What's Wrong With Calvinism?

[puritan lad]

The gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of Christ crucified are one and the same.

"For I am not ashamed of THE gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.' (Romans 1:16)

What is the dispensation of grace, and what kind of dispensation were the Israelites under? (I admit that these are rhetorical questions, as I'm pretty much aware of what dispensationalism teaches. But I ask in order that you may defend the position.)

I don't anywhere in the scriptures that Abraham preached Christ crucified?

How does your interpretation of Galatians 3:8 square with this?

"You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness." (Acts 3:25-26)

Clearly, the gospel preached to Abraham was fulfilled by God, having raised up Christ.

What was the gospel that was sent to Israel?

"Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation.... And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, "'You are my Son, today I have begotten you.' (Acts 13:26-33)

Clearly, the gospel preached to Abraham was the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no other gospel, and there never has been. The same gospel was promised to the fathers, sent to the Sons of Abraham (Israel), and fulfilled by raising up Jesus.

“Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." (John 8:56)

"But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled." (Acts 3:18)

"And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days [Christ’s resurrection, Ascension, and the birth of the church]." (Acts 3:24)

All of the Old Testament prophets proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no other, and there never has been.

[jlay]

The gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of Christ crucified are one and the same.

Obviously that would be where we disagree, and I don't see the point in repeating what is clear in what Paul wrote regarding the mystery.
If you understand dispensationalism in regards to what we are discussing here, then I am not interested in some game of yours to test me.

How does your interpretation of Galatians 3:8 square with this?

For one, it says a gospel was preached to Abraham, not vice versa. That being that through him many nations would be blessed. So I son't see anything to square on my end. Of course we know the blessing to all nations would come through Abraham's lineage to Jesus Christ. I think you are gravely misunderstanding me if you think that I am trying to remove Christ from that equation. I see it that you are taking liberty to interpret into this scripture something that isn't there. And then challenging me to defend what you are adding. Not gonna happen. Even the disciples themselves didn't understand all these things until Christ opened the scriptures to them. Luke 24:45-47 "Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

All of the Old Testament prophets proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no other, and there never has been.

Let's not muddy the water here. Each gospel is most certainly a gospel of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to imply in your wording. My case has to do with how God has dealt with people in different covenents over time. Obviously that is why it is called dispensationalism, which is based on rightly dividng the word of truth.
Then Paul was lying when he said that what was revealed to him was not revealed to the OT prophets. That he in fact had new prophetic revelation. Did he or didn't he?
Eph 3:7-9
Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

PL, not at all sure how those other quotes you provide confirm, disprove, disagree with anything I'm asserting.

I don't know what translation you site regarding Acts 3:24, because the word 'church' most certainly doens't appear in the text. Check it out. The church was most certainly not birthed there. This is fulfilling the prophets, to the same Israel.

All of the Old Testament prophets proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no other, and there never has been.

Well certainly we don't agree on the matter, but as I mentioned, how you've worded it here is tricky indeed. It implies that I am excluding Christ from a gospel. I am not.

[puritan lad]

If you understand dispensationalism in regards to what we are discussing here, then I am not interested in some game of yours to test me.

You are assuming that "is based on rightly dividng the word of truth". I need you defend that, because I find no scriptural support for that statement.

You have me confused...

Let's not muddy the water here. Each gospel is most certainly a gospel of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to imply in your wording.

No where does it say that what was preached to Abraham was the gospel of Jesus Christ.

See what I mean??

[jlay]

[quote ]You have me confused...

[/quote]
No prolbem. Let me clarify, as I see the misunderstanding. In what is recorded as being spoken to Abraham there was no literal words relating to 'Jesus Christ.' If you have any, i'd love to see. Abraham was simply told that through Him all nations would be blessed. That is good news. Even though we both believe that yes, Christ was the fulfillment of this blessing.

[puritan lad]

No prolbem. Let me clarify, as I see the misunderstanding. In what is recorded as being spoken to Abraham there was no literal words relating to 'Jesus Christ.' If you have any, i'd love to see. Abraham was simply told that through Him all nations would be blessed. That is good news. Even though we both believe that yes, Christ was the fulfillment of this blessing.

This would probably be better served in the zionism thread as we are getting off the subject, but...
If you look at the same words spoken to Abraham in Acts 3:25-26, it not only speaks of Jesus Christ, but specifically of his resurrection. Not only that, but the gospel in Galatians 3:8 is directly tied to the justification of the Gentiles, What else could it be?

