Do you believe there are many kinds of true Gospel or there is just one true Gospel?

[Jerry]

The word gospel means good news - but the Bible uses it in reference to good news in regards to salvation - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There are not multiple “gospels” spoken of in the Bible, merely various terms to refer to the one Gospel.

[mbkjpreacher]

13 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I say ANY view of different gospels is FALSEHOOD.  In fact, I myself have fought firmly (some might even say, fiercely) right here on Online Baptist against the viewpoint of "different gospels for different dispensations."  

However, I must also contend against your posting above.  You open with the statement, "The Dispensationalists believe," as if ALL Dispensationalists hold the viewpoint of "many kinds of gospel and different plans of salvation."  Such is simply an inaccurate idea.  Some Dispensationalist may hold to that viewpoint (even as you provided the example of "Steven Andersonites"), but ALL Dispensationalist do NOT hold to that viewpoint.  In fact, I myself am a Dispensationalist (to some extent), but I strongly oppose that viewpoint.

Yes that is true that not all dispensationalists divide the gospel into different kinds, but I am talking about the kind of dispensationalists that divide the gospel into different kinds of gospels.  I also believe in dispensations that God never changes but He changes His manner of dealing with men so there are 8 ages or dispensations.  However below my question I am talking about the kind of dispensationalists that divide the gospel into many kinds and say there are different kinds of gospel in every dispensation such as the Things to Come Mission, the group who call themselves rightly dividing yet are actually mid-acts Dispensationalists.  I have encountered followers of Steven Anderson who found themselves comfortable and are merging to the mid-Acts dispensationalism doctrine as they say that the gospel of John is different from the gospel of Matthew, Mark and Luke.  They say that the first three gospels require repentance while John did not.  So that is the point of the Andersonites that John never taught repentance but only faith.  

[Jerry]

Yes, another thing Anderson was super wrong about: he denied that repentance was part of salvation (ie. repent of your sin when turning to Christ for salvation).

[mbkjpreacher]

13 hours ago, John Young said:

Andersonites aren't Dispensationalist (They teach a type of Reformed Covenant Theology) nor do they believe in multiple Gospels for salvation (they teach faith in Christ alone).

I have met followers of Steven Anderson, and they teach that the gospel of John is different from the gospel of Matthew Mark and Luke which preaches on repentance.  I have personally known also followers of Steven Anderson who found themselves comfortable with the mid-Acts dispensationalists who say that the gospel of the 12 apostles is different from the gospel of John and Paul, for John never preached on repentance.  In fact there are many in youtube who already mix that pauline dispensationalism to Andersonism doctrine.   There are many explanation in youtube that John had a different Gospel from that of Peter because repentance is not mentioned in John.  

[Jerry]

The word repentance may not be in John, but the concept certainly is!

John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

John 8:11 -- She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[mbkjpreacher]

12 minutes ago, Jerry said:

The word repentance may not be in John, but the concept certainly is!

John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

John 8:11 -- She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Actually John the beloved taught repentance as you see in Revelation 9, the Andersonites have not discovered this yet.  

And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
(Revelation 9:20-21)
 

 

[John Young]

5 hours ago, Jerry said:

he denied that repentance was part of salvation

He clarified his position on repentance, stating he always held to repentance and that acknowledgement of sin was important in repentance to salvation. What he has always disagreed with was promising not to sin for salvation and works salvation.

 

[John Young]

5 hours ago, mbkjpreacher said:

In fact there are many in youtube who already mix that pauline dispensationalism to Andersonism doctrine. 

Granted you can have people try to mix doctrines from various teachers but that doesn't mean it's what others believe. There doctrine would then be their own doctrine and not the groups they got bits from.

Also, simply stating the fact that the Book of John doesn't say "repent" or "repentance" isn't mid-Acts doctrine. The point is to show that when John says "Believe" it is the SAME act of Repentance that ALL of the Gospel books and Apostles teach.

[mbkjpreacher]

10 minutes ago, John Young said:

Granted you can have people try to mix doctrines from various teachers but that doesn't mean it's what others believe. There doctrine would then be their own doctrine and not the groups they got bits from.

Also, simply stating the fact that the Book of John doesn't say "repent" or "repentance" isn't mid-Acts doctrine. The point is to show that when John says "Believe" it is the SAME act of Repentance that ALL of the Gospel books and Apostles teach.

Would you agree that it is also the same doctrine of repentance in the Old Testament such as Isaiah 55: 7?  

