What's Wrong With Calvinism?

[puritan lad]

I have gone into greater detail on Limited Atonement (one aspect of Calvinism) here:

It is Finished! - The Atoning work of Christ

I deal with 5 areas:

The Intention of Christ
The Effective Work of Christ
The Will of the Father
The Purpose of Jesus' Parables
The Intercession of Christ

All of these will prove to be limited in scope.

I also deal with common objections

[7777777]

Then, what is the difference between a believer and non-believer?

You are answering the very question you are asking. It is like asking what is the difference one who uses credit cards and one who doesn't. Obvioulsy belief is the difference. It certainly isn't sin. For ALL have sinned.

No. What I'm asking is what is the difference in the relationship with God between a believer and non-believer. I mean, if God loves everyone, who cares if we believe or not? I know one goes to Hell and the other doesn't. I know that. But, what I want to know is what is the difference in the relationship before judgment.

[Telstra Robs]

Then, what is the difference between a believer and non-believer?

You are answering the very question you are asking. It is like asking what is the difference one who uses credit cards and one who doesn't. Obvioulsy belief is the difference. It certainly isn't sin. For ALL have sinned.

No. What I'm asking is what is the difference in the relationship with God between a believer and non-believer. I mean, if God loves everyone, who cares if we believe or not? I know one goes to Hell and the other doesn't. I know that. But, what I want to know is what is the difference in the relationship before judgment.

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

The believer has opened the door for Jesus to come in. The relationship before judgement with the believer is a two way relationship, where the believer has invited Jesus in. On the other hand, the non-believer who does not open the door, well, Jesus will keep knocking. It is only one way.

[jlay]

No. What I'm asking is what is the difference in the relationship with God between a believer and non-believer. I mean, if God loves everyone, who cares if we believe or not? I know one goes to Hell and the other doesn't. I know that. But, what I want to know is what is the difference in the relationship before judgment.

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24

The difference would appear to be the relationship itself. In believing, one is entering into an eternal relationship. They have a new status of righteousness. Just because Christ's death was sufficiently redemptive, does not mean that one's life has been made righteous in faith. One who rejects God is, 'condemned already.' John 3:18

Obviously God cares if we believe or not. It is obvious He wants us to hear, since Paul says He has made it clear to each man, and Jesus said He is drawing all men unto Himself. (John 12:32) And it is also clear that God has a desire of mankind; That they would respond to His calling. 2 Pet 3:9, Acts 17:30

Obviously there are several ways the redemption deal is looked at. PL has explained limited atonement in his link. The universal is that all are redeemed to live, just as in Adam all were cursed to die. This is the first death. The facts of the matter are that just and wicked will be raised back to life, and then the judgment. So salvation is an eternal matter and position, dealing with the 2nd death, and where belief comes in. Another universal view is held in Arminianism that because of the cross, all have potential redemption, if they will believe. That Christ's work is complete and sufficient to cover every sin of every person, no exceptions. Yet, one must appropriate the sacrifice by trusting in Christ.

Rom 3:22-26 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

[puritan lad]

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

The believer has opened the door for Jesus to come in. The relationship before judgement with the believer is a two way relationship, where the believer has invited Jesus in. On the other hand, the non-believer who does not open the door, well, Jesus will keep knocking. It is only one way.

I know that this is the most common usage of Rev. 3:20 today, but it is a misuse. Revelation 3:20 has nothing to do with evangelism, justification, or atonement. It is a warning to a church against apostasy.

[puritan lad]

"Another universal view is held in Arminianism that because of the cross, all have potential redemption, if they will believe. That Christ's work is complete and sufficient to cover every sin of every person, no exceptions. Yet, one must appropriate the sacrifice by trusting in Christ."

Calvinists agree that Christ's death was sufficient for all sinners. There is no sinner who can make the excuse that Christ death was insufficient. But Christ's work was not simply to provide "potential redemption", but actual redemption. He actually seeks and saves that which was lost. As such, His work was effective only for the elect. One cannot say that "Christ's work is complete... to cover every sin of every person, no exceptions. " and then add that "one must appropriate the sacrifice by trusting in Christ." In that case, Christ's work is NOT sufficient. We still have to add our faith, trust, whatever. To paraphrase John Owen, Christ did not die on the condition that we believe, but he died for the elect, that they should believe. In other words, belief is not the precondition of salvation, it is the result.