[jlay]

For one, neither gospel ignores the gentiles. The difference is how the 'nations' would be reached. One is the Kingly Messiah being received by His people Israel, and thus fulfilling Israel's place as the city on the hill. Isaiah 60.

The mystery is the hidden program that God had planned since BEFORE the beginning due to Israel's rejection of the Messiah. And thus Paul's commission to preach HIS gospel. And as Paul says repeatedly, it was NOT revealed to the OT prophets. And for good reason.

Of course Peter mentions Christ Acts 3. You are implying that what Peter goes on to say, after quoting Gen 22:18 to the 1st century crowd, was also literally spoken to Abraham. Peter is quoting a specific scripture that we can go back and check. Gen 22:18 That is quote, end quote. Surely you understand the context here, and what is being said to whom. I don't know any niceer way to say it, but what you are trying to assert and insert just comes across as either sloppy or dishonest. It is very clear that at v.19 Peter is not quoting scripture but speaking his own isnpired words to the crowd.

The thread is 'what is wrong with Calvanism.' Obviously what we are discussing is huge difference between dispensational and reformed theology. And essentially all differences originate in the area we are now discussing.

[puritan lad]

For one, neither gospel ignores the gentiles. The difference is how the 'nations' would be reached. One is the Kingly Messiah being received by His people Israel, and thus fulfilling Israel's place as the city on the hill. Isaiah 60.

There is only one gospel, for Jew and gentile. Romans 1:16 could not be any clearer on that. You are going beyond run-of-the-mill dispensationalism and bordering dangerously close to "dual-covenant" theology.

As for Isaiah 60, it has been fulfilled in Christ. It is Christians who are children of the promises to Abraham, not "Israel after the flesh".

"But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband." Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise." (Galatians 4:26-28)

"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." (Hebrews 12:22-24)

The mystery is the hidden program that God had planned since BEFORE the beginning due to Israel's rejection of the Messiah. And thus Paul's commission to preach HIS gospel. And as Paul says repeatedly, it was NOT revealed to the OT prophets. And for good reason.

jlay, this has already been answered. Paul was quite specific on what the mystery was that was not revealed to the OT prophets. "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus". Nothing is mentioned here, or in any of the passages you quoted, about separate gospels.

Of course Peter mentions Christ Acts 3. You are implying that what Peter goes on to say, after quoting Gen 22:18 to the 1st century crowd, was also literally spoken to Abraham. Peter is quoting a specific scripture that we can go back and check. Gen 22:18 That is quote, end quote. Surely you understand the context here, and what is being said to whom. I don't know any niceer way to say it, but what you are trying to assert and insert just comes across as either sloppy or dishonest. It is very clear that at v.19 Peter is not quoting scripture but speaking his own isnpired words to the crowd.

What about verses 25-26?
"You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness." (Acts 3:25-26)

The thread is 'what is wrong with Calvanism.' Obviously what we are discussing is huge difference between dispensational and reformed theology. And essentially all differences originate in the area we are now discussing.

Very well. I will post a separate message with many of the arguments against dispensationalism (you avoided my question regarding dispensation of grace and the OT. If you want to defend the position, that would be a good place to start).

[jlay]

What about verses 25-26?
"You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness." (Acts 3:25-26)

What about it? vs. 25 and 26 are not an OT quote, but Peter speaking that to the people present. Do you dispute that?

jlay, this has already been answered. Paul was quite specific on what the mystery was that was not revealed to the OT prophets. "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus". Nothing is mentioned here, or in any of the passages you quoted, about separate gospels.

Heirs together. Funny, I don't recall hearing that in the OT, or through Jesus' earthly ministry, or John the Baptist's, or the little flock in Acts. Well of course not, because Paul says it was hidden, and NOT revelaed
Actually Paul says it in his summary in Ephesians. Ephesians 6:18-20 "Praying always ... for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel for which I am an ambassador in bonds ...."
Hmm, mystery of THE GOSPEL which he is the ambassador. He's explained the mystery. Explained that it was hidden and not revealed. Then he sums it up as the mystery of the gospel. Yet you say its the same. Gotcha.

(you avoided my question regarding dispensation of grace and the OT. If you want to defend the position, that would be a good place to start).

What was the question?

But keep in mind, I am not going to get into a peeing match about who hasn't answered whose questions. You are only coming across as dogmatic. I explained earlier that if you are familiar with dispensational theology, I'm not interested in a sparing match.