The Two Gospel Heresy — Anton Bosch

I'm going to take the reading from 2 Timothy chapter 3, verses 1 through 17. 2 Timothy chapter 3, verses 1 through 17. And we're speaking this morning about the two-gospel heresy, it's also known as hyper-dispensationalism, I'll explain the term in a moment, or bullingerism, and I'll explain that in a moment.

So, it's going to be heavy-going this morning, we're dealing with doctrinal issues, you need to stick with us. There's also a set of notes which will be handed out at the end of the service. For those who are on YouTube, the notes or the link to the notes will be at the bottom of the page, on the comments section on Facebook, they will be posted on my Facebook page.

So you can work through those again. I'm sure that you probably may struggle with some of the concepts this morning, and yet I felt it very important that we deal with this, simply because it is a doctrine which has become very popular in evangelical churches, in Bible-believing churches all over the world.

I've come across it in Australia, in England, in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and obviously here, it's a doctrine that has actually infiltrated our church. Someone who used to be in fellowship here distributed the name of a man called Les Feldick's materials, and some in the church have actually listened and watched Les Feldick, who is one of the most prolific of the modern proponents of this doctrine.

And it is a heresy, and I'll explain why it is a heresy. So while I'm on names, then, Feldick is on YouTube and on radio. As I said, he is very, very popular, and he is current. He's preached in the last century and in current century.

And in the 1800s, Bollinger was the start of this thing. There were some variations between what he says and what modern proponents say. These churches, this doctrine is in every church. Well, not in every church, but in many churches.

There are people who listen to Feldick and who hold on to these teachings, but they're also separate churches. They form their own churches, and there are many, many churches all over the United States, all over the rest of the world, hundreds of churches.

They fly under the name, often, of Berean Ministry, or something like Berean, or something like Bible Church. And there are obviously other churches. There are Berean churches and Bible churches. There are good churches, but they like those names.

And the problem with the teaching is that it is very difficult to recognize it unless you know the signs, and that's why we're going to deal with this this morning, because they use the same language that everybody else does.

They're very convincing, and they are very confusing. It really has been a struggle these last two weeks as I've examined and as I've studied the thing. As I said, I've been aware of it and, in fact, dealt with a situation where there was a split in another church in another country as a result of this.

But in trying to come to grips with it, it is very difficult because they twist the Word of God in such a subtle way that it is hard to see the difference. And so, please stick with me. I know we're going to be over time.

I'm going to try and keep it to under an hour, but I have no guarantee. And that's my biggest stress this morning, is getting through all of this in the time we have. So let's read from 2 Timothy 3, verses 1 through 17.

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unsanctful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power.

From such people turn away. Now, the next verses are particularly relevant here. For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women and men, loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

As Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith. But they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.

But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra, what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord delivered me.

Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution, but evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learnt and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learnt them, and that from childhood you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

I'm going to come back to verse 16. 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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So, how do we identify? Are there clear signs that we're dealing with this teaching? Well, as I said, it is very well camouflaged, but some of the tells, some of the giveaways, is when they speak about Paul's gospel and the gospel of Jesus.

When there's an emphasis on Paul's gospel, when you hear that word Paul's gospel, it's not always, but it often and mostly is this particular teaching. When you hear about the gospel of grace versus the gospel of law, the gospel of law, there is no such thing as the gospel of law.

The gospel is the gospel of grace. But when you hear those two things, and they'll make sense to you as we go along, I trust. When you hear about a different gospel to the Jews and to the Gentiles, this is one of the key phrases that they use.

Or when you hear about the gospel of the kingdom and Paul's gospel. The gospel of the kingdom and Paul's gospel. According to them, they're two different things. When you hear that, be careful. So what do they believe?

Now, I'm not going to go into great detail in what they believe. And proving my statements, for those on the article or on the notes that are attached to the bottom of the video, are two articles or an article and a book written on the subject.

The book is free online. You can go there and read it. And they go into all the details. You can deal with the details there. I want to deal with the truth. And I want to deal with the answers to their teachings.

But here are some of the things that they believe. That Jesus and the apostles preached the gospel of the kingdom. But Paul preached the gospel of grace. So they're two different gospels. The gospel to the Jews and the gospel to the Gentiles.