Here is a scriptural list of what Christ accomplished at Calvary. Read this list carefully and ask yourself, did Christ accomplish this for every person, or only for the elect?

“to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:5)

to “justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:11)

He shall save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21)

to seek and to save what was lost (Matthew 18:11; Luke 19:10)

to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15)

that He might be the firstborn of many brethren (Romans 8:29)

that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery (Hebrews 2:14-15)

He “abolish[ed] death, and to bring life and immortality to light" (2 Timothy 1:10).

“sanctify and cleanse His Church” (Romans 5:25-27)

to "make and end of sins, reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness” (Daniel 9:24)

to “bear our sins" (1 Peter 2:24)

to "bear our iniquities, and to have them laid upon him" (Isaiah 53:5-12)

"to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

"gave himself to us to redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar (chosen) people, zealous of good works" (Titus 2:14)

He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12)

"...that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21)

“lay down His life for His Sheep…to give them eternal life, and they shall never perish” (John 10:11, John 10:27-28)

"He redeemed us from the curse, being made a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13)

to “purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God." (Hebrews 9:14)

The Arminian "universal" redemption, on the other hand...

...is not real redemption, but only potential redemption.
...makes Christ's blood worthless for the vast majority for which it was intended.
...belittles the value of His work, seeing as the damned in Hell are just as much bought with His blood as we are.
...makes Christ's work a failure, seeing his intention was to save every person who ever lived (including those already in Hell at his death).

Christ's plan of redemption was an actual plan, not a hopefully possibility left up to human will. Thus the powerful, closing words on the cross, "It Is Finished".

[jlay]

Obviously I could go through a point by point on each verse, and provide an exegesis and context. BTW, which you haven't.

Instead let me ask you this. What does Jesus himself say is the reason that one is condemned in John 3:18?

Calvinists agree that Christ's death was sufficient for all sinners.

I understand you are saying that. I just fail to see how it actually matches up to what this position teaches. Seems to me that if you follow this to its logicial ends, then you are in the same boat as what you are acusing the Armenians.

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, Eph 1:13
'In Christ.' How? They believed. Chicken, egg?

We still have to add our faith, trust, whatever.

well, I think that is pretty loaded way of putting it.
Eph. 2:8-9 Are you saying that you haven't placed your trust in Christ? Since this verse doesn't view faith as a work, I would challenge you to provide any evidence that repsonding to God in faith would qualify as a work.

He shall save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21)

Just given the context and exegesis of Matthew, I would see this verse with even more exclusitivity than you do. That this is written specifically for the Jew.

The Arminian "universal" redemption, on the other hand...
...is not real redemption, but only potential redemption.
...makes Christ's blood worthless for the vast majority for which it was intended.
...belittles the value of His work, seeing as the damned in Hell are just as much bought with His blood as we are.
...makes Christ's work a failure, seeing his intention was to save every person who ever lived (including those already in Hell at his death).

First I would say that there isn't any 'arminian, calvinistic, etc. redemtion. There is only real redemption. And all these do is try to catergorize them, so that we can get our religious little minds around it . 2ndly I would say, that you've merely espoused an opinion here and included some false dilemas. As I am not an Arminian, I'm not going to drag myself into a lengthy defense.

[puritan lad]

I didn't provide a exegetic hermeneutic for each verse, because it was unnecessary. These passages are quite clear on what Christ accomplished, being actual salvation, not potential salvation.

John 3:18 does not help your cause, unless you can establish that:

1.) Belief is something that one can obtain on his own, and...
2.) Belief is a precondition for justification.

Neither are biblical. Faith is itself a gift from God, and not all have faith. We are "justified by faith", not "justified because of faith". Faith is the means, not the cause, of our justification.

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)

I don't qualify faith as a work. Ephesians 2:8-9, far from helping your view, proves that it is a gift from God. Even the faith that Christians have is from God. On the other hand, the Arminian view of faith would have to qualify as a work, or at best, an ointment in a box that we must apply without own virtuous resources. In the end, the Arminian Jesus doesn't really save. He helps alot, but ultimately we have to save ourselves by exercising faith (I believe you said something to the effect of leaving it in our hands).

