ECT Which Gospel Preached During the Tribulation Period?

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
The same people who say "one gospel, two target audiences" would think it was insane if a chapter later we said "one covenant, two target audiences" when Paul gives the allegory about the two covenants.

It doesn't occur to them that the two (different) covenants led to the two different gospels during the Acts period.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
The same people who say "one gospel, two target audiences" would think it was insane if a chapter later we said "one covenant, two target audiences" when Paul gives the allegory about the two covenants.

It doesn't occur to them that the two (different) covenants led to the two different gospels during the Acts period.
But the gospel doesn't change depending on who I talk to, but the presentation might. Were you born with the law? It is a step to Christ. Were you born without the law? The law within you, your conscience, is a step to Christ. Either way, the law of Christ (we are not lawless) and obedience to the gospel (not of works). Justified by what Christ has done, and justified by faith.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
It doesn't occur to them that the two (different) covenants led to the two different gospels during the Acts period.
Then you say one gospel is one covenant and the other gospel is a different covenant? Why are we arguing that a Jew is saved by works?
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Then you say one gospel is one covenant and the other gospel is a different covenant? Why are we arguing that a Jew is saved by works?

Problem with that theory, is that one covenant is a Covenant of Grace and Promise, and the other covenant is a Covenant of Law and Condemnation.

And we know that no soul has ever been saved by keeping the Law.

No good news comes from the Covenant of Works (Law). Only condemnation and bondage comes from the old covenant.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Problem with that theory, is that one covenant is a Covenant of Grace and Promise, and the other covenant is a Covenant of Law and Condemnation.

And we know that no soul has ever been saved by keeping the Law.

No good news comes from the Covenant of Works (Law). Only condemnation and bondage comes from the old covenant.
The problem with what you are saying is that you seem to ignore the old covenant, branding God's law as works perhaps? That is, WHAT is important about the new covenant that makes it different from ("not like") the old? You seem to be saying there is a covenant that is more fundamental than the old and that it has always been (is older than the old). You point gets lost. I don't know it. You speak in words that do not make sense for my new covenant understanding.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
The problem with what you are saying is that you seem to ignore the old covenant, branding God's law as works perhaps?

The first (old) covenant God made with Adam was a Covenant of Works. This (old) covenant was established according to Law. Adam broke this Covenant of Works through disobedience to God's commands.

The Covenant of Grace was introduced when God promised Eve that her "Seed" would destroy sin, death, and the devil (which had all resulted from the Covenant of Works being broken).

So the contrast of covenants is between law and promise; works and grace; bondage and freedom; death and life; flesh and Spirit. (Galatians 4:28-29)



That is, WHAT is important about the new covenant that makes it different from ("not like") the old?

Promise that God would provide the salvation of sinners through grace alone.

The first (old) Covenant of Works (Law) brings nothing but bondage.

The new and better Covenant of Grace brings freedom from bondage.

That is the teaching of Galatians 4:22-31.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
The first (old) covenant God made with Adam was a Covenant of Works. This (old) covenant was established according to Law. Adam broke this Covenant of Works through disobedience to God's commands.

The Covenant of Grace was introduced when God promised Eve that her "Seed" would destroy sin, death, and the devil (which had all resulted from the Covenant of Works being broken).

So the contrast of covenants is between law and promise; works and grace; bondage and freedom; death and life; flesh and Spirit. (Galatians 4:28-29)





Promise that God would provide the salvation of sinners through grace alone.

The first (old) Covenant of Works (Law) brings nothing but bondage.

The new and better Covenant of Grace brings freedom from bondage.

That is the teaching of Galatians 4:22-31.
The old covenant was with the nation of Israel through the prophet Moses. You are using different terms that are not familiar with me or with my scripture reading. The term "old covenant" comes from Hebrews in reading the TaNaK, from the prophet Jeremiah. This is how I know what the old covenant is. Nothing is said in the Bible about the old covenant being with Adam.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
How about for different people?

Galatians 2:7 (New King James Version)
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

Whoa, say it ain't so, Paul! :shocked:

In context and grammatically, this is a demarcation of ministry or different target audiences for the one NT gospel based on the cross, not two true NT gospels for two groups.

Nang's covenantal views are less wrong than MAD's ultra/hyperdisp views (the truth is in between in more moderate disp views).
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
The old covenant was with the nation of Israel through the prophet Moses. You are using different terms that are not familiar with me or with my scripture reading. The term "old covenant" comes from Hebrews in reading the TaNaK, from the prophet Jeremiah. This is how I know what the old covenant is. Nothing is said in the Bible about the old covenant being with Adam.

