When we discuss the idea of Dispensationalism in Scripture, we recognize that like Reformed Theology, there is no one monolithic view of Dispensationalism. The word is used by Paul in a theocratic sense to reflect the office entrusted to him by God, of proclaiming to men the blessings of the gospel. Thus, the idea of a dispensation is Scriptural. In modern theology it is defined as the way in which God administers His affairs with men. Classic Dispensationalism recognizes seven different dispensations but it must be stated that these are human-defined dispensations and not explicitly stated as dispensations in Scripture.

The word “dispensation” (Greek oikonomia) is actually used in the New Testament nine times although the Greek word is not always translated as dispensation because the idea of administration may be used in varying ways and applying to different beings. The passages in Scripture which use the word dispensation are:

SCRIPTURE Luke 16:2-4 “And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.” (3x here all the word stewardship)

SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:17 “For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.”

SCRIPTURE Ephesians 1:10 “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him::”

SCRIPTURE Ephesians 3:2 “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:”

SCRIPTURE Ephesians 3:9 “And 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.” (the word fellowship). COMMENTARY It is this very verse that makes it clear what the dispensational mystery actually is. It is not a new gospel but the fellowship which both Jews and Gentiles enjoy, in Christ.

SCRIPTURE Colossians 1:25 “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God”

SCRIPTURE 1 Timothy 1:4 “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do..” (the word minister)

However, the dispensations themselves, their divisions, and understanding of what is in a dispensation is where men differ. Furthermore, the general idea of a dispensation, as shown by definition, reflects an office of administration which had responsibilities that for example, Paul carried out faithfully. However, here is where people go astray. Some people who accept Dispensationalism believe there are two separate gospels under two different dispensations. The focus of this page is to address the error there are two different gospels.

However, here we want to address the idea of two-gospel dispensationalism (often called hyper-dispensationalism). We can understand how someone might come to the conclusion that there are different gospels because of emphases within the different parts of Scripture. However this is logically errant. Consider the example of a blue car driving by at a high rate of speed. One person may speak more exhaustively about how fast the car is while a second may speak in greater detail about the color and styling. This does not lead us to the logical conclusion they are separate cars. This metaphor is applicable to this issue and Scripture in general.

Granted, there is a greater emphasis on grace since our Lord came. However, Scripture explicitly tells us who grace came through, not Paul, but Jesus “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). Yet even now the understanding of what grace actually means is often misunderstood. Many people redefine grace as “unlimited tolerance for sin” whereas Paul, inspired of God, wrote grace is “that [which] bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world (Titus 2:11b-12).”

This theology springs forth from a single verse which Paul stated to Timothy. In 2 Timothy 2:15 we read “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Dividing (Greek orthotomeō) means “to handle aright: i. e. to teach the truth correctly and directly. It does not, as many suppose, mean to chop the Word into different portions. Yet according to Scripture itself, if there were a division, it suggests in Luke 16:16 where the logical division would be: “The law and the prophets were until John [the baptist]: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” Is the kingdom of God here, the gospel of the kingdom or the gospel of grace?

Two-gospel dispensationalists hold to the following theological pillars. Following each pillar, we will examine why their understanding is scripturally errant.

Pillar There are two distinct gospels; one is the gospel of the kingdom, the other the gospel of grace. Jesus was said to offer the gospel of the kingdom to the Jews and when they rejected it, the gospel of grace was then offered to the Gentiles. In the two-gospel dispensationalist’s view, the gospel of the kingdom will later be resumed for Israel after the church age. As a part of this idea, none of the teachings of Jesus our Lord are in anyway binding or relevant to the church.

Refutation Scripture tells explicitly what Jesus came to do. We read in Matthew 1:21 “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Jesus will save them from their sins. It does not say He came to offer His people a kingdom. Most references to the kingdom of Heaven, especially in Matthew, to Jewish audiences, were to ensure they knew the difference with an earthly kingdom. Furthermore, Paul himself seems to affirm that the words of the Lord Jesus Christ are binding on the church. We read in 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.”