[BrotherTony]

20 minutes ago, John Young said:

Granted you can have people try to mix doctrines from various teachers but that doesn't mean it's what others believe. There doctrine would then be their own doctrine and not the groups they got bits from.

Also, simply stating the fact that the Book of John doesn't say "repent" or "repentance" isn't mid-Acts doctrine. The point is to show that when John says "Believe" it is the SAME act of Repentance that ALL of the Gospel books and Apostles teach.

John, this is the kind of thing that led to my wife and I leaving the "Missionary Baptist" sect years ago. There is a constant need to read into people's beliefs what they BELIEVE the other groups believe. I'm not saying that the MB's don't have many great people in them, because they do. There's just to much inference into what other people believe, and far too many hypotheticals brought to the table. There is also the Landmarkism....Endless geneologies.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 hours ago, mbkjpreacher said:

Yes that is true that not all dispensationalists divide the gospel into different kinds, but I am talking about the kind of dispensationalists that divide the gospel into different kinds of gospels.  I also believe in dispensations that God never changes but He changes His manner of dealing with men so there are 8 ages or dispensations.  

Thank you for clarifying.  It just appeared to me that your opening post did not necessarily acknowledge that some dispensationalists do not hold to a "different gospel for different dispensations" position.  Thus I expressed my contention.

8 hours ago, mbkjpreacher said:

However below my question I am talking about the kind of dispensationalists that divide the gospel into many kinds and say there are different kinds of gospel in every dispensation such as the Things to Come Mission, the group who call themselves rightly dividing yet are actually mid-acts Dispensationalists.  I have encountered followers of Steven Anderson who found themselves comfortable and are merging to the mid-Acts dispensationalism doctrine as they say that the gospel of John is different from the gospel of Matthew, Mark and Luke.  They say that the first three gospels require repentance while John did not.  So that is the point of the Andersonites that John never taught repentance but only faith.  

As I stated in my earlier posting, I myself do firmly stand against and have firmly (fiercely) contended against any such idea concerning "different kinds of gospel."

22 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I say ANY view of different gospels is FALSEHOOD.  In fact, I myself have fought firmly (some might even say, fiercely) right here on Online Baptist against the viewpoint of "different gospels for different dispensations."  

However, I must also contend against your posting above.  You open with the statement, "The Dispensationalists believe," as if ALL Dispensationalists hold the viewpoint of "many kinds of gospel and different plans of salvation."  Such is simply an inaccurate idea.  Some Dispensationalist may hold to that viewpoint (even as you provided the example of "Steven Andersonites"), but ALL Dispensationalist do NOT hold to that viewpoint.  In fact, I myself am a Dispensationalist (to some extent), but I strongly oppose that viewpoint.

There is ONLY one gospel unto eternal salvation from sin, from the beginning of human sin unto the end of time - It is the gospel of repentant faith in the grace of God through the saving work of His Messiah/Christ.  (Not every dispensation has had all of the revealed details of historical event or soteriological doctrine, but every dispensation has possessed this foundational gospel.)

[mbkjpreacher]

3 hours ago, John Young said:

He clarified his position on repentance, stating he always held to repentance and that acknowledgement of sin was important in repentance to salvation. What he has always disagreed with was promising not to sin for salvation and works salvation.

 

Thus Anderson twisted the meaning of repentance saying that if it is about sin then that repentance is work and he used Jonah 3:10 to support his belief.  If it is a change of mind from wrong it becomes work, so if a man changes his mind from wrong driving to right driving, that becomes work.  This is what all his followers teach also

 

[mbkjpreacher]

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

John, this is the kind of thing that led to my wife and I leaving the "Missionary Baptist" sect years ago. There is a constant need to read into people's beliefs what they BELIEVE the other groups believe. I'm not saying that the MB's don't have many great people in them, because they do. There's just to much inference into what other people believe, and far too many hypotheticals brought to the table. There is also the Landmarkism....Endless geneologies.

The good thing about local and autonomous churches is that there is freedom of convictions and belief yet through fellowships there is a sharing of what is commonly believed according to the bible.  That is what missionary Baptists believe.  Though missionary Baptist are also independent Baptists, yet those who call themselves independent Baptists vary much in teachings from local church to universal church idea, and there is not much unity in beliefs.  As Baptists, we have the freedom to express what we believe, to compare beliefs in light with the Bible, as Baptists are champions of interpretation of the bible and religious liberty.  

