Different Gospels

[ShaunGutfeld777]

Here's what the Lord said thru Paul concerning what people become when they do not accept the Words of the Lord, meaning Paul was following the Word of Jesus and was an avenue of the continued teaching ministry of Jesus after He ascended back to Heaven thru the New Testament writers

1 Timothy 6:3-5
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

It's ONE Gospel based on the Words of Jesus which are not just the red letters in the Gospels but also the teachings of Jesus thru His Apostles as The Lord commissioned God's Word to be put in to written form.

 

[Anchorite]

How then should we understand The Following...

Two Distinct And Different Gospels!
+
I have decided to follow Jesus?
+

You have invented two different gospels (prophecy vs. mystery) and two different versions of Jesus (earthly vs. heavenly).

This is how misguided people try to make the blessed words of Jesus in the four gospels, including the Lord’s Prayer, Sermon on the Mount, and Great Commission, irrelevant to believers today.

Better it is to Be "Approved Unto God" rather than "falling for chicanery", eh?

Being approved unto God is not how you are portraying it.

Supporting a theological opinion by linking to your own posts about it is a bit much.

There is only one gospel and only one Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 13:8

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

 

[ShaunGutfeld777]

There is only one gospel and only one Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 13:8

Ladies and gentle men we have a winner!

This statement settles the entire discussion so the thread can be closed now.

 

[BartholomewB]

Therefore the differences between covenant and testament. Covenants are not reliant upon the death of one party, where testament is, therefore the reason for the cup Jesus passed was the cup of the new testament, not covenant. Jesus had to die in order for that testament in His blood for our salvation to become a reality and in force. Covenants are between two living parties not at all dependent upon the death of one.

MM

MM, did you look at that Bible Hub page I linked to in my post #226? It lists over forty (exactly forty-four, I think) translations of 1 Cor 11:25. More than three-quarters of them dissent from your opinion that “the cup Jesus passed was the cup of the new testament, not covenant.”

In fact all but five of them translate diathéké in this verse as “covenant,” and of those five only three have chosen “testament,” with “agreement” and “promise” accounting for the last two.

 

[GWH]

MM, did you look at that Bible Hub page I linked to in my post #226? It lists over forty (exactly forty-four, I think) translations of 1 Cor 11:25. More than three-quarters of them dissent from your opinion that “the cup Jesus passed was the cup of the new testament, not covenant.”

In fact all but five of them translate diathéké in this verse as “covenant,” and of those five only three have chosen “testament,” with “agreement” and “promise” accounting for the last two.

So, what is the significant difference between the meaning of covenant and testament?
Are they not essentially synonymous?
Would dispensation also be in the same vein?

 

[Jon777]

When I read this OP, the following came to my mind, as expressed by Robert L. Dabney in his Systematic Theology -

“The distribution of Theology into didactic, polemic, and practical, is sufficiently known. Now, all didactic inculcation of truth is indirect refutation of the opposite error. Polemic Theology has been defined as direct refutation of error. The advantage of this has been supposed to be, that the way for easiest and most thorough refutation is to systematize the error, with reference to its first principle, or prwton yeudo". But the attempt to form a science of polemics, different from Didactic Theology fails; because error never has true method. Confusion is its characteristic. The system of discussion, formed on its false method, cannot be scientific. Hence, separate treatises on polemics have usually slidden into the methods of didactics; or they have been confused. Again: Indirect refutation is more effectual than direct. There is therefore, in this course, no separate polemic; but what is said against errors is divided between the historical and didactic.”

The OP is nothing but a confusion! When I see arguments in presentations that take all the verbiage as in this presentation, I know it is probably teaching profound error. I’ve found in attempting to answer such confusion, one becomes confused himself trying to give a response.

I saw at the beginning of this OP, seemingly an attempt to say only Old Covenant(?) Jews were given the power of miracles in Mark 16. Well, the list given to the twelve in Matthew includes one special power:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, proclaim the good news, ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment. (Matt 10:5-8, NRSV)

If I see anyone claiming the gifts as Pentecostals and Charismatics do, I want to see them raise the dead! Then I will listen to their claims, not until they do so.

I did some research to find out about this “two gospels” heresy and found:

"The idea that there are two separate gospels—one for Jews and one for Gentiles—is not an ancient or mainstream Christian teaching. It is a modern doctrinal error that arose in the 19th and early 20th centuries within certain strands of hyper-dispensationalism (also called ultra-dispensationalism or Bullingerism)."

"There is no evidence that any major Christian teacher or council in the first 1,800 years of church history taught that there are two distinct gospels for Jews and Gentiles."

"Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once and for all handed on to the saints." (Jud 1:3 NRSVue)

So, I am to believe that for 1800 years the church did not know that two gospels were found in the faith that was once and for all handed on to the saints” HOGWASH!

