confusing, when you think you are clearing things up. Why would I believe you over the Bible? There is no covenant of works in the Bible. Why do you say there is? Someone made it up, and now you are preaching it. For example, in what covenant were the terms agreed upon? Except the covenant through Moses? Or, Abraham? It sounds like you are saying Adam didn't have a choice but a works based salvation?

God's saving power is evident in His choosing of Israel.

 

[Nang]

A covenant is an agreement. What do you believe your treasured covenant of works entails? What has been agreed upon? What contract? What terms for their relationship?

I believe the "terms" of the Covenant of Works is revealed in Romans 1:20

I contend that this covenant of yours is made up. It is not found in the Bible. It is a way of describing, but not a Biblical way. The terminology is not Biblical, even though it is "theological".

The term "Trinity" is also theological and not specifically biblical. The teachings of a Triune God is an overview of the entire bible; the subject of Covenant Theology entails a study of the entire bible, also.

There is a lot of misunderstanding when you invoke these words. You make the gospel confusing, when you think you are clearing things up.

Is not the gospel message one of provision of saving grace from God? If there is no law, there is no sin imputed, and there is no need of grace. We both agree that the Law tutors sinners to their need of grace, right?

If you deny Adam was created under the Law, then logically you must conclude Adam and Eve never knew grace . . . and yet God's provision of grace was revealed in the bloody animal skins given to A&E to cover their sins. So it must be admitted that sin was imputed to A&E. Which also means there was Law and Law was broken, in order for sin to be imputed to A&E and grace to be revealed to A&E.

All I am saying, is that mankind is responsible and accountable before God to obey His commands, and because of Adam's sin, no man is able to please God through lawful obedience. This human responsibility and moral accountability is termed a "Covenant of Works."

Why would I believe you over the Bible? There is no covenant of works in the Bible. Why do you say there is? Someone made it up, and now you are preaching it. For example, in what covenant were the terms agreed upon?

Adam agreed to and obeyed the commands from God to name the animals and exercise dominion over all living creatures. (Genesis 1:28)

But Adam did not obey the commands to "be fruitful and multiply" until after the fall, and he certainly did not obey God's command to not eat of the forbidden tree. There is no evidence A&E ever ate of the other trees of of the Tree of Life, either.

So there were certainly terms, but Adam did not meet them all. And so, all mankind continues in the same rebellious manner, failing to keep covenant with God through obedience to His commands. (Hosea 6:7)

Except the covenant through Moses? Or, Abraham?

These later covenants were reiteration of the original Covenant of Works made with Adam.

It sounds like you are saying Adam didn't have a choice but a works based salvation?

Adam was responsible and morally accountable to willfully submit to and obey God's commands. Adam was never "free" to choose to do otherwise, without suffering the consequences = death.

Nang

 

[Jacob]

I believe the "terms" of the Covenant of Works is revealed in Romans 1:20

I don't see the term Covenant of Works there. There is no Biblical correlation. It is all in your mind.

The term "Trinity" is also theological and not specifically biblical. The teachings of a Triune God is an overview of the entire bible; the subject of Covenant Theology entails a study of the entire bible, also.

And neither "Covenant of Works" nor "Trinity" is found anywhere in the Bible.

Is not the gospel message one of provision of saving grace from God? If there is no law, there is no sin imputed, and there is no need of grace.

Wrong. Romans 2:12. You say the law must be there for grace to be there. But the law wouldn't be there except for God's grace. You have it backward.

We both agree that the Law tutors sinners to their need of grace, right?

The law shows us the difference between right and wrong, that we would come to Christ. This is how it is a tutor. We have a need for grace, but we also have a need for righteousness, which is found in Jesus Christ.

If you deny Adam was created under the Law, then logically you must conclude Adam and Eve never knew grace . . .

How so? I don't have a problem with saying God's grace was there even in the commandment. You have the law as God setting man up for failure, I don't.

and yet God's provision of grace was revealed in the bloody animal skins given to A&E to cover their sins. So it must be admitted that sin was imputed to A&E.

Sin being imputed is a concept found in Romans refering to the law of Moses coming in, even though sin was present prior to the law.

Which also means there was Law and Law was broken, in order for sin to be imputed to A&E and grace to be revealed to A&E.

This is your reasoning, but it does not follow from scripture. Which is why I am taking the time to explain your error to you.

All I am saying, is that mankind is responsible and accountable before God to obey His commands, and because of Adam's sin, no man is able to please God through lawful obedience.

death spread to all because all have sinned. Why do you say "lawful obedience"? We should obey God's commands/law. God has given us the grace so that we can obey in freedom, yes?

This human responsibility and moral accountability is termed a "Covenant of Works."

We are talking about two different things.

Adam agreed to and obeyed the commands from God to name the animals and exercise dominion over all living creatures. (Genesis 1:28)

But Adam did not obey the commands to "be fruitful and multiply" until after the fall, and he certainly did not obey God's command to not eat of the forbidden tree. There is no evidence A&E ever ate of the other trees of of the Tree of Life, either.

