Kingdom Gospel versus Grace Gospel

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by tony2tall, Jun 18, 2010.

  1. tony2tall

    tony2tall
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kingdom Gospel different message than Grace Gospel.
    I never heard of this theology before until I recently heard Les Feldick speak of it. I also found a web site with the same viewpoint. http://www.matthewmcgee.org/2gospels.html#Differences
    My wife and I can't zero in what they are trying to get across? Mr Feldick and Mr Mcgee both point out these two different gospels don't contradict?
    Is this theology labeled a particular doctrine?
     
  2. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Sounds like another case of wrongly dividing the Word of Truth.
     
  3. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,892
    Likes Received:
    37
    Jesus the Christ (the anointed one) anointed what?

    What did Paul preach everywhere he went? See Acts 20:25 Acts 28:23,31
    What was covered in this? See Acts 20:24,32 Verse 32 speaks of inheritance.
    Inherit what? 1 Cor. 15:50 Does this mean inherit by resurrection?

    Why do you think what is taught here Acts 17:2,3,,7 was so important to Paul?
    Do you think it is because just as Christ even so we also 1 Thess. 4:14 will inherit it. Also Romans 8:17 Is this spoken of as a birth? Colossians 1:18
    Do we need this same birth to enter/inherit the kingdom of God John 3:7,5,3 1 Cor. 15:50?

    Did Jesus and those that heard him and them they told preach the same gospel and what did they speak of? Hebrews 2:3,5?


    Peter also preached the same to Cornelius if you read real close.

    Tell me where I went wrong according to scripture.
     
    #3 percho, Jun 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 19, 2010
  4. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Les Feldick is a heretic that preaches what I call the "Two Gospel" heresy. He also buys into the whole "New Perspective on Paul" garbage. He downplays the importance of evangelism, and is a shameless self promoter to boot.

    On that note...(self promotion), here is a sermon I did a while back, not addressing Feldick, but it does address some of the heresy of this view...

    http://www.straightwalk.org/resources/Sermon+Guard+Your+Doctrine+01.wma
     
  5. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    I'm suprised to hear that about Feldick. I've seen him on TV maybe three times and each time his teaching seemed pretty much standard disp'sm. Are you sure you're not over-stating the case?
     
  6. Bro K

    Bro K
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gospel= Good News. We can find God's good news from Genesis thru Revelation. There is good news for the unsaved and good news for the saved. God's word provides good news for everyone. One should be very careful in degrading an individual without providing evidence. Its very easy to stand on the sideline and give one-line accusations.
     
  7. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    can you outline the two Gospel heresy and explain this "New Perspective on Paul" please? thank you.
     
  8. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just some Personal thoughts.

    Gospel = Good News
    Annointed = Messiah

    Daniel predicted the coming of the son of man in this passage:
    I break it down into two aspects for a simple view. Earlier in the passage the world system of governance and inner workings of power is exemplified by this characteristic
    otherword the world is rulled by arrogance yet this occured
    So that the world system is contradictory of how God does things and he will defeate the arrogant world system. The second aspect is the establishment of the Kingdom of God by the "Son of Man". Then the next passage is the interpretation of the dream which says
    So for the Jews. The Son of Man will come and destroy the arrogant kingdom who rules the world boastfully and cruelly killing the Jews (Saints) and replace it with a Heavenly kingdom ruled by the priniciples of God rather than by arrogance and cruelty.

    Jews annointed their kings. God promised David that he would have an established dynasty forever. Thus the Annointed one is a decendent of David who is annointed king over Davids kingdom. This person is the Son of Man who obtains from the Ancient of Days to have authority over the kingdom of God

    Thus: Jesus of the line of David is the annointed one (kingship authority) or Messiah and the Good news is the establishment of the kingdom of God and the destruction of the world system.

    You can see how the Jews misapplied prophesy and thought Jesus in his first incarnation would militarily overthrow the Roman Empire.
     
  9. Darrenss1

    Darrenss1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm a little confused as to how you would arrive at 2 gospels? Whether Jews or Gentiles we all still need to be part of the new convenant through Christ.

    Darren
     
  10. tony2tall

    tony2tall
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please don't shoot the messenger I'm don't agree with it. Just searching for explanations.
     