Comparison of Key Teachings of New Testament Authors

	Jesus	Paul	John	Peter
Faith	John 3:16, John 8:24	Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8	John 3:16	2 Peter 1:1
Grace	John 3:16	Titus 2:11-12	John 1:16-17	2 Peter 1:2, 3:18
Obedience	Luke 11, 28, John 14:15	Romans 1:5, Ephesians 6:1-3,	1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6, Revelation 14:12,	1 Peter 1:14
Basis of Eternal Life	John 5:28-29	Romans 2:6-8	Revelation 14:12
Forgiveness	Matthew 6:15,	Colossians 2:13-14	1 John 1:7-10	Acts 2:38, 3:19, 1 Peter 1:9
Repentance	Matthew 4:17	Romans 2:4, Acts 17:30, 20:20-21. 26:20	John 3:19-21	Acts 2:38
Baptism	John 3:5, Matthew 28:18-20	Acts 19:4-6	None	Acts 2:38, 10:47-48

Note that while John never uses the word repentance in his writings, the idea is there through his writings. Similarly Jesus does not use the word grace. But the idea that what Jesus brought to us was somehow earned (the opposite of grace) is also errant. As we often remind people, as with the trinity, just because a word is not in Scripture does not make it an invalid concept.

Pillar The church age was not said to begin at Pentecost as most believe. In fact, two-gospel dispensationalists even disagree when the church age actually began. Some believe it began in Acts 9, some in Acts 13, some Acts 28. Regardless of where Acts is split, the book of Acts of said to be transitional covering the period of transition between the dispensation of law and of the mystery. But across each of these views, the writings applicable to the church are Romans to Philemon. The general reason for disagreement as to when the actual church age began is often said to be related to Paul’s normative (mark not the word normative, not exclusive) mission to the Gentiles.

Refutation We need to consider the timing of these writings because it does not seem to make sense to inspire teachings of a different dispensation within an existing dispensation (ex. why would God would inspire teachings about the dispensation of law when we exist in the dispensation of grace?). Just as a simple example, why would God inspire John to write about the gospel of the kingdom under the dispensation of law, long after the dispensation of grace emerged? So the only conclusion we can reach is they don’t believe the teachings align to the dispensations, but rather to the appropriate population. To this end, we quote the generally accepted dates of key events and writings as determined by Biblical scholars (although not all agree). Those italicized are believed to be written by Paul.

• Saul’s Conversion and Start of the Preaching the Gospel 34-37 AD
• James 45-49 AD
• Galatians 48-49 AD
• 1 Thessalonians / 2 Thessalonians 50-51 AD
• Mark 55-65 AD
• 1 Corinthians / 2 Corinthians 55-56 AD
• Romans 57 AD
• Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon 60-62 AD
• Acts 62-70 AD
• 1 Timothy, Titus 64 AD
• 1 Peter / 2 Peter 64-67 AD
• Hebrews 65-69 AD
• Jude 65-80 AD
• 2 Timothy 66-67 AD
• Matthew 60-70 AD
• Luke 60-68 AD
• John 80-95 AD
• 1 John / 2 John / 3 John 90-95 AD
• Revelation 95 AD

Notice that Saul’s conversion came before any books of the NT were actually written. It does not mean that the books that were written afterward did not include events that occurred before the writing of the book; they did. However, we must ask, would God weave doctrine that was no longer applicable into books at the time of their writing? Likely not for there would be no reason to do so if those very doctrines had expired. For example in Acts, most activities within are of the period of 30 AD to 62 AD and most occurred after Saul (now Paul) had his encounter and teaching from the Lord. However, Acts is but one example yet every NT book was written after Saul’s conversion and teaching. Hence we see the need to harmonize all doctrine across the NT not attempt to parse out the Word.

If we truly believe there is a clean division of the word, we should see no teachings from a prior dispensation under a different (new) dispensation. Yet this occurs. This would not be expected if there were a clean “division.” In fact, if we look at the writings not only is there no clean division, but there is no murky one either.