???? You just have confusion about these things. Adam and Eve did not fail in the command to be fruitful and multiply. They were obedient. Your existence is proof of the fact that they obeyed. There is no reason to say that they had to eat of the tree of life, in fact they were kept from it if I remember correctly.

So there were certainly terms, but Adam did not meet them all.

You think man has failed because Adam didn't eat of the tree of life???

And so, all mankind continues in the same rebellious manner, failing to keep covenant with God through obedience to His commands. (Hosea 6:7)

Deuteronomy 30:11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.

These later covenants were reiteration of the original Covenant of Works made with Adam.

??? Confusion. Again, you are not speaking clearly, but confusing things with your theology. Can you speak individually of the covenants without invoking your covenant of works?

Adam was responsible and morally accountable to willfully submit to and obey God's commands. Adam was never "free" to choose to do otherwise,

Who said he, or we, are?

without suffering the consequences = death.

Nang

 

[Nang]

I don't see the term Covenant of Works there. There is no Biblical correlation. It is all in your mind.

Covenant Theology is not from my imagination nor is it my invention. Here is a tidbit from the writings of a renown Christian Theologian, that validates the principles I attempt to convey. I would highly recommend you give the entire work a read:

“A covenant was entered into between the Lord God and Adam: ‘And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden though mayest freely eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' (Genesis 2:16-17)

What are the principle elements in a covenant? A covenant is a formal compact and mutual arrangement between two or more parties, whereby they stand solemnly bound to each other to perform the conditions contracted for. On the one side there is a stipulation of something to be done; on the other side a re-stipulation of something to be done or given in consideration of the former provision. There is also a penalty included in the terms of the agreement . . some unpleasant consequences to the party who violates or fails to carry out his commitment. That penalty is added as a security. Where it is not expressly stated, it is implied by the promissory clause, just as the promise is necessarily inferred from a mention of the punishment (cf. Gen. 31:43-54; Matt. 26:14-16). . .

Further scriptural evidence that God entered into a covenant with Adam is found in Hosea 6:7, where God complained of Israel, ‘But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant; there have they dealt treacherously against Me.; The Hebrew word for ‘men’ there is Adam, as in Job 31:33. Adam was placed under a covenant, the requirement or condition of which was his continued subjection to God . . whether or not the divine will was sacred in his eyes. But he failed to love God with all his heart, held His high authority in contempt, disbelieved His holy veracity, deliberately and presumptuously defied Him. He ‘transgressed the covenant’ and ‘dealt treacherously’ with his Maker.

Centuries later Israel likewise transgressed the covenant which they entered into with the Lord at Sinai, preferring their own will and way, lusting after those false gods which He had forbidden under pain of death.

Finally, the fact of Adam’s having stood as the covenant head of his race is conclusively demonstrated by the penal evils which came upon his children in consequence of his fall. From the dreadful curse which entailed upon all his descendants, we are compelled to infer the covenant relationship which existed between him and them; for the Judge of all the earth, being righteous, will never punish where there is no crime. ‘In Adam all die’ because in him all sinned.”

Excerpted from: “Gleanings From The Scriptures,” by A.W. Pink

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I don't call this gospel people were saved by through Paul the gospel of uncircumcision, for it (the message Paul preached) was for circumcised (Jew) and uncircumcised (Gentile) alike. Romans 1:16.

The gospel of uncircumcision has very little to do with whether the person hearing it is circumcised or not. Paul calls it this in Galatians because he refers back to Abram IN UNCIRCUMCISION, and reveals how Abram was justified.

The gospel of uncircumsion and the gospel of circumcision is about DOCTRINE. One set of doctrine refers to Abram in uncircumcision, and the other to Abraham in circumcision.

 

[Jacob]

The gospel of uncircumcision has very little to do with whether the person hearing it is circumcised or not. Paul calls it this in Galatians because he refers back to Abram IN UNCIRCUMCISION, and reveals how Abram was justified.

The gospel of uncircumsion and the gospel of circumcision is about DOCTRINE. One set of doctrine refers to Abram in uncircumcision, and the other to Abraham in circumcision.

Which verse are you looking at? Your words are unintelligible to me.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Which verse are you looking at? Your words are unintelligible to me.

Read Acts 15, and all of Galatians. It'll take you 15 minutes.

 

[Nang]

Another tid-bit for Untellectual from R.C. Sproul on the "Covenant of Works."

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/covenantworks.html

 

[Jacob]

Covenant Theology is not from my imagination nor is it my invention. Here is a tidbit from the writings of a renown Christian Theologian, that validates the principles I attempt to convey. I would highly recommend you give the entire work a read:

“A covenant was entered into between the Lord God and Adam: ‘And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden though mayest freely eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' (Genesis 2:16-17)

What are the principle elements in a covenant? A covenant is a formal compact and mutual arrangement between two or more parties, whereby they stand solemnly bound to each other to perform the conditions contracted for. On the one side there is a stipulation of something to be done; on the other side a re-stipulation of something to be done or given in consideration of the former provision. There is also a penalty included in the terms of the agreement . . some unpleasant consequences to the party who violates or fails to carry out his commitment. That penalty is added as a security. Where it is not expressly stated, it is implied by the promissory clause, just as the promise is necessarily inferred from a mention of the punishment (cf. Gen. 31:43-54; Matt. 26:14-16). . .