Just given the context and exegesis of Matthew [Matthew 1:21], I would see this verse with even more exclusitivity than you do. That this is written specifically for the Jew.

That's even worse. Jesus really failed in that one.

First I would say that there isn't any 'arminian, calvinistic, etc. redemtion. There is only real redemption.

So, does Christ provide real redemption for the entire world, without exception?

2ndly I would say, that you've merely espoused an opinion here and included some false dilemas.

Can you provide some examples of these false dilemmas?

[jlay]

makes Christ's work a failure, seeing his intention was to save every person who ever lived (including those already in Hell at his death).

i would call that a false dilema, in that you are setting up your opinions as fact, to essentally say, Calvinism or be wrong. And let me save you some typing. I know that you will claim that this is just scriptural. And then of course I can as well. On round we go.

.) Belief is something that one can obtain on his own, and...

How is that burden on me? What basis do you have that believing is not the reponse of the one in fact believing. Not to be rude, but that just seems ridiculous. We already agree that man is incapable of faith on His own apart from God. It is not that we differ in that, just in how God has chosen for it to be appropriated in man. No matter how much scholorship you refer to (and i won't argue that you haven't presented your case) when you boil it all down to its essense, Calvanism comes across as pre-programming and eeny meeny miny mo. I might as well say that if you are going to make all these other assertions about making Christ's work a failure, and ointment and what not. Since I was primarily raised around Calvinistic teaching, I've heard the arguments, and I don't see anything that you've presented that ultimately changes this conclusion.

And backing up a little bit.

They were saved the same way all saints are saved, through the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:8, 1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

No where does it say that what was preached to Abraham was the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact it says what that Gospel was. That, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” You are equivocating the word 'gospel to suit your ends. As I would say you and many other Calvanists have done with many other words as well.

That's even worse. Jesus really failed in that one.

well I guess Jesus really blew it in your eyes then when He said, " "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Man, if he'd only had the Westminster Confession.

[puritan lad]

"i would call that a false dilema, in that you are setting up your opinions as fact, to essentally say, Calvinism or be wrong. And let me save you some typing. I know that you will claim that this is just scriptural. And then of course I can as well. On round we go.

Sorry ijay, but you still haven't showed how this is a false dilemma. It's a very real dilemma for your side, and ignoring it by calling it false won't make it go away.

"No where does it say that what was preached to Abraham was the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact it says what that Gospel was. That, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” You are equivocating the word 'gospel to suit your ends. As I would say you and many other Calvanists have done with many other words as well."

"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." (Galatians 3:8)

I must ask, what other gospel did the Scriptures foresee that God would justify the Gentiles by? There is only one gospel ijay, and that's the gospel of Jesus Christ. The bearers of any other gospel are accursed (Galatians 1:6-9)

well I guess Jesus really blew it in your eyes then when He said, " "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Man, if he'd only had the Westminster Confession.

Especially since he said this right as he was about to heal a Canaanite women. Christ's earthly ministry was clearly to Israel (though not exclusively). But if you hold that He only came to save Israel from their sins, then we are in big trouble.

But since you agree that I have made my case, I'm satisfied to leave it at that unless you have further objections.

[jlay]

I must ask, what other gospel did the Scriptures foresee that God would justify the Gentiles by? There is only one gospel ijay, and that's the gospel of Jesus Christ. The bearers of any other gospel are accursed (Galatians 1:6-9)

Israel's gospel. That through the repentance of Israel, Israel's Kingly Messiah would come and establish the Kingdom on Earth. Just as the prophets said. And that then Israel would take its commission to reach the nations, starting in Jerusalem and then to the ends of the earth, just as was promised. This was the gospel to Israel. Peter clearly presents this gospel in Acts 3:17-21
“Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.
And if this had happened there would be no need for an apostle Paul. Israel however rejected its Messiah. And thus a new gospel is revealed to Paul, which replaces Israel's Kingdom program. One which had been kept hidden since before the beginning.