This is all correct, but the Law was established at creation. God immediately gave Adam commands. Adam was responsible as federal head of the human race to obey God's commands. When Adam failed, Scripture says Adam (humankind) transgressed covenant with God. Hosea 6:7

The Mosaic Covenant and the formal writing of the Decalogue on Mt. Sinai was a republication of the original Covenant of Works (Law) made with Adam.

Nang
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Well, I'm no Greek scholar, but the English uses two definite articles before two differently described nouns. That makes the two nouns distinct objects.

If I say, "The green apple and the red apple" that means I most certainly have more than one apple. For your understanding to be justified the verse should read, 'the red and green apple - the gospel for the circumcised and the uncircumcised to Pater for the Jews and to Paul for the Gentiles.' But it doesn't say that.

So, unless you have a good reason why I should trust an alternative translation over the NKJV, I remain justified in believing there were two gospels.

There are rules that apply to bigger issues relating to Jesus being Lord, God, Savior (when dealing with JWs), but there is not grammatical necessity for your view in this verse. A.T. Roberston, Greek master, concurs with demarcation of ministry, not two gospels based on the verse which MAD proof texts.

The sense is that Billy Graham is an evangelist to the North Americans, whereas Reinhard Bonnke is an evangelist to the Africans (one gospel). The article does not prove or disprove one or two gospels. The preposition (to, of, for) also does not prove your view.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Just use the NIV

(Gal 2:7 NIV) On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews

Much less confusing, and only one gospel.

Unless you're one of those King James Onlyist/MAD people
How much trust should we put in the NIV?

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
-Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
This is all correct, but the Law was established at creation. God immediately gave Adam commands. Adam was responsible as federal head of the human race to obey God's commands. When Adam failed, Scripture says Adam (humankind) transgressed covenant with God. Hosea 6:7

The Mosaic Covenant and the formal writing of the Decalogue on Mt. Sinai was a republication of the original Covenant of Works (Law) made with Adam.

Nang
There was a covenant before the law, but it wasn't nullified by the law.

Galatians 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

You are calling something a Covenant of Works (Law), but I don't know how the idea is formulated. You seem to be speaking with a language outside of scripture.

What are my thoughts on Adam? All have sinned, and it began with Adam. Through his sin came death to mankind. I don't see a Covenant of Works in that at all. It's simple and plain the rewards of disobedience. You seem to be saying death, a consequence, is some kind of perpetual works or something.

The "law" (or rule) of sin and of death is that death comes along with sin. It is the natural consequence. This is not the Law (Moses), but was apparent even before the law came into existence (from the very beginning). I don't call it a covenant of works though. For the law, as the verse says, came later.

Where do you get your "Covenant of Works" language?

You seem to think it was Moses from the begining so that's all bad and now we don't have to deal with all that. But you forget that like Adam, we still must be obedient to God.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Easy. "The red apple and the green apple". This sentence refers to two different objects even though the noun used (apple) is the same.

'The gospel to Peter and the gospel to Paul' refers to two different gospels.

The gospel was not to Peter, but to those who are Jews or to those who are Gentiles or to those who are Chinese, American, French, etc. The modifiers refer to the target audience, not the messengers.

Peter had a gospel ministry among Jews, while Paul's gospel ministry (same message) was primarily among Gentiles. Post-cross, Jew and Gentile become one in Christ through the one gospel. Two gospels would be a denial of the finished work of Christ and make salvation contingent on something other than the cross. These ministry leaders went to different groups with the same gospel. This fits the whole chapter (vs one proof text out of context) and is fully consistent with the grammar. You are not comparing apples with oranges in your argument (lack of understanding of Greek/English, I am afraid).

MAD too often proof texts its views while ignoring other relevant verses or the clear principles of NT. It gets even worse when STP sees two gospels, even in Paul's own books (Rom.; I Cor. = strained exegesis to retain wrong view)?!
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
There was a covenant before the law, but it wasn't nullified by the law.

Galatians 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

This Scripture speaks to the Abrahamic Covenant, which contained the Gospel of Grace, that came before the Mosaic Covenant which reiterated Law.

You are calling something a Covenant of Works (Law), but I don't know how the idea is formulated.

The idea is formulated around human responsiblity and human moral accountability before God. Adam was created a moral agent, responsible and accountable to live according to God's commands and moral demands. This was a "covenant" established in the garden, and it is defined as a covenant of "works" because Adam was responsible and accountable to act according to God's commands, lest he die. Adam's actions (works) were the cause of his being consigned to a death sentence.



What are my thoughts on Adam? All have sinned, and it began with Adam. Through his sin came death to mankind. I don't see a Covenant of Works in that at all. It's simple and plain the rewards of disobedience. You seem to be saying death, a consequence, is some kind of perpetual works or something.