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is God’s saving power for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.” (Rom 1:16 NRSVue)

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Gal 1:6-7 NRSVue)

“there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:4-6 NRSVue)

NRSVue translates οἰκονομία oikonomia as: "plan", "commission", or "divine training" in 1 Ti 1:4 (The 2021 NRSVue is an academic translation that is pure translation, not slanted toward any theology.)

The RSV uses the English word “dispensation” in another passage:

“Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was, will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor.” (2Cor 3:7-9, RSV)

There was the principle expressed by Paul, tailor the gospel message to fit those under law and those outside the law. Different approach to preach the gospel, but the gospel is the one gospel preached to Jew and Gentile.

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to gain Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might gain those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not outside God’s law but am within Christ’s law) so that I might gain those outside the law.” (1Co 9:20-21 NRSVue)

 

[BartholomewB]

So, what is the significant difference between the meaning of covenant and testament?
Are they not essentially synonymous?

No, I wouldn’t describe them as synonyms. That would be overstating the case. But each one has its range of meanings and in certain areas ― notably in Bible translation, the activity we’re concerned with here ― those ranges can sometimes overlap.

Would dispensation also be in the same vein?

“Dispensation” is an altogether different case, I think. Did that term ever gain general acceptance among Bible translators? My impression is that still today, two centuries on from J. N. Darby, it remains restricted to followers of his theological views, who seem to be a pretty small minority even among the Protestant churches, let alone the older churches such as the Catholics and the Orthodox.

 

[biblestudent78]

If I overlooked something it's because of my chaotic schedule, for which I apologize, but the attitude behind your words have the ring of a mind made up and so nothing else potentially being of any real value to you, so it's pointless, right?

MM

Being accurate is not a problem of having one's mind "made up." I am open to any information that helps me shape my understanding. However that requires being fully informed and being capable of engaging on issues you feel strongly about. Think of it as an invitation.

 

[biblestudent78]

Precious friend, then should we not obey 2 Timothy 2:15 AV, And start
"Rightly Dividing It" Instead, For God's Approval?:

Two Distinct And Different Gospels!

And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:

The Bible: The BIG Picture

Amen.

Please educate me on the principles and disciplines you associate with your definition of "Rightly Divided."

 

[Jon777]

About LAW, the Old Covenant, here is a third view to add to the Reformed and the Dispensational, it Is New Covenant theology. It is a minority view I’ll explain why it is what I embrace. To begin, I accept the instruction by Paul as in the ASV of 1 Cor. 4:6 “in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written”. The KJV has it “learn in us not to think of men above that which is written”, so I avoid theological constructions unless logic demands it as in the Trinity.

It is traditional with RC, Lutheran and Reformed to divide the Law into three parts: moral, civil and ceremonial. I reject that because it is nowhere found in scripture for it is a theological construction. Before the Old Covenant was given, you can see something of the “Moral Law” in demonstration or command. Therefore, when Paul refers to the law, it is ALL of the Old Covenant, not a third.

“having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;” (Eph 2:15, ASV)

It does not say he abolished the civil and ceremonial law; it refers to the law of commandments and Paul makes it more clear in the following:

“who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory.” (2Cor 3:6-11, ASV)

Another verse: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away. (Heb 8:13, ASV)

What was the Old Covenant: “And he was there with Jehovah forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Exod 34:28, ASV)

I am not antinomian because much of the Ten Commandments are found in the NT, in brief; but they are not exact quotes out of the Ten Commandments as expressed by Moses. Further:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come. (Rom 5:12-14, NRSV)

 

[biblestudent78]

If someone claims that only the “kingdom gospel” disciples were given the power to heal, James contradicts this false opinion.

James not only affirms the ability to minister healing to the sick, he guarantees that the prayer of faith (which he earlier maintains must be unwavering) will save the sick.

He then goes on, in the immediate context, to encourage faith in miracles, such as what Elias performed.

James makes it very clear that believers can heal and be healed. And he feels no need to list all the people he personally healed, nor does he say believers should go to leper colonies or hospitals to heal everybody.

James 5

14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.

Anchorite
In reading your message it strikes me that it is virtually an exact match for the way that the Roman and Eastern Catholic Church see the process. They too believe they have the power forgive sins as appointed by the Church. Confessions are also an important daily practice. They too believe that the prayers of a righteous man is powerful. They have put into practice James words. The Catholic Church supports approximately 5,500 hospitals worldwide and over 600 in the United States. As the world's largest non-government healthcare provider, its global network includes clinics, long-term care facilities, and hospitals, with a significant portion of its hospitals located in developing countries. The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of healthcare services in the world. Globally, it manages 18,000 clinics, and 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs. Around 65% of these hospitals are in developing countries. Catholic hospitals are present in all 50 states. One in every seven patients in the U.S. is cared for in a Catholic hospital.

So as a life-long non-denominational Christian, I can see how powerful James words are to those who actually put them in practice.

 

[Musicmaster]

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) Rom2:14&15
You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2Cor3:3
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Rom3:13
Through the law we become conscious of sin Rom3:20
All christians have heartfelt consciousness of sin

But you carry on!