Pillar The Book of Revelation has nothing to do with the modern church. The contend these are Jewish churches which will emerge in the successive dispensation (that is after the dispensation of grace).

Refutation First and foremost the early parts of Revelation speak to a series of predominantly Gentile churches which literally existed. Furthermore, it is quite telling that the specific comment about when is in Revelation 1:19 which describes the things that are (as well as the things that will happen after).

Pillar There are two churches, the church of the kingdom, to which converts were added to in Acts 2:47, and the Christ’s church which is Christ’s body. In their view, these are separate churches for if they are one church, then two-gospel dispensationalist’s must acknowledge those added to the church in Acts 2 are in fact to Christ’s body.

Refutation There is no direct indication that there are two churches in the New Testament. If there were what happens to the kingdom church? Who is the head of the kingdom church?

Pillar “It is finished”

Refutation While the statement “It is finished” does appear in Scripture, no three words have been redefined more often. Here is what the lexicon says of “finished” (Greek teleō) and means “everything has been accomplished which by the appointment of the Father as revealed in the Scriptures I must do and bear.” This statement gets misused by so many people. Universalists tend to believe it means that all will save since Jesus paid for the sins of the world. Two-gospel dispensationists tend to believe that everything is done once we place our faith in Christ. But Scripture, in its breadth, does not give us the option to believe either of these. First, Jesus did pay for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). However, even though all sins were paid for, the cleansing of our unrighteousness, through the blood of Christ, is achieved as we sin (1 John 1:7). Hence the cleansing of our unrighteousness is a continuous present tense activity. Second, similarly we are forgiven sins as we confess these before God in humility. As stated elsewhere, there is no case of God forgiving sins before they occur. Hence, the idea of “finished” does not embrace the idea of all present or future sins both cleansed and forgiven. Both payment for sins and forgiveness of sins are required by God. The easiest way to show this is the example of this is Matthew 12:32 “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be [future tense] forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not [future tense] be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. This clearly shows that what was done by Jesus Christ does not “finish” these things.

Pillar Revelation has nothing to do with the Body of Christ but are all future events, some symbolic, some literal and relate to the literal Israel. This is especially relevant to the letters to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3. Furthermore, the body of Christ is distinct from the body of Christ.

Refutation First, there is no doubt these letters are to literal Gentile churches. Yes, there were Jewish believers within many of these churches, but they are in fact Gentiles churches planted by Paul and thus reflect the body of Christ. These letters according to the instruction of Christ were actually sent to the seven churches (Revelation 1:11). Second, they key phrase which is important to resolve the time of relevance to the book is found in Revelation 1:19 where the present tense phrase “the things which are” means clearly that Revelation may not grammatically be cast aside as something for future Israel. It is relevant to what is happening. But even later in Revelation at the end, in Chapter 22 who welcomes Christ? It is the Spirit and the Bride. But the Spirit is with the church. Furthermore, there are multiple places in Scripture where the bride of Christ and the body are symbolically linked. For example, we read in Ephesians, an epistle that two-gospel dispensationalists assert is to the Gentiles, we read of the equivalency of the bride and the body. We read “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (Ephesians 5:23-27).” In v27, is it the body presented to Christ? No. It is the bride. Similarly what does Paul tell those in Corinth, a predominately Gentile church? We read “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:2). The chaste virgin? A bride. We also see connection of Jews and Gentiles in one body. In 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 we read “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 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.” Finally, in Hosea 2:19-23, we read who seems to be the bride of Christ: “And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord. And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the Lord, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel.  And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.” This seems to be a reference to Gentiles there in v23 and seems to be associated with the bridge. However, it is clear from the equivalency that Paul describes in many places that the body of Christ and the bride of Christ are functionally equivalent and contain both Jews and Gentiles.

Pillar In the prior dispensation, salvation was through works, specifically the works of the law before the dispensation of grace and that no kind of works have any value or impact under the gospel of grace.