As a result of that, you have two different churches. The church of Jesus and the church of Paul. The real church. We, according to them, are part of the real church, not the church of Jesus. And you can immediately see that there's something in your spirit that should say, this is questionable.

Now, the change happened in, and here's evidence that what they believe is fake. Because they can't agree when the change happened. The change does not happen at the cross. It does not happen at the day of Pentecost.

But somewhere around Acts 9 or Acts 13, or according to Bullinger in Acts 28, the end of the book of Acts. That is when the change happened. So everything before that was the church of Jesus. Everything after that was the church of Paul, if you will.

So as a result of this, also, so you end up with two Bibles, or two New Testaments. Only Paul's letters, they say, are written for us as Gentiles. The other letters in the New Testament and the Gospels are not written for us.

They are written to the Gentiles. And they play with words because they say they are for, but they are not to us. In other words, we can read them like we read the Old Testament. We can get some stuff out of them, but we cannot form doctrine on them.

In other words, the only New Testament that they have is from Romans through Philemon, the 13 letters of Paul. Feldick also believes that Hebrews is written by Paul. Now, I'm not going to debate about that.

But Hebrews doesn't apply to us, even though it's written by Paul, because Hebrews is written to the Jews. It's not written to the Gentiles. So the only books that you can get doctrine from, the only books that are relevant to us as Gentiles, are Romans through Philemon, those 13 books.

And immediately you can see a problem with that. So you end up with two Gospels. In fact, some of them have four Gospels. But generally, two Gospels, you end up with two churches, you end up with two New Testaments.

As a result of the fact that they reject the Gospels, and they'll tell you we don't reject the Gospels, but they do. They reject the words of Jesus. And this is a major problem, and I'm going to deal with that in more detail this morning as well.

So the Great Commission doesn't apply to us, because those are the words of Jesus, and that is under the Gospel of Law, or the Gospel of the Kingdom, and therefore the Great Commission doesn't apply to us.

Water Baptism doesn't apply to us, because it's part of the Great Commission, it's part of the Gospels. Repentance doesn't apply to us, and I'm going to deal with repentance, and I'm going to deal with the Gospels in more detail.

So the bottom line then is that Jesus' words are not that important. So effectively, they don't literally, but effectively, they have a new red-letter edition. I'm not sure if my Bible is... No, this one is not a red-letter edition, but you know that you get red-letter editions where the words of Jesus are in red, emphasizing the words of Jesus.

Well, effectively, they have a virtual red-letter edition, except the words of Jesus are in black, and the words of Paul are in red. Now, as I said, they don't actually have such a thing, but that's their mindset, that's the lens through which they read the Scriptures.

All right, so let's deal with these issues. The first issue is the issue of hyper-dispensationalism. Now, I'm not going to get into the whole issue of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism very briefly says that there are different periods in which God deals with people in a different way.

Two of those dispensations is what we call the Old Testament and the New Testament. And clearly, there are differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. We know that. Those who are not dispensational hold to a doctrine called covenant theology, and it's just a different approach to basically the same issue.

Covenant theology says that there's an Old Covenant and a New Covenant. Hyper-dispensationalism, in other words, dispensationalism taken to an extreme, inserts dispensations. Dispensations are administrations, if you will, God's dealings with mankind.

They insert dispensations that are not there. In other words, you have one dispensation, which is Old Testament, you have one that is New Testament, and in the New Testament, you have two dispensations, the one under Jesus and then the other under Paul.

Now, that is totally ridiculous. Jesus is very specific that there is an Old Covenant and a New Covenant. When does the covenant change? Now, remember that we recognize that most of the Gospels is Old Testament in the sense that it is before the cross, because they have given you the answer.

It changes at the cross. Jesus says, and I think I have it on the screen, Matthew 26, 28, this is the blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. You remember that the covenants in the Old Testament were, they used the word cut by blood.

You needed to shed blood in order to make the covenant. God makes that covenant with Abraham and various animals are killed. And Jesus says that there is now a New Covenant and my death, the shedding of my blood, is going to be the inauguration of the New Covenant.

So when does the New Covenant begin? It begins at the cross. Now, some will say, well, it actually begins at the resurrection. I'm not going to argue about three days. Whether it's at the cross or the resurrection, it's really irrelevant.