 

[BrotherTony]

2 minutes ago, mbkjpreacher said:

The good thing about local and autonomous churches is that there is freedom of convictions and belief yet through fellowships there is a sharing of what is commonly believed according to the bible.  That is what missionary Baptists believe.  Though missionary Baptist are also independent Baptists, yet those who call themselves independent Baptists vary much in teachings from local church to universal church idea, and there is not much unity in beliefs.  As Baptists, we have the freedom to express what we believe, to compare beliefs in light with the Bible, as Baptists are champions of interpretation of the bible and religious liberty.  

 

Nobody is denying that fact..there are many different "flavors" of Baptists here in the Nashville, TN area in the United States. We have Free Will Baptists, Independent Fundamental Baptists, Independent Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, Southern Baptists, Missionary Baptists, and several other offshoots of these groups. I wouldn't want to negate any of their beliefs. But when dealing with hypotheticals on doctrine and Scripture...I don't go there. I don't find Christ doing this either. As stated both in PM and on the forums here, I have been in the Missionary Baptist movement in two different "fellowships," the ABA (American Baptist Association) and the BMA (Baptist Missionary Association), both of which kept trying to enforce endless geneologies, implied doctrines, hypotheticals AS doctrine, and other such things. These are some great reasons for our leaving that particular sect of Baptists.

[mbkjpreacher]

11 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Nobody is denying that fact..there are many different "flavors" of Baptists here in the Nashville, TN area in the United States. We have Free Will Baptists, Independent Fundamental Baptists, Independent Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, Southern Baptists, Missionary Baptists, and several other offshoots of these groups. I wouldn't want to negate any of their beliefs. But when dealing with hypotheticals on doctrine and Scripture...I don't go there. I don't find Christ doing this either. As stated both in PM and on the forums here, I have been in the Missionary Baptist movement in two different "fellowships," the ABA (American Baptist Association) and the BMA (Baptist Missionary Association), both of which kept trying to enforce endless geneologies, implied doctrines, hypotheticals AS doctrine, and other such things. These are some great reasons for our leaving that particular sect of Baptists.

I don't get what you are trying to say with hypotheticals on doctrine and Scripture.  If ever I am very detailed as I search out a matter or in my personal study about doctrines, it does not mean that every Missionary Baptist or pastor is like me and there are many Missionary Baptists who just believe simply because it is in the Bible. I think every man has his gift from God regardless of which Baptist does he belong, there are many good preachers and debaters in every Baptist group.  However it seemed that you are saying that Missionary Baptists doctrines are based on hypotheticals or that there are many pastors among Missionary Baptists whose make hypothetical as doctrines.   That means you are saying that there are not pastors among the Independent Baptists who make hypothetical as doctrines.  If such proposition you have is true, then there should not be too much divisions and variations of doctrines among Independent Baptists.  If your statement is true, and that the reason why you leave Missionary Baptists and joined the Independent Baptists is because there are no people in Independent Baptists who make hypothetical as doctrine, then why are there so many variations of doctrines and beliefs among Independent Baptists?  Why do some believe in Universal Church and others local church only?  Why do some believe like Steven Anderson and others do not?  Why are there so many variations of definitions of repentance that others believe that repentance of sin is a work or quit sinning while others do not but believe repentance of sin is a change of mind about sin, not a work.   Why do others practice closed communion while others open communion and all these calling themselves as Independent Baptists.   I think your proposition and reason cannot be proven that there are no heretical among independent Baptists such as Steven Anderson who teaches heresy.  Independent Baptists are also divided concerning gap theory and 6 day creation.  Is it your proposition that pastors in the Independent Baptists just believe what is stated in the declaration of faith and do not make further study of Scriptures in more details?  I don't get what you mean by hypothetical and if you are saying that there is no such persons among Independent Baptists.  

If you made such judgement because I am so detailed, I just want to know the opinion of others because we are commanded in the Scripture to search out a matter.  We usually search out a matter when false doctrines come out, and so we seek deeper, to find out the truth, and the Bible tells us to compare spiritual things with spiritual.  We are commanded in the Scripture to study to shew thyself approved unto God... and to compare spiritual things with spiritual.  Because I have been engage in various discussion of doctrines, that is why I have to prove every doctrine if such belief is not contradicting to Scriptures but is harmonious.   We are told to search the Scriptures.   If a person's belief is indeed Biblical, he will always have the right answer that is not contradictory to the Scriptures, but Scripture is explained by Scripture.