Refutation First, the basis of salvation has never changed in Scripture. While there are those that believe that OT saints were saved by keeping the law (under the dispensation of law) this is an errant idea because that would form the basis of man saving himself apart from God, that God was willing to accept sin under the previous dispensation, or the blood of bulls and goats was actually able to take away sin. All these ideas are refuted directly in Scripture. Furthermore we know even the most dedicated Old Testament saints sinned and so fall into the same category as every other sinner. Scripture refutes the idea that man can save himself by his actions and trusting in his own righteousness. Examples of this in the Old Testament include Job 19:25, Ezekiel 33:13, Psalm 78:22, etc. If a man sins against God he has a problem that he himself cannot resolve. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. Why? Because as we just discussed, man cannot save himself hence it is God’s unmerited (that is unearned) favor that allows us to be saved. Man could not save himself during the times of the Old Testament, nor can man save himself during these times of the New Testament. If salvation could be earned, then our Lord died for nothing. Paul spends considerable time in Romans 3 and 4, specifically noting Abraham and his basis of his righteousness (faith), noting the law saved no one, and addressing how both Jews and Gentiles have the exact same problem, hence there is one gospel to address their need. Remember Paul wrote this.

There is grace in the Old Testament because the sinners of the Old Testament could not be saved without it. In fact, the Greek word charis, appears 70 or so times in the Septuagint. God causes His rain to fall upon the just and the unjust. The unjust receiving rain is grace.

Pillar There is no need for, nor calling to be water baptized, nor other ordinances (ex. the Lord’s Supper) in two-gospel dispensationalism however it should be noted that there are some two-gospel dispensationalists who do recognize the Lord’s Supper.

Refutation First, it is clear that water baptism is practiced throughout the New Testament. Even Paul did this late in Acts and this is after his teaching by the Lord Jesus Christ. But there are direct teachings about this to the largely Gentile churches as well. Romans 6:3 is often claimed to represent baptism of the Spirit but there is no evidence lexically that it is any other type of baptism except water baptism. In fact when we look at John 1:33, the lexical definition is “to imbue” when applied to the Holy Spirit and in fact as we look over the Spirit arriving on people, it never means physically immersed as the word baptizo actually means. Thus, the understanding of being baptized in the spirit is actual a symbolic idea, not a literal one. The same thing happens in Luke 12:50. We do not enter a vat of Spirit submersing ourselves in it. In fact, the metaphor within Romans 6:3 reflects being buried and only water baptism actually reflects this as we are immersed into the water (metaphorically into the grave). Certainly we see that Cornelius and family, the first Gentiles to enter the kingdom were water baptized (which of course also calls into question that dispensations were aligned along Jewish/Gentile lines, then these Gentiles should not have been baptized if there really was a different gospel).

The Lord’s Supper is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11. The most common argument against this is the claim that “for Christ did not send me to baptize.” However the contextual understanding of this is that baptism was being used as a divisive issue along which people followed other people. Paul was not telling people not to baptize. Even so, the most important thing was to preach the gospel which was the most important thing. With respect to the Lord’s supper, Paul makes the express claim in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 that he is simply revealing what he received from the Lord.

Pillar Two-gospel dispensationalists do not believe that Gentiles are under the New Covenant.

Refutation The New Covenant is in the blood of Jesus. We as Gentiles, need the blood of Jesus just as much as the Jews do. We read in Luke 22:20 “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” The New Covenant is in Christ and there is no difference between Jew and Gentile as demonstrated in Galatians 3:28-29 written to Gentiles “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” We are told directly that we Gentiles are ministers of the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians 3:6 “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” How can we be ministers of a covenant that we do not belong to? We [Gentiles to whom Paul is writing to] have been grafted in to that which faithful Israel also stands as shown in Romans 11:17 “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree.” Again, there is plenty of evidence in Scripture that we belong to the New Covenant in Jesus’s blood.