The fact is, it begins then. It does not begin somewhere down the road, 40 years down the road, somewhere in the book of Acts. So everything before the cross is Old Testament. Everything after the cross is New Testament.

But at the same time, we can't reject the Gospels and say, well, that's Old Testament. It doesn't apply to us. Because while Jesus is preaching and living under the Old Testament, that's why he keeps the law.

While Jesus is living under the Old Testament, he is preaching the New Covenant. He is saying, this is how it's going to be in the kingdom, in the church, in the New Covenant. So Jesus' preaching is from the Old Testament, in a sense, but it is looking forward to the New Testament.

Now, I'm not going to get into that, but part of the argument is that God's plan was for Israel to become the head of the nations, for the kingdom of God to come at that time. When Israel rejected Jesus, then God changes his plan and now turns to the Gentiles.

That's obviously nonsense, because all of the Old Testament prophesies, even the covenant with Abraham, God promises that he will turn to the nations and offer salvation to all nations. In the book of Galatians, Paul is very specific that we were under the curse of the law, but as Gentiles, we are no longer under the curse of the law, but we now have entered into the blessings of Abraham.

So a change from the curse of the law to the blessings of Abraham's sonship. When does that happen? He says specifically in Galatians, it's at the cross. So there is no question as to when the change happens.

It doesn't happen anywhere else. And you can recognize that this is a crazy idea. For 2 ,000 years, we've agreed that the change was at the cross, not somewhere in the book of Acts. All right. Now, you end up then with two churches.

So in Matthew 16, verse 18, Jesus says, and I say to you, and we know this verse well, I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

So they are very specific that this church that Jesus built is not the church that Paul built, that we are not part of this church. Now, just look at the statement of the Lord Jesus. When does he say will this church, the church that he founds, the church of Jesus, when will that end?

Does the verse tell us anything about when it will end? Effectively, it will never end. Because the gates of hell will not prevail against it. In other words, this is a sure thing, it's a permanent thing that God is doing, and it's not going to be destroyed.

That's really what he is saying. So the church that Paul persecuted in Acts chapter 8, in Jerusalem, is the same church that he speaks to in Acts chapter 20 when he calls the Ephesian elders. There's no difference between those two churches.

There's nothing in the New Testament, there's nothing in the book of Acts that tells us that there's a difference between the church in Jerusalem and the other churches. Yes, there were differences in the sense that some of the people in Jerusalem were legalists, and some of them brought that doctrine into Galatia.

Yes, there were differences. The church in Jerusalem was primarily Jewish, the other churches were primarily Gentile. But they were all mixed. There were Gentiles in the Jerusalem church, and there were Jews in the other churches.

And Paul makes no difference between those. They use the word, they say that the word Ekklesia, which is the Greek word for the church, the word literally means an assembly, or the called out ones. We are the church this morning because we have assembled, and we've been called out of the world.

They say the word means different things. No, it only means two things. And it does mean two things. It can mean a secular assembly. When Paul preaches in Ephesus, remember there's a whole riot breaking loose because Paul is preaching against the selling of idols, basically.

And the whole city comes together in the amphitheater. And it is called an assembly. It's called the word Ekklesia. So this is a secular word meaning people coming together, which is now used for the church.

And so it has one meaning in a secular sense. It has another meaning as far as the church is concerned. And that's all it is. There is no two different kinds of churches. If we go to 1 Thessalonians 2, Paul says to the Thessalonians, remember these are Gentile Christians predominantly, for you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus.

For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen just as they did from the Judeans. Who are the Judeans? They are Jews. These are the churches in Judea which includes Jerusalem. And so he is saying that you suffered the same...

In other words, you're going the same road, you're walking the same way that they did. But more specifically, he says, you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God, the churches, ecclesia, of God.

I don't think I've got that verse here. No, I don't have that verse here. But in 1 Thessalonians 1, verse 1, he addresses the church in Thessalonica, the same word. So when he speaks about the church in Thessalonica, he uses the same word of the church in Thessalonica and the churches, obviously, because there's more than one in Judea.

No two different Greek words. The same word. In other words, it's the same thing in Judea and in Jerusalem. Sorry, and in Thessalonica. The same thing in Galatians. He uses the same word in Galatians 1 when he speaks about the churches in Galatia and the churches in Judea.

