**Do you think those two gospels are the same?**
“Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:” Col. 1:12,13
You are either in darkness, or in light.
**If they are, why are they referred to differently? Why not say the gospel of the kingdom if that is what Paul was preaching?**
Consider these phrases that describe the same Holy Ghost baptism experience:
1. Of couse, the tarrying in Jerusalem for the ‘promise of the Father’.
2. The actual pouring out of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2.
3. The conversion of Cornelius and his household.
Peter, and they of the circumcision, realized that the Gentiles had received the same gift for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
10:44 “...the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.”
10:45 “...on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
10:47 “..have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”
(’received’ here, and ‘receive’ in John 20:22, but the same Greek word)
11:15 “..the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on US at the BEGINNING.”
11:17 “God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ..”.
As we can see from those passages, there were several ways to explain the same experience:
‘filled with the Holy Ghost’ (Acts 2:4)
‘the Holy Ghost fell on all them’
‘poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost’
‘received the Holy Ghost’
‘the Holy Ghost fell on them’
‘the like gift’
Peter refers to that Pentecost experience as the ‘beginning’, and that the Gentiles’ experience was the same.
I'll start with the question: "Do you think those two gospels are the same?"
See Luke 9:1-6 and see clearly: at that time they did not even know that Christ was to die. Read Luke 18:31-34. Note they did not have the slightest idea that Christ was to die. And yet, they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom and had been, for two years or longer.
Paul specifically states that the gospel of the grace of God is the preaching of the cross (1 Cor. 1:18), that Christ died FOR OUR SINS, was buried and rose again. That is the gospel of the grace of God. That by trusting in that finished work of Christ, we are saved by grace through faith in that finished work.
So, if the gospel of the grace of God is all about the preaching of the cross, and Peter and the 11 preached a gospel that obviously did not preach about the cross (they had no idea He what He was talking about when He predicted His death), how can they be the same gospel? They cannot.
The gospel which they preached was the "gospel of the kingdom" (Matt. 9:35, Luke 9:2), not the "preaching of the cross"(1 Cor. 1:18).
Here is another illustration> Luke 9:6 says that the apostles "departed, and went through the towns, PREACHING THE GOSPEL". It is assumed that they went forth preaching salvation through the cross, the gospel of the grace of God. Yet Luke 18:31-34 makes it clear that they had NO IDEA Christ would even die. Luke 9 makes this seeming contradiction all plain, for in verse 2 we read "And He sent them to preach THE KINGDOM OF GOD", NOT His death for sin.
Can you see the difference?