PDA

View Full Version : Just One Gospel?



Pages : [1] 2

Clete
March 21st, 2005, 02:28 PM
Moderator note: This thread was split from post #156 of Closed view [non-Calvinist] and OSAS (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=700000#post700000) - :turbo:



Originally posted by elected4ever
God does not teach 2 or 3 gospels. Just one.

Really?

Where in the four gospels is Jesus ever recorded as having uttered the word grace?

Where in the four gospels did Jesus ever say anything remotely like, "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Where did Jesus ever say, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. ", or "if you become circumcised, I (Christ) will profit you nothing."

Where? Did anyone before Paul ever say such things in connection with the gospel? NO! I think not! Either the Gospel changed or else Paul is a fraud. Take your pick.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Turbo
March 21st, 2005, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Clete

Really?

Where in the four gospels is Jesus ever recorded as having uttered the word grace?

Where in the four gospels did Jesus ever say anything remotely like, "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Where did Jesus ever say, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. ", or "if you become circumcised, I (Christ) will profit you nothing."

Where? Did anyone before Paul ever say such things in connection with the gospel? NO! I think not! Either the Gospel changed or else Paul is a fraud. Take your pick.


Resting in Him,
Clete :up:

elected4ever,

For more on this topic, check the thread The Gospel (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18763), especially posts 10 and 15 and also 4.

godrulz
March 21st, 2005, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Clete

Really?

Where in the four gospels is Jesus ever recorded as having uttered the word grace?

Where in the four gospels did Jesus ever say anything remotely like, "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Where did Jesus ever say, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. ", or "if you become circumcised, I (Christ) will profit you nothing."

Where? Did anyone before Paul ever say such things in connection with the gospel? NO! I think not! Either the Gospel changed or else Paul is a fraud. Take your pick.


Resting in Him,
Clete

I was referring to our modern situation vs Mormonism, etc. ('restored gospel'). I recognize progressive revelation, covenants, and dispensations (though not Mid-Acts view).

elected4ever
March 21st, 2005, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

:up:

elected4ever,

For more on this topic, check the thread The Gospel (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18763), especially posts 10 and 15 and also 4. Your brain dead!:doh:

elected4ever
March 21st, 2005, 05:38 PM
Matthew 28:19 _Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 _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.

godrulz
March 21st, 2005, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Your brain dead!:doh:

Your brain is dead?

You're brain dead?

I'm telling your teacher:p

Clete
March 21st, 2005, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Matthew 28:19 _Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 _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.
Unresponsive! So Jesus told the disciples to teach everything He taught. He didn't teach not to be circumcised in fact He taught to follow all the law, the smaller matters and the bigger ones as well. When did Jesus ever teach anything that even remotely sounds like the gospel according to Paul?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. And this is precisely what I mean by cryptic and vague (although when I used those terms, I didn't have you specifically in mind). You quote a piece of Scripture and then say nothing about how you are applying that Scripture or why you even quoted it. We cannot read you mind.

elected4ever
March 22nd, 2005, 04:43 AM
John 6:37 _All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:39 _And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 _And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:44 _No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 _It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.[.b]

47 [b]_Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Looks to me like Jesus did preach the same gospel as is tought today.

Clete
March 22nd, 2005, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever
Looks to me like Jesus did preach the same gospel as is tought today.

If so then....

Where in the four gospels is Jesus ever recorded as having uttered the word grace?

Where in the four gospels did Jesus ever say anything remotely like, "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Where did Jesus ever say, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. ", or "if you become circumcised, I (Christ) will profit you nothing."

Where? Did anyone before Paul ever say such things in connection with the gospel? NO! I think not! Either the Gospel changed or else Paul is a fraud. Take your pick.!

Are you going to respond to the questions or continue to avoid the point?

Resting in Him,
Clete

elected4ever
March 22nd, 2005, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Clete

If so then....

Where in the four gospels is Jesus ever recorded as having uttered the word grace?

Where in the four gospels did Jesus ever say anything remotely like, "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Where did Jesus ever say, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. ", or "if you become circumcised, I (Christ) will profit you nothing."

Where? Did anyone before Paul ever say such things in connection with the gospel? NO! I think not! Either the Gospel changed or else Paul is a fraud. Take your pick.!

Are you going to respond to the questions or continue to avoid the point?

Resting in Him,
Clete Are you saying that what was cited above is not the gospel?

Turbo
March 22nd, 2005, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever
Looks to me like Jesus did preach the same gospel as is tought today.

Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. And He said to them, "Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.

"Whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart. And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them."