Now, let's speak about these two testaments. And here is really the heart of the problem. And there's two main reasons why this is heresy. Remember, we use the word heresy too easily, and we point to things that are not heresy as heresy, and sometimes we go the other way.

This is heresy because it denies the inspiration of Scripture. 2 Timothy 3 .16, a verse you should know by heart, All Scripture. Not just the writings of Paul. Remember, when Paul is writing this, and his writings have not been completed, but when he says Scripture, we have always agreed that Scripture consists of the 66 books from Genesis through Revelation.

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 thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Now, if we are saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and Acts, just take those five, are not profitable for doctrine, what are we saying also? They are not inspired Scripture. Because what Paul is saying, and this is Paul, the guy that they uphold, Paul is saying, if it is inspired Scripture, it is profitable for doctrine.

So if you're saying it's not profitable for doctrine, you are saying it is not inspired Scripture. Can you see the problem? We define heresy as denying the fundamentals of the faith. This is one of the fundamentals of the faith, that all Scripture is inspired and all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and so on.

Now, part of what they say then is that the words of Jesus are not binding. The words of Jesus are practically irrelevant. They literally put it at the same level as the dietary laws in the book of Leviticus.

You can't eat pig and you can't wear mixed clothing and those kinds of things. They put it at the same level. Paul in Acts 20 .35 says, I've shown you in every way by laboring like this that you must support the weak.

And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. So if the words of Jesus are not important, why does Paul quote Jesus? Paul also quotes Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11, when he says, I've received of the Lord.

And we're going to read that passage next week when we come to the Lord's table. And when he says, I've received of the Lord, if you look, if you have a red letter edition, you'll see that many of those words are in red letters because those are the words that Jesus said at the Last Supper.

And so Paul quotes Jesus. And if Paul quotes Jesus, then Jesus must be Scripture. We use exactly the same argument for Old Testament books. Why is Isaiah inspired Scripture? Because Jesus quotes Isaiah.

Because Paul quotes Isaiah. And so we don't quote heretics. We quote the Word of God. Hebrews 1 verse 2. And I know we have difficulty here because they reject the book of Hebrews. Now you can see that this thing is what we call circuitous thinking.

Thinking it goes around in circles. In other words, the words of Jesus are not important because they're in Acts. How do we know that they're not important? That they're in the Gospels? How do we know they're not important?

Because they're in the Gospels. So you're basing an argument on your same argument just going around in circles. But we accept Hebrews to be part of the Word of God. We accept it to be authoritative. Hebrews 1 verse 1 says, Remember, we've dealt with this verse before.

God has spoken. He is not still speaking. He has done speaking. And His final revelation is through Jesus Christ. They deny this verse because they say God did not finish speaking through Jesus. God gave a new revelation, literally they use those words, to Paul.

God revealed to Paul the church. God revealed to Paul the Gospel of Grace. And therefore we have Jesus is not the full and final revelation of God. Paul has the full and final revelation of God. You can see how that attacks this very verse.

Hebrews chapter 2. And here we get into really, really heavy stuff. How shall we escape? How shall we escape? If we neglect... Sorry, Hebrews 2 verse 3 for those who are looking up. How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him?

Who were those who heard Him? The Apostles. They don't just reject Jesus, but they reject the other Apostles. Only Paul matters. Hebrews says, How will we escape if we reject what came through Jesus and the Apostles?

There was only one... There is only one man, if you will, and I'm using that word obviously carefully, that God testified of. This is my beloved Son. Hear Him. Remember those words. Hear Him. We must hear Jesus.

I'm not minimizing Paul. I believe that Paul's letters are Scripture. I believe that Paul's teachings are binding. I believe that Paul gives us an understanding of things which was not made plain in the Gospels.

That Paul takes us to another level, if you will, in the things of God. And we're grateful for that. But Paul is not Jesus. And while Paul received these things directly from the Lord Jesus, he's clear about that.

I was caught up in the third heaven, and the Lord revealed these things to me. There was never a voice from heaven saying, Paul is my man. You better listen to him. Now we better listen to Paul. But Jesus received confirmation from the Father that no one else receives.

On what basis then can we say, I'm not going to hear Jesus or listen to what he has to say? Now, here we get into a little bit more of a logical thing, so you need to stick with us. Luke 1, verse 1. Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having perfect understanding of all the things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile? We've been studying the book of Luke for the last two years. He was a Gentile. And who does he write the letter to? Firstly, remember that all scripture is for all people of all time.