The one who is carrying on is you. I already stated that the Law is still in force even today and beyond. That you don't understand key words and phraseology in the Bible, that's just par for the course in modern religion here in the West.

MM

 

[lrs68]

I don't see why people just don't stick with what Yeshua said and leave it at that. Seems if you just obey the words spoken by God Himself you can't go wrong.

 

[Jon777]

About LAW, the Old Covenant, here is a third view to add to the Reformed and the Dispensational, it Is New Covenant theology. It is a minority view I’ll explain why it is what I embrace. To begin, I accept the instruction by Paul as in the ASV of 1 Cor. 4:6 “in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written”. The KJV has it “learn in us not to think of men above that which is written”, so I avoid theological constructions unless logic demands it as in the Trinity.

It is traditional with RC, Lutheran and Reformed to divide the Law into three parts: moral, civil and ceremonial. I reject that because it is nowhere found in scripture for it is a theological construction. Before the Old Covenant was given, you can see something of the “Moral Law” in demonstration or command. Therefore, when Paul refers to the law, it is ALL of the Old Covenant, not a third.

“having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;” (Eph 2:15, ASV)

It does not say he abolished the civil and ceremonial law; it refers to the law of commandments and Paul makes it more clear in the following:

“who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory.” (2Cor 3:6-11, ASV)

Another verse: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away. (Heb 8:13, ASV)

What was the Old Covenant: “And he was there with Jehovah forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Exod 34:28, ASV)

I am not antinomian because much of the Ten Commandments are found in the NT, in brief; but they are not exact quotes out of the Ten Commandments as expressed by Moses. Further:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come. (Rom 5:12-14, NRSV)

 

[Jon777]

To further support for New Covenant Theology I give further. I’m under the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant “In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'" (1Cor 11:25, NRSV)and then in Hebrews: "How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" (Heb 10:29, NRSV)

The Law of Moses had a specific starting "day", a Law given to no other nation:

"And what other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as this entire law that I am setting before you today?" (Deut 4:8, NRSV)

The last verse in the book of Genesis reads:

These are the commandments that the LORD gave to Moses for the people of Israel on Mount Sinai. (Lev 27:34, NRSV)

Moses saw in the distant future when another prophet would succeed him:

"The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet. This is what you requested of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: “If I hear the voice of the LORD my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die.” Then the LORD replied to me: “They are right in what they have said. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable." (Deut 18:15-19, NRSV)

Jesus Christ is the prophet of which Moses spoke:

"Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people.’" (Acts 3:22-23, NRSV)

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20, NRSV)

As a Gentile, I was never under law, and even for the Jew, at least if he is Christian, he is no longer under law, but grace.

From the close of the First London Confession of Baptists, 1646
"If any man shall impose upon us anything that we see not to be commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ, we should in His strength rather embrace all reproaches and tortures of men, to be stripped of all outward comforts, and if it were possible, to die a thousand deaths, rather than to do anything against the least tittle of the truth of God or against the light of our own consciences."

That confession does not include the Ten Commandments as most other confessions and catechisms.

 

[amazingrace]

two different gospels?

why does the so called kingdom gospel say:

Jn 1:16
And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

and the so called gospel of grace say:

1 cor 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

thks

 

[biblestudent78]

I don't see why people just don't stick with what Yeshua said and leave it at that. Seems if you just obey the words spoken by God Himself you can't go wrong.

If that is what you actually believe, how many witches have you killed in your life? The bible says they exist and that you must kill them. So how many? Exodus 22:18. If you have not killed any then you do not believe in God's Word. etc.

 

[Blade]

How are you looking at this? Christ said it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. It is just one gospel.. you have His own He spoke face to face with vs the rest of the world Paul talked to, a different generation if you will they were not under the law.. blah blah blah... . Still the same message same gospel. Again.. His words are spirit and are life.

 

[biblestudent78]

How are you looking at this? Christ said it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. It is just one gospel.. you have His own He spoke face to face with vs the rest of the world Paul talked to, a different generation if you will they were not under the law.. blah blah blah... . Still the same message same gospel. Again.. His words are spirit and are life.

Blade,
My assumption from your response is that the God of the Hebrew Bible is not the God of Jesus. Is that correct? If, as you claim that Jesus words are life, have you sold all your possessions and given them to the poor as Jesus commanded?

 

[Musicmaster]

Another verse: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away. (Heb 8:13, ASV)

What was the Old Covenant: “And he was there with Jehovah forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Exod 34:28, ASV)

I am not antinomian because much of the Ten Commandments are found in the NT, in brief; but they are not exact quotes out of the Ten Commandments as expressed by Moses. Further:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come. (Rom 5:12-14, NRSV)

The Mosaic Law is still in force today, as the verse from Hebrews states in the present tense when it was written by the men who wrote it, which was not any one of the twelve nor was it Paul, as some out there are prone to claim.

So, the new covenant to come is for us of Israel, not Gentiles.

MM