No, death is not a perpetual work. Death is the result of Adam's disobedient works. A guilty death sentence was imposed upon Adam, because Adam committed the crime of disobedience. And that disobedience was defined by God's Law.

If there had been no Law, and Adam had not acted against any Law given, there would have been no legal basis for God to declare Adam guilty and deserving of death.

". . . Sin is not imputed when there is no law." Romans 5:13

Since Adam is held guilty and responsible for death (Romans 5:12), then we must conclude Adam sinned, and since Adam's sin brought a legal death penalty, we must conclude according to Scripture, that Adam indeed acted to break God's commands and Law. And since God's commands included a provision of life if the commands were met ("tree of life"), then the reader of Holy Scripture can conclude there was all the elements of a covenant between God and man in place in the garden.

The "law" (or rule) of sin and of death is that death comes along with sin. It is the natural consequence.

The death sentence imposed by God upon Adam was a legal consequence, according to Law.

This is not the Law (Moses), but was apparent even before the law came into existence (from the very beginning).

This was the Law of creation that was formalized by God through the agency of Moses. It is defined as the Mosaic Covenant, which is no different than the Covenant of Works except it is more detailed to further reveal the extent of human sins to mankind, and purposed to draw men to their need of a Savior.


I don't call it a covenant of works though. For the law, as the verse says, came later.

Yes, the formal and more detailed Decalogue came later, but when there are Godly commands, there is Law. And Adam was given commands (Law) and moral agency to obey those commands in order to live and avoid death, in the garden of Eden.

It was a contract between God and man, based upon Divine Law, that the man failed to keep, resulting in his death and the death of all mankind. Hosea 6:7

"Covenant of Works" is the terminology used by all sound theologians to describe the establishment of Law and subsequent events in the garden, just as "Trinity" is used by sound theologians to define Infinite God in heaven.

Nang
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Here Paul speaks about the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles:

"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Gal.2:2).

If there were only "one" gospel then there would be absolutely no reason to specify that the gospel that he is speaking of is the one "which I preach among the Gentiles."

If the gospel which Paul "preached among the Gentiles" was the same one that the other Apostles were preaching then why would Paul want those Apostles to consider its relationship to the gospel they were proclaiming? That would make no sense.

The Church at Jerusalem affirmed Paul's ministry, and Paul confirmed that they were on track based on his revelation. Together, they stood together with the one true gospel in the face of false Judaizer gospels (Gal. 1). There was a demarcation of ministry/mission and concessions of wisdom given to not offend as Jew/Gentile were becoming one in Christ through the one gospel preached by different leaders to different audiences (Acts 15 they were on the same page against the false gospels).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The same people who say "one gospel, two target audiences" would think it was insane if a chapter later we said "one covenant, two target audiences" when Paul gives the allegory about the two covenants.

It doesn't occur to them that the two (different) covenants led to the two different gospels during the Acts period.

This is your wrong assumption. The contrast is between OT/Israel/Old and NT/Church/New. Paul contrasts Judaism and Christianity, but you are reading your 3 (Judaism, NT circ, NT uncirc) into the passage.

Change your view, not the Bible.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
How much trust should we put in the NIV?

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
-Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

This is a problem text that can be resolved as stated.

As well, we look at any given verse in NIV vs other translations. If one is weak, it does not mean all are. The same is true of KJV: just because some verses are poor translations is not an argument against all other verses in the KJV. The NIV also agrees with most verses in other versions, so we would have to reject all versions using your logic.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
How much trust should we put in the NIV?

It's not like it is just the NIV that does not support the MAD view. Here are some other versions of the same verse that disagree with MAD

Youngs

(Gal 2:7 YLT) but, on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the good news of the uncircumcision, as Peter with [that] of the circumcision,

Today’s New International Version

On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.

Amplified

But on the contrary, when they [really] saw that I had been entrusted [to carry] the Gospel to the uncircumcised [Gentiles, just as definitely] as Peter had been entrusted [to proclaim] the Gospel to the circumcised [Jews, they were agreeable];

New Living Translation

Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews.

Contemporary English Version

They realized that God had sent me with the good news for Gentiles, and that he had sent Peter with the same message for Jews.


God’s Word Translation

In fact, they saw that I had been entrusted with telling the Good News to people who are not circumcised as Peter had been entrusted to tell it to those who are circumcised.

New International Readers Version

In fact, it was just the opposite. They saw that I had been trusted with the task of preaching the good news just as Peter had been. My task was to preach to the non-Jews. Peter's task was to preach to the Jews.

Worldwide English (New Testament)

No, the leaders saw that God called me to take the good news to those who are not circumcised [not Jews], just as he called Peter to take the good news to those who are circumcised [Jews].

So.....unless you're interested in becoming a King James Onlyist, it appears that only the MADists claim this verse speaks of two different gospels.
 
Top