But he is specifically addressing this letter and not just the letter of Luke, but Acts. Remember, Acts is a continuation. He is specifically addressing it in verse 3 to Theophilus. Theophilus is a Gentile.

He is not a Jew. So Luke and Acts, and you find the same in Acts 1 .1. He uses the word Theophilus. And he says the things which I began to write about in Luke, I'm now going to continue to write in the book of Acts, and I'm just paraphrasing.

So Luke, a Gentile, is writing to a Gentile, and the style of the letter is for us as Gentiles. Now remember their argument. What do they say? They say these letters are written to Jews, and therefore they are not applicable to us as Gentiles.

But Luke and Acts, even if you reject Matthew, Mark, and John, Luke is written to Gentiles. Can you see the problem with their logic? How can you say that these are Jewish books relating to Jews when they are written by a Gentile to Gentiles?

Now here's the other thing, and here's where you need to stick with me. Let me see. Yeah, there's Acts 1 .1. The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach. In other words, what is in Acts is a continuation of what began in Luke.

Now, I don't remember if we dealt with this when we started the book of Luke, but Luke, it is commonly agreed. In fact, there is no theologian who disagrees that Luke was written after A .D. 60. In other words, 27 years after Jesus ascended.

At least A .D. 60. Most are agreed that it's somewhere between A .D. 60 and A .D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. Why is that important? And this is Luke. Acts is written later than that even because we've just seen the verse.

The former account. In other words, Luke I wrote first, now I'm writing Acts. So Acts is written even later. Why is A .D. 60 important? Because A .D. 60 is after the close of the events of Acts 28. After Paul is in prison in Rome.

Now, just stick with me here. They say something changed in Acts 9 or Acts 13 or Acts 28. Luke is written after Acts 28. What changed is that God rejected Israel and the Jewish church and that God was now only dealing with Gentiles and therefore only the writings of Paul are relevant.

If the Jewish church, and I'm not meaning Jews in general, but the Jewish church, the church in Jerusalem and other Jewish churches, if they were now done for, if the words of Jesus was now irrelevant, why does Luke still write his gospel when that time had passed?

The fact that Luke writes in A .D. 60 things that the words of Jesus means that even after Acts 28, the words of Jesus are still important. The deeds of Jesus are still important. I trust you can get that if you go through it on the video.

If I've lost you, I'm sorry. In Matthew 5, and again, it's the words of Jesus. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, here's the second reason why this is heresy, who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

But whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. So Jesus is saying that if you break these commands, what commands? Not the law of the Old Testament, the commands of Jesus.

If you teach people to disregard the words of Jesus, you will be least in the kingdom. Very, very important. All right. Let's go to the Great Commission in Matthew 28. Matthew 28, verse 19. And I'm just giving you part of the commission.

I just want to focus on this. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations. You should know this off by heart. Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Who is he speaking to?

The disciples. This is after the resurrection. And who does he say they must preach to? The Gentiles. Go and make disciples of all the nations. The Greek word ethnos, from which we get the word ethnicity.

The Gentiles, the nations of the world. So if the disciples did not have the true gospel, why does Jesus tell them to preach to the Gentiles when God's plan was that he would bring Paul, who would bring the gospel to the Gentiles?

Can you see the problem? That in the very verse that they reject is the command that the Gentiles are to be evangelized. Now let's talk about the two gospels. Now again, I'm not sure how hot or cold it is out there.

I know there's a bit of a breeze, and I don't have a breeze here. So I trust you're still with me. And we're making good headway, but it's getting a little bit more complicated. So just stick with us.

And if you need to stand up and get your blood flowing, then that's great. So 1 Corinthians chapter 15. All right. Now before we get to verse 11, and to save time, I'm not going to go to the rest of the verses there.

But in 1 Corinthians, and I should have given it to you, but in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 4, Paul says this is the gospel. So it contains, 1 Corinthians 15 contains the gospel by Paul's definition.

And you should know that off by heart. What is the gospel? That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. That He was buried, and that He rose again according to the Scriptures. That is Paul's definition of the gospel.

Now they use that, and they say, well you see, Jesus never preached that. But understand that they weren't even able to accept that Jesus would even die on the cross. And when He did try to reveal it to them, they rejected that.

