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
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.