Further scriptural evidence that God entered into a covenant with Adam is found in Hosea 6:7, where God complained of Israel, ‘But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant; there have they dealt treacherously against Me.; The Hebrew word for ‘men’ there is Adam, as in Job 31:33. Adam was placed under a covenant, the requirement or condition of which was his continued subjection to God . . whether or not the divine will was sacred in his eyes. But he failed to love God with all his heart, held His high authority in contempt, disbelieved His holy veracity, deliberately and presumptuously defied Him. He ‘transgressed the covenant’ and ‘dealt treacherously’ with his Maker.

Centuries later Israel likewise transgressed the covenant which they entered into with the Lord at Sinai, preferring their own will and way, lusting after those false gods which He had forbidden under pain of death.

Finally, the fact of Adam’s having stood as the covenant head of his race is conclusively demonstrated by the penal evils which came upon his children in consequence of his fall. From the dreadful curse which entailed upon all his descendants, we are compelled to infer the covenant relationship which existed between him and them; for the Judge of all the earth, being righteous, will never punish where there is no crime. ‘In Adam all die’ because in him all sinned.”

Excerpted from: “Gleanings From The Scriptures,” by A.W. Pink

I'm not saying there wasn't a covenant. I am simply opposed to you calling the covenant in Adam the or a covenant of works. You have a whole doctrine around your terminology, which is not found in scripture. Just because both Adam and Israel transgressed their covenant with God, does not make either of the covenants "a covenant of works".

 

[Jacob]

Another tid-bit for Untellectual from R.C. Sproul on the "Covenant of Works."

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/covenantworks.html

At least now you have a source for your doctrine. Are you adopting this from Sproul, or presenting it with him? I don't agree with what I am reading from your link. Are you saying you can keep the covenant of works you have fashioned? "covenant keepers", which we should be... but then it is said we should not be for it is impossible?

 

[Jacob]

Read Acts 15, and all of Galatians. It'll take you 15 minutes.

I've read them. I'm asking which verse in Galatians you are refering to for your terminology. Unless you are saying your terminology does not come from scripture.

 

[Nang]

At least now you have a source for your doctrine. Are you adopting this from Sproul, or presenting it with him? I don't agree with what I am reading from your link. Are you saying you can keep the covenant of works you have fashioned?

Neither R.C. Sproul nor Pink are the "source" for my doctrine. I posted these quotes so that you cannot accuse me of dreaming stuff up.

Actually, my source for belief in a Covenant of Works is confessional for the doctrine is included in the Westminster Confession of Faith. (Chapter VII)

And I have posted repeatedly that there is not a single human being who can keep the Covenant of Works, except the Man, Jesus Christ. He fulfilled all the Law and performed all the Covenant in our stead.

Nang

 

[Jacob]

Neither R.C. Sproul nor Pink are the "source" for my doctrine. I posted these quotes so that you cannot accuse me of dreaming stuff up.

Actually, my source for belief in a Covenant of Works is confessional for the doctrine is included in the Westminster Confession of Faith. (Chapter VII)

And I have posted repeatedly that there is not a single human being who can keep the Covenant of Works, except the Man, Jesus Christ. He fulfilled all the Law and performed all the Covenant in our stead.

Nang

I believe Jesus fulfilled the law. I just don't believe He fulfilled a Covenant of Works.

From post edit:
"covenant keepers", which we should be... but then it is said we should not be for it is impossible?

 

[Nang]

I believe Jesus fulfilled the law. I just don't believe He fulfilled a Covenant of Works.

The Law of God requires obedient works. If Jesus Christ had not kept the commands of God (the covenant responsibilities of every man), then there would be no hope of reconciliation with God through grace.

Do you also deny there is a new Covenant of Grace?

Nang

 

[Nang]

"covenant keepers", which we should be... but then it is said we should not be for it is impossible?

Even though Adam corrupted the human race by his unbelief and disobedience, does not invalidate the Law. Even though it is impossible for totally depraved sinners to obey God's Law, God still holds them responsible to do so.

This is another reason to infer that a Covenant of Works was established, otherwise the Law could have been waived or altered. But because the Law was established through a legal contract ("Covenant") it is permanent.

The Covenant of Works is as permanent as the Covenant of Grace that saves souls.

It was necessary that the old Covenant be fulfilled and satisfied before a new Covenant between man and God could be established.

Jesus Christ has performed both Covenants as Mediator on behalf of His spiritual children.

Amazing grace . . . and the core of the gospel message.

God has done for us what we could never have done for ourselves. To the eternal glory of His name!

Nang

 

[Jacob]

The Law of God requires obedient works. If Jesus Christ had not kept the commands of God (the covenant responsibilities of every man), then there would be no hope of reconciliation with God through grace.

Do you also deny there is a new Covenant of Grace?

Nang

There is a new covenant. Have you read the passages in Jeremiah and Hebrews yet? There you will learn what it is. The words "Covenant of Grace" are not used.

We are to obey God's commands even today, and it is not lawkeeping for salvation either.