So there's a simple reason why Jesus didn't deal with that. But He defines the gospel. Now we also know that 1 Corinthians 15 is about the resurrection. Paul proves the resurrection. And how does he prove the resurrection?

By the witnesses. And so in those verses, he speaks about, and I'm sorry I didn't put it in the notes. It is in the notes, but it's not on the screen. But Paul speaks about those who witnessed the resurrection.

And he mentions Cephas, Peter. He mentions James, the Lord's brother. He mentions the apostles twice. He calls them the twelve, and then he calls them the apostles a little later. Then he mentions 500 brethren who were witnesses to the resurrection.

All right, now, stick with me. Here he comes to verse 11 then. Therefore, whether it was I or they... Who is the they? Peter, James, the apostles, the 500. Whether it was I or they, so we preached. What did we preach?

Death, burial, resurrection. So what is Paul saying? He is specifically saying that what he was preaching is exactly the same as what Peter, James, the twelve, the 500 preached. The same message. No two different gospels.

No two different messages. One message. Christ buried, crucified. Christ raised. Acts chapter 20. Now remember, part of the argument is that Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom. Paul preached the gospel of grace.

And they are two different things. Now look at Acts 20, 24 and 25. But none of these things move me, nor do I count my life dear to myself so that I may finish my race with joy and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus Christ.

To testify to the gospel of the grace of God. So we're good. Paul preached the gospel of the grace of God. Paul says here, I preached the gospel of the grace of God. Now here's one of the things, and you're going to see this all over.

Part of the problem is that they can't even read two consecutive verses together. They just read one verse and form a whole doctrine. And they'll take verse 24. You see, Paul preached the gospel of grace.

But verse 25 says,. And indeed, now I know that you all among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God. Oh, but Jesus preached the kingdom. Paul preached grace. But Paul says, I preached the kingdom of God.

So when he says, I preached grace, and he says, I preached the kingdom, they're the same thing. They don't even say that Paul at one time preached the kingdom, and then he saw the light, and then he started preaching grace.

They don't even go that far. So clearly, Paul is saying the gospel of grace and the gospel of the kingdom is exactly the same thing. Now, in the book of Romans, remember, Romans is written to deal with a conflict between Jewish and Gentile believers in the church of Rome.

And Paul's whole point in the book of Romans is to prove that Jews and Gentiles are saved on exactly the same basis. That's the purpose of the book of Romans. Paul proves, first of all, that Gentiles have sinned without the law.

That Jews have sinned with the law. Therefore, all have sinned. That Jew is under the judgment of God. Gentile is under the judgment of God. Then he proves that the basis of salvation is by faith. And that Jews are saved not by the law, but they are saved by faith.

And that Gentiles are saved in exactly the same way, by faith. In fact, he goes further, and he goes beyond the law, before the law, and he goes to Abraham, before the law was even given. And he says, how was Abraham saved?

He was saved by faith. And so Paul is saying the basis of salvation for Jew and Gentile, in Corinthians, is the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus. Here, in Romans, he is saying the basis of salvation is faith in the Lord Jesus.

And it's the same for Jew and Gentile. No difference whatsoever. Galatians chapter 2, and I'm going to look at three, four verses here. But from those who seem to be something, now again, just stick with me, it gets a little bit more complicated.

From those who seem to be something, Paul is speaking about the apostles in Jerusalem. You've got to read, again, the whole context. Whatever they were, it makes no difference to me. He says, I'm not impressed by them, basically.

God shows personal favoritism to no man. For those who seem to be something added nothing to me. You'll see those words again in a moment. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel, and here's the verse, one of the main verses they use, and again, you'll see how they take it out of context.

The gospel of the uncircumcised had been committed to me as the gospel of the circumcised was to Peter. Ah, you see there. Paul has the gospel to the uncircumcised. Peter has the gospel for the circumcised.

They're two different gospels. But the very context of this chapter is saying that my gospel is no different to the gospel of Peter. And I'll prove that to you in one moment. But can you see how easily people are deceived?

And I'll explain this verse in one moment, because verse 9 explains this verse. Verse 8. For he who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me towards the Gentiles.

What does the word apostle mean? Sent one. Peter, he says, was sent to the Jews. I was sent to the Gentiles. It's not two different gospels.