So, does the NT speak of more than one gospel? Several times. As Paul explains here. Eph 3:2-6
Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. Paul spells out with crystal clear language that this gospel was not what was revealed to the OT prophets as noted when Peter explains Israel's Gospel, which was promised to through the holy prophets.

But wait, Abraham was told about the gentiles, so it wasn't a mystery. Nope. A plan for the gentiles was contained in Israel's Gospel all along as evidenced by the prophet Isaiah. If something was revealed to Abraham was it hidden or a mystery? Certainly not a mystery. Mal 1:11

"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth." That 'you' may bring my salvation? Who is you? Israel of course. This was confirmed by Jesus to the Samaritan woman. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews Isaiah 49:6.

Paul's Gospel is confirmed many times such as in summary in Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,And here

Romans 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

And here, 1 Corinthians 2:7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.And here, Colossians 1:26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints

Especially since he said this right as he was about to heal a Canaanite women.

How does that change the truth in the words He spoke? Was He just pulling her chain? I think not.

I must ask, what other gospel did the Scriptures foresee that God would justify the Gentiles by? There is only one gospel ijay, and that's the gospel of Jesus Christ. The bearers of any other gospel are accursed (Galatians 1:6-9)

What is the context here? A rebuke. For what? For turning back to Israel's law program and away from the gospel of grace given to Paul. The mystery Gospel. This only verifies everything posited above, not your position that there is only one gospel.

[puritan lad]

Israel's gospel. That through the repentance of Israel, Israel's Kingly Messiah would come and establish the Kingdom on Earth. Just as the prophets said. And that then Israel would take its commission to reach the nations, starting in Jerusalem and then to the ends of the earth, just as was promised. This was the gospel to Israel. Peter clearly presents this gospel in Acts 3:17-21
“Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.
And if this had happened there would be no need for an apostle Paul. Israel however rejected its Messiah. And thus a new gospel is revealed to Paul, which replaces Israel's Kingdom program. One which had been kept hidden since before the beginning."

Wow. No offense, but that is a theological mess.

What about verse 18? The gospel to Israel is the same and the gospel as the one to the gentiles, and Peter says that it was fulfilled.

Not to mention that, per Matthew 1:21, Jesus would have failed in His mission, and the angel would have given a false prophecy to Joseph.

And even if I grant you this theological confusion, it is still clear in Galatians 3:8 that the gospel preached to Abraham was for all nations, even bringing the gentiles to faith.

The passage in Ephesians 3 makes no mention of another gospel. The fullness of the gospel was not known to OT Israel, especially how the gentiles would fit in, but there has only been one gospel and one way of salvation, through Jesus Christ. In fact, verse 6 plainly says that "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus". Nothing is mentioned here, or in any of the passages you quoted, about separate gospels.

How does that change the truth in the words He spoke? Was He just pulling her chain? I think not.

As I said, this spoke of His earthly ministry. It has nothing to do with His sacrifice, His atonement, of salvation from sins.

What is the context here? A rebuke. For what? For turning back to Israel's law program and away from the gospel of grace given to Paul. The mystery Gospel. This only verifies everything posited above, not your position that there is only one gospel.

More specifically, it was an attempt to worship Christ through Old Covenant sacraments, as well as justification by works (which is a false gospel in both testaments). Nowhere does it mention that the gospel of Christ was for gentiles only, or that it was ineffectual for OT saints.

Jesus Christ is the Savior of ALL of his people, OT and NT.

[jlay]

What about verse 18? The gospel to Israel is the same and the gospel as the one to the gentiles, and Peter says that it was fulfilled.

What about v 18??
"But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer."
UHH, last I checked the Messiah did suffer, and this prophecy was fulfilled. What's the confusion?

Not to mention that, per Matthew 1:21, Jesus would have failed in His mission, and the angel would have given a false prophecy to Joseph.

No sir. Romans 11:26 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved.
Really not seeing how you have grounds to assert that this position means Jesus failed His mission. That just doesn't jive.

it is still clear in Galatians 3:8 that the gospel preached to Abraham was for all nations, even bringing the gentiles to faith.

Yes sir. And that is why Israel was commissioned to preach it. They didn't. And so the mystery has been revealed through our apostle Paul.