Paul said that he was sent to the Gentiles but who did he first approach after all this learning? The Jews. What gospel did he preach to the Jews? Did Jesus teach Paul both gospels? Paul explicitly says in Acts 13:46, that they are now turning from the Jews to the Gentiles even though we see Paul later in Iconium going to a synagogue: “And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren” (Acts 14:1-2). When Paul preached to the mixed audience at Iconium, did he preach two different gospels? So we must imagine that if two-gospel dispensationalists are right, that Paul himself preached two different gospels – one to the Jews initially and then one to the Greeks and Jews.

In the emergent churches, there were often a mixture of Jews and Gentiles as we already showed, so was Paul preaching two different gospels? Likely not. Paul warns about two different gospels early in Galatians 1:6-9 suggesting he only knows one gospel.

Peter, who we have no record of a new gospel being revealed to him. went to the circumcision (The Jews) but the first Gentile converts (Acts 10) were at the hands of Peter. Which gospel did Peter preach to these Gentiles (who were also baptized)? If it’s after the Acts 9 break (see above) then it would be expected to be the new gospel. If its before a different break then the prior gospel. But to our knowledge Peter only knew one gospel. So did Peter preach the original gospel, called the gospel of the kingdom to the Gentiles? No.

This raises an important question. Once the circumcision was presented with one gospel, did all subsequent teachings align with that gospel or did everyone who understood the initial gospel (again called the gospel of the kingdom) have to be retaught the new gospel (called the gospel of grace)? Furthermore, if Cornelius was presented with the original gospel, did he have to be represented with the new gospel? This is an important question because two gospel dispensationalists don’t often believe in water baptism as Cornelius and his family went through. Hence they would have to say Peter presented him the original gospel.

Remember that Luke and Acts do not appear to be written to the Jews. First Luke in both cases writes to Theophilus a name generally of Greek, not Jewish, origin. Although this is not proof it is evidence but there is other evidence. However, when were these books written? Luke is written near the same time as Acts but both were written long after Paul had supposedly received a different revelation. According to two-gospel Dispensationalists, the church Jesus referenced was different than the Gentile church of Paul and the words of Jesus had become irrelevant. Why then did the Holy Spirit inspire writing of two significant books of the New Testament when the words of Jesus were no longer of relevance according to Paul’s supposed updated revelation? Remember Paul was said to have received his revelation around the years of 35-38 AD.

However, if it is not a matter of preaching different gospels to different populations, but purely of timing, that means the gospel of the kingdom would still be preached during the dispensation of grace. In addition, it also means people who were alive both when Jesus was on earth and after Jesus ascended heard different gospels. Paul would have had to tell Jews that what the Son of God said no longer mattered, but only what he said. Furthermore Paul went to the Jews first after his revelation from Christ. Which gospel do we think Paul preached to the Jews that he went to? What about the Gentiles that Peter went to?

If there are two different gospels preached to two different people’s, then the first century must have been a time of extreme confusion with multiple gospels and teachings being preached to different peoples. If there was a gospel of the kingdom superseded by the gospel of grace, then it would have been necessary for Paul to tell Jews that what Jesus said did not apply. In essence that He was wrong. Remember there were people alive during the ministry of Christ which were still alive during the ministry of Paul.

Fourth, let us compare some writings (and sayings) of our Lord and Savior, Paul. John, and Peter. We could look at other passages as well but this should suffice. We choose these four because of the proliferation of their writings, either directly or indirectly. The reason we do this is to show the similarity of their understanding of the gospel.

While there are some perceived differences, these are differences in focus or emphasis but not content. However, the chart above calls out some of the various consistencies in teachings. Furthermore, timing is critical. For example when it says we are forgiven our sins when we come to Christ, those are committed sins, not uncommitted sins. But look at the language of 1 John 1:7-10 written to believers. A provision here is also made for sins that we will commit. Remember that 1 John 1 was written long after Paul was dead. The same idea is reflected by both Peter and Paul.

Let us now look at a few passages in Scripture upon which two-gospel Dispensationalists rely.