  11. Darrenss1

    Darrenss1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a quote -

    It seems to me all the guy is doing is explaining that the "gospel" as in Christ, His life death and resurrection was not preached until AFTER the resurrection. Before that there was preaching about the coming kindgom and to repent. To clarify it seems that there is ONLY 1 gospel preached at any one time. He did however state -

    I don't agree with his conclusion that Peter was preaching a different gospel. The Book of Acts has Peter in ch 2 preaching on Christ and then following with the exhortation to repent and be baptised, in ch 3 Peter preached Christ and repentence and conversion, ch 4 Peter preached Christ His life death and resurrection...etc I can't see how Peter was preaching any different from Paul. Though Peter had Israel in mind (Acts 5:29-31) I think its clear that God had the whole world in mind for the opportunity for eternal life in Christ not just because of the woman in Samaria at the well but with Cornelius in Acts ch 10. Peter preached that God was no respecter of persons and at that point Peter finally got it that God had intended this gospel to be universal throughout the world. Anyway, I just can't see how that guy could say there was or is 2 gospels. John's (the baptist) gospel may be pointing towards a Messiah and a kingdom but this becomes revealed truth that Jesus is the Messiah during His life and especially after the resurrection..

    Darren
     
  12. John Toppass

    John Toppass
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    7
    I am maybe overlooking something but, the only thing I can see I differ with is Feldicks choice of wording. I believe there were two different audiences to which the gospel was taught. Not two different gospels. I believe that is what he is trying to convey by saying the gospels do not contradict each other.

    I did not read everything thoroughly but I certainly do not call a brother a heretic without substantial evidence of heresy. Why, that would be heretical!


    PS just not agreeing totally with someone does not necessarily constitute heresy.
     
  13. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,892
    Likes Received:
    37
    From Jesus to those that heard him to those that heard them they all preached the same gospel regardless to whom was being preached to. Read the scriptures quoted with my post number 3.
     
  14. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. But Les is a heretic. Do a little research on the New Perspectives on Paul.

    And Paul said if someone preaches a gospel other than the one he preached, they were to be "condemned to hell." That means they are a heretic. Why don't you read up on Feldick, and if you cannot see the heresy, I question your discernment.

    And, Les says that Paul didn't preach the gospel of the kingdom...yet:

    Act 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

    Pretty conclusive.
     
  15. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are two-gospel advocates in my family. These two-gospel advocates are also open theists, as "hyper-dispensationalism" seems naturally to go hand-in-hand with the view that God does not know the future contingent actions of man, and thus can change His plans over time to accommodate.

    Many two-gospel advocates, such as those in my family, believe that the gospel that Jesus preached is not really the same gospel that Paul preached. I could be wrong, but this is what I have understood from what my two-gospel, open theist family have tried to teach me:

    1. Jesus preached the "gospel of the kingdom"--a gospel of faith+repentance+water baptism+works for the Jews for entrance into an earthly kingdom. He came to earth with the initial intention of ruling Israel in bodily form if they had accepted Him. They had to believe that Jesus was The Messiah and the Son of God.
    2. Because the Jews rejected Him, He changed His plans to die for their sins. Satan thought that Jesus was dying just for the Jews, but Jesus decided to die "for the whole world" (just in case?).
    3. After Jesus' resurrection, He commissioned the disciples with somewhat of a "last ditch effort" to restore the kingdom with the "gospel of the kingdom." This is the gospel that Peter preached at Pentecost (you know, Acts 2:38, and all). This gospel was primarily for Jews and any Gentiles who wanted to be proselyted into the kingdom. It was by faith+repentance+water baptism. The difference now was that they had to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
    4. During the stoning of Stephen, Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56). A ruler "standing" is sign of coming judgment. God had decided "Enough!" The effort of the gospel of the kingdom was largely failing because the Jews as a whole were rejecting it. God decided to begin the new gospel--the gospel of grace to the Gentiles.
    5. There was a period of time where both gospels were being preached. Paul learned the new gospel of grace from God, and the other Apostles were still preaching the gospel of the kingdom to the Jews. God accepted responses to both gospels for their respective audiences, although He intended to phase out the gospel of the kingdom in favor of the gospel of grace, and postpone the kingdom to the future.
    6. After Paul's conversion, both Peter and Philip began to taste the change in the gospel.
    a. God directed Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch, a Gentile, to preach the Gospel. Philip was either confused about a requirement for water baptism, or God was still fading away this requirement. Water baptism is not a requirement of any kind in the gospel of grace.
    b. God directed Peter to Cornelius, a Gentile, to preach the gospel. Peter was still confused about the requirements of the new gospel, because he thought that water baptism was still a requirement (c. Acts 2:28; Acts 10:44-48). However, we learn later from Paul that the gospel of grace is about faith alone. Water baptism was always a part of salvation, and it is no longer a requirement of any kind.
    6. The meeting in Acts 15 was to reconcile the different gospel Paul was preaching with that of the other Apostles. Peter relayed his encounter with the gentile gospel, and the Apostles confirmed that Paul's different gospel was God's new modus operandi for the Gentiles. However, both gospels were preached in parallel for a time--"the gospel of the circumcision" to the Jews and "the gospel of the uncircumcision" to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7-8). These two gospels were not only different in recipient, but also in requirement.
    7. Paul's gospel was by grace through faith alone (no works or water baptism as were in the previous gospel). Although those in the gospel of the kingdom had to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, those in the gospel of grace merely have to believe that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus saves (1 Corinthians 16:3-4). Supposedly, one can be saved without believing that Jesus is coequal and coeternal with the Father, but such things are still true.
    8. No water baptism is necessary in the gospel of grace. The only baptism that occurs is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which occurs upon conversion (1 Corinthians 12:13). Paul's statement that he was not sent to baptize is a statement about the nature of the gospel of grace (1 Corinthians 1:14-17). Apparently, Paul was still learning the nature of this new gospel, because he baptized the Philippian jailer and his believing household (Acts 16:30-33) after the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15.


    Hope this helps. The two-gospel doctrine is exhaustive, and you really have to know your Scriptures to debate its studied adherents.
     
  16. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    And let's not forget that some two-gospels proponents claim that "repentance" is a works-related requirement that was characteristic of "the gospel of the kingdom" and not "the gospel of grace." However, Paul told King Agrippa:

     
  17. Bro K

    Bro K
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peter's work was primarily to the Jews; to whom the he presented the gospel (good news) of the Kingdom promised to them. He also presented the gospel (good news) of Christ both to the Jews and Gentiles.

    Paul's work was primarily to the Gentiles; he preached both the gospel (good news) of Christ and gospel (good news) of the Kingdom both to the Gentiles and Jews alike.

    The "good news" applies to several different aspect of bibical doctrines.
     
  18. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    And this all starts with a hermeneutic that divides the scripture instead of uniting it; disjointed epochs instead of continuity.
     
  19. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dispensationalists teach that Peter was teaching a different gospel than Paul. They believe Peter was preaching that if the Jews accepted Christ, then Christ would immediately return and restore the kingdom. This is false and easily disproved by scripture. Peter and the other apostles asked Jesus directly if he would restore the kingdom "at this time". Jesus answered that it was not for them to know this information.

    Therefore, if Peter were indeed preaching that the kingdom was to be restored immediately, he would be doing so presumptuously.

    Acts 2:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
    7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
    8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


    Peter could not have possibly been preaching that Jesus would immediately return and restore the kingdom, because he did not know this. Note that Jesus spoke of "times or the seasons", and that first the gospel must be preached in Jerusalem, all Judaea, Samaria, and the uttermost part of the earth. So Jesus will not return until this takes place.

    And this is shown in Peter's preaching afterward, Peter says the heaven must receive Jesus until the "times" of the restitution of all things.

    Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
    21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.


    So, Peter was not preaching the immediate return of Christ as some dispensationalists claim, at least two "times" must take place first before Jesus returns.
     
    #19 Winman, Jun 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2010
  20. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,892
    Likes Received:
    37
    Does Acts 3:21 refer to the same thing as Acts 15:15 and does this have anything to do with the gospel of the kingdom of God?
     

Share This Page

Loading...