The passage in Ephesians 3 makes no mention of another gospel. The fullness of the gospel was not known to OT Israel, especially how the gentiles would fit in, but there has only been one gospel and one way of salvation, through Jesus Christ. In fact, verse 6 plainly says that "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus". Nothing is mentioned here, or in any of the passages you quoted, about separate gospels.

When Jesus was on this earth we are still in OT Israel. Jesus earthly ministry was preaching "repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Are you telling me that you can not understand when Paul says that what was revealed to him was NOT "made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed?" And that this is repeated in several other epistles as well?

Gal. 2:1-2: “Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.” V.9: “and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”

Nowhere does it mention that the gospel of Christ was for gentiles only, or that it was ineffectual for OT saints.

Where did I say it was for the gentiles only? Although Paul was certainly the apostle to the gentiles, it isn't for the gentiles only. Paul said that under this gospel there was no difference. It is the gospel which is in affect today, and is for all that would come in faith, Jew or Gentile, slave or free.

Jesus Christ is the Savior of ALL of his people, OT and NT.

where did I ever say that he wasn't?

2 Peter 3:15-16: “and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures”

[puritan lad]

What about v 18??
"But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer."
UHH, last I checked the Messiah did suffer, and this prophecy was fulfilled. What's the confusion?

The confusion is that you claimed that Peter was presenting the "gospel to Israel" as opposed to Paul's gospel, per this.

This was the gospel to Israel. Peter clearly presents this gospel in Acts 3:17-21

Sounds like the same gospel to me.

No sir. Romans 11:26 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved.
Really not seeing how you have grounds to assert that this position means Jesus failed His mission. That just doesn't jive.

Fair enough. But on what basis wlll you claim that Israel has a different gospel. What are the gentiles coming into, and how will all Israel be saved?

Yes sir. And that is why Israel was commissioned to preach it. They didn't. And so the mystery has been revealed through our apostle Paul.

Preach what? Israel's gospel or Paul's gospel?

As for the rest, you will have to forgive me, because I am having a hard time following you. Galatians 2 makes no mention of a new gospel, only that he was commissioned to preach it to the gentiles. It is the same gospel that was preached to Abraham (which you deny in one post, and seem to accept in your previous one.)

So I need to ask, what is your specific objection to my use of Galatians 3? You previously wrote:

No where does it say that what was preached to Abraham was the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact it says what that Gospel was. That, “All the nations will be blessed in you.”

But then you wrote:

Yes sir. And that is why Israel was commissioned to preach it. They didn't. And so the mystery has been revealed through our apostle Paul.

So, was Israel commissioned to preach a different gospel than what Paul preached? How about a different gospel than what Abraham preached? I'm trying to follow you and see where the other gospel ever existed, because I can't see it.

[jlay]

The confusion is that you claimed that Peter was presenting the "gospel to Israel" as opposed to Paul's gospel, per this.

He was. That's in the text. Acts 3:17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know......"

Fair enough. But on what basis wlll you claim that Israel has a different gospel. What are the gentiles coming into, and how will all Israel be saved?

The gentiles are coming in to the dispensation of grace. Instead of me going into a lenghty discourse, let me link something that I think will cover what you are asking. http://www.matthewmcgee.org/2gospels.html
Jesus said in Matthew 24:14, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then the end shall come."
What Gospel? The gospel of the Kingdom. What I am referring to as Israel's Gospel.
Jesus preached repent, for the Kingdom is at hand. Paul preached Christ crucified.

Preach what? Israel's gospel or Paul's gospel?

At that time, Paul was an enemy of Christ. So Paul's gospel, which He says wasn't revealed except to him by direct revelation couldn't be being preached.

So what Gospel was Israel to preach. I've already quoted Peter's sermon to Israel. And the same can be said of his sermon on Pentecost. “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Just as he was commissioned.
Matt 28:18-20 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

So, was Israel commissioned to preach a different gospel than what Paul preached? How about a different gospel than what Abraham preached? I'm trying to follow you and see where the other gospel ever existed, because I can't see it.

The great commission was Israel's commission given to the disciples, and just what they executed on Pentecost, etc.
The word gospel as we know only means good news. The good news to Israel, was that what was written by the prophets was being fulfilled in Christ the Kingly Messiah.

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