SCRIPTURE Acts 2:47 “Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” COMMENTARY Scripture shows here clearly that those added to the church predated Paul’s conversion. So what church is this? In Galatians 1:13, how could Paul have persecuted a church before his conversion since the church was said by two-gospel Dispensationalsts that the church’s advent began with Paul? It is important to note that Paul did water re-baptize people (Acts 19:3-5) who had only the baptism of John the Baptist but did not re-baptize those baptized in Acts 2:38. If the idea of water baptism was unneeded under the gospel of grace, why would he water baptize them? Thus, that also means according to two-gospel Dispensationalists that Paul himself was teaching two different gospels even though he was supposedly taught a different gospel. Remember here they also “added to the church” meaning that the church already existed.

SCRIPTURE Romans 15:19 “Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.” COMMENTARY Paul here acknowledges here that he has preached the gospel of Christ. He does not explicitly say the gospel of grace, but that of Christ. What does this mean? It would seem to be clear that it is what Christ preached. Otherwise there would have been a clear distinction of what Paul preached from what Christ preached.

SCRIPTURE Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” COMMENTARY Here Paul makes it clear that the gospel of Christ, the gospel for salvation, is for the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul would have clearly revealed that there were two different gospels here if that were the case.

SCRIPTURE Romans 2:4 “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” COMMENTARY A misunderstanding og two-gospel dispensationalists is that repentance is not required under Paul’s gospel, yet here we clearly have Paul telling the Gentiles that God leads them to exactly that. This is even directly stated as required for Gentiles as shown above in a couple of places in Acts.

SCRIPTURE Romans 3:20 “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” COMMENTARY Clearly shows that by the deeds of the law, no flesh shall be justified. This clearly shows that OT saints were not saved by the law for they could not keep it either. There has never been a dispensation where people were saved by their perfect law keeping.

SCRIPTURE Romans 16:7 “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” COMMENTARY Paul admits here there were people in Christ before him. Note that in 1 Corinthians 12:28 Paul says the Corinthians are in the body of Christ and in 1 Corinthians 1:30 they are in Christ. Here Paul equivocates those in the body of Christ and those in Christ. Furthermore, they were in Christ BEFORE Paul preached.

SCRIPTURE Galatians 1:23 “But they had heard only, that he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.” COMMENTARY Speaking of Paul here, what is he doing? He is preaching the very faith that he tried to destroy. This demonstrates a clear alignment between the gospel that Paul had tried to destroy and that which he himself, preached. Remember again the timing.

SCRIPTURE Galatians 2:7 “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;” COMMENTARY Sounds like two gospels right? However, the point of this statement is not that there are two gospels (which was just denied in Galatians 1:6-9 “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”), but that the gospel is initially being taken to the circumcision by Peter and to the uncircumcision by Paul. However it should be noted even here. Paul presented the gospel to the circumcised (ex. Acts 13, 14) and Peter presented the gospel to the uncircumcised (Acts 10). All of these are AFTER Paul was taught by the Lord. The big issue in this verse is the use by the translators of the genitive ‘of’. This is addressed in Wallace’s Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basic (p. 100-101). In short, the translators make it seem that two different gospels are referenced when there is only one. The idea is actually that Peter was entrusted with THEE gospel for the circumcision and the Paul was entrusted with THEE gospel for the un-cirumcision. Different populations, same gospel. It should be noted later in Galatians 2 (v14) Paul confronted Peter for not acting according to the truth of the gospel (not gospels). Furthermore in Galatians 2:21 what does Paul say? He says “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” which means that if there was an a different gospel based on law then Christ died for nothing.

SCRIPTURE Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” COMMENTARY Although one might think that again Jesus is here giving something to Peter related to a separate kingdom that is not the case. The important point here is that Jesus is describing a permanent church, not a different church that Paul initiated. As we have shown above the church referenced by Paul was alive and growing long before Paul showed up. The definition of the word ekklesia does not change part way through the New Testament. Any idea that the church Jesus Christ founded was temporary and gave way to a different church Paul founded is errant.

SCRIPTURE Matthew 28:18-20 “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” COMMENTARY Most two-gospel dispensationalists believe that this command is not relevant to the Gentiles. The problem with this is Jesus is clear here that is we are to “teach all nations.” Nations here is Greek ethnos which generally applies to Gentiles but actually includes all peoples. How can Jesus make this statement to the Apostles if they were only to go to Israel.

SCRIPTURE Galatians 1:6-9 “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” COMMENTARY We remember this was written in the late 40s AD, years after his conversion and teaching (ex. Galatians 1:12). So what gospel is Paul referencing here? If there are two gospels and this is the gospel of grace, we should not expect Paul to be teaching, nor acting consistent with the gospel of the kingdom. But this is exactly what does happen (ex. 1 Corinthians 11:1, Romans 2:6-8, Galatians 3:27, Acts 19:3-5, etc.)

SCRIPTURE Hebrews 2:2-3 “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him” COMMENTARY Who spoke the salvation? The Lord. Not Paul. When was Hebrews written? Long after Paul had been converted and conducted his missionary journeys. Possibly after his death. Why is this relevant? If there was a new gospel, why, long after Paul preached, would the writer of Hebrews refer to the salvation (not the kingdom) first spoken of by Jesus Christ instead of the one spoken of by Paul? Remember that Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians.

SCRIPTURE Hebrews 1:1-2 “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” COMMENTARY Here again, long after Paul preached and perhaps died, we see confirmation that the last revelation of God came through His Son. Again, Hebrews is written to Jewish Christians. If there were new revelation starting with Paul, this statement would not be valid.

SCRIPTURE 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. ” COMMENTARY Here Paul seems to directly warn about two-gospel Dispensationalists by showing that those who do not consent to the words of our Lord (by referring the Lord’s words as a different gospel) have corrupt minds. Remember that Paul is telling Timothy, a man who does not appear to be Jewish (even though he had a Jewish mother) to adhere to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, and withdraw from those who do not consent to what God (Jesus Christ) taught.

SCRIPTURE 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” COMMENTARY Note here the use of the word ‘all.’ This seems to make it clear that indeed ‘all’ Scripture is profitable, not just the verses that represent a ‘new’ gospel.

In the end, there are more clues, scattered throughout Scripture that show that there are simply not two gospels. Remember it is Paul himself who points us back to Jesus Christ and what He taught. Paul tells Timothy “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” (1 Timothy 6:3-5). Paul himself warns about people who try to minimize, ignore, or reject the words of our Lord and Savior. One of the most common ideas behind two-gospel dispensationalism is that nothing of the actions that Jesus teaches us about are important because they are a part of the kingdom (or the law). But a careful reading of those parts of Scripture written after Paul began teaching, outright reject this.

What happens when we search Scripture for clues demonstrating what two-gospel dispensationalists say they believe. First, is there any place in Paul’s epistles where Paul describes a transitional period in Acts? No. Second, does Paul, in either of the late epistles to the two younger pastors (Titus, Timothy) state that the transitional period in Acts has now come to a close? No. Do we see Paul reference the end of the Kingdom Age (or church) or gospel anywhere near the end of acts or anywhere else? No. This would have been of critical importance to shift teachings from the gospel of the Kingdom to the gospel of grace. Third, regardless of who actually wrote Hebrews, we have the same issue. Did whomever wrote Hebrews address the end of the gospel of the Kingdom? No. This is a critical issue if in fact there was a change in gospel. In short, there simply is no evidence that a transitional period of the gospel between dispensations of law and grace exist in the mind of Paul and other NT writers.

Another thing we should address is if Gentiles are a part of the New Covenant. While there is no question that God’s promises to Israel of a New Covenant exist in Scripture (ex. Jeremiah 31), are Gentiles a part of that covenant? The answer would seem to be yes. Why do we say this? There are several Scriptural reasons to believe so.