So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. Luke 9:1-6Did Jesus send the apostles to preach that He would die for our sins, be buried, and be raised from the dead on the third day? Well, later in that very chapter Jesus tells the apostles for for the first time that he will be killed and be raised on the third day, and He tells them not to tell anyone...


And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day." Luke 9:21-22
...and then later when Jesus reiterates that he will be tortured, killed, and raised on the third day, Luke records that the twelve apostles did not understand what He was saying:

Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again."
But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken. Luke 18:31-34
How could the twelve have been preaching that Christ would be killed and be raised on the third day if they had not yet heard it, and when they did hear it they still didn't get it? And why would Jesus order them to tell no one that He would be killed and raised on the third day if He had already sent them out to preach it?

Do you now see that the twelve must have been preaching something other than Christ's death, burial, and resurrection Luke 9:1-6?

Turbo
March 22nd, 2005, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Are you saying that what was cited above is not the gospel? It's not the gospel that Paul preached.

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 15-1-4


that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

elected4ever
March 22nd, 2005, 07:50 AM
So?Is what Jesus preached the gospel or not?

Turbo
March 22nd, 2005, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever

So?Is what Jesus preached the gospel or not? During His earthly ministry, Jesus preached the gospel of the Kingdom. This is not the gospel that Paul preached (which he received from Chist himself), which is the gospel we preach today.

Turbo
March 22nd, 2005, 08:20 AM
e4e,

Originally posted by Turbo

Do you now see that the twelve must have been preaching something other than Christ's death, burial, and resurrection Luke 9:1-6?

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 08:23 AM
This is a great topic! Is there any way it could be carried over into another thread?

I am very interested in getting involved, because there is validity to both sides presented by e4e and Turbo.

Clearly Jesus proclaimed His death and resurrection, whether or not His disciples (or anyone else) understood Him. However, there is a distinction between what Paul preached and what Jesus told His disciples to preach.

elected4ever
March 22nd, 2005, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

This is a great topic! Is there any way it could be carried over into another thread?

I am very interested in getting involved, because there is validity to both sides presented by e4e and Turbo.

Clearly Jesus proclaimed His death and resurrection, whether or not His disciples (or anyone else) understood Him. However, there is a distinction between what Paul preached and what Jesus told His disciples to preach. Although the content of the messages of Paul and the 12 were different it was still the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Matthew 24:14 _And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Although the cantent of the messages of Paul and the 12 were differant it was stell the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Matthew 24:14 _And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Like I said, this is a great topic!

Which "end" do you think Jesus was speaking of?

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Turbo
March 22nd, 2005, 09:45 AM
Sozo, I'll probably split this thread tonight.

Clete
March 22nd, 2005, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Are you saying that what was cited above is not the gospel?
What I am saying is that you are not answering the question.

Where in the four gospels is Jesus ever recorded as having uttered the word grace?

Where in the four gospels did Jesus ever say anything remotely like, "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Where did Jesus ever say, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. ", or "if you become circumcised, I (Christ) will profit you nothing."

Where? Did anyone before Paul ever say such things in connection with the gospel? NO! I think not! Either the Gospel changed or else Paul is a fraud. Take your pick.!


I want for you to answer these questions directly! Will you do it, or will you continue to ignore the argument? This is now the 3rd time (or 4th if you count the responses you've made to Turbo) that you have evaded answering the questions posed to you. Are you still confused about why someone might thing you were a bit cryptic or vague in communicating your beliefs? Stop playing games and just answer the questions. If your position is correct you should be able to do so without doing injury to your position. If that cannot be done then your case is beyond weak and you should desire to abandon your position for one that more closely adheres to the Biblical record.

Resting in Him,
Clete

godrulz
March 22nd, 2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Clete

If so then....

Where in the four gospels is Jesus ever recorded as having uttered the word grace?

Where in the four gospels did Jesus ever say anything remotely like, "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Where did Jesus ever say, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. ", or "if you become circumcised, I (Christ) will profit you nothing."

Where? Did anyone before Paul ever say such things in connection with the gospel? NO! I think not! Either the Gospel changed or else Paul is a fraud. Take your pick.!

Are you going to respond to the questions or continue to avoid the point?

Resting in Him,
Clete

John 1 reminds us that Jesus was full of grace. His message was mercy and grace.

His message was to trust and follow Him. This is the core of Paul's message. Paul talked about the resurrection after the fact. Jesus did not emphasize it because He had not risen yet.

Paul expanded on the heart of the message of Christ, but he did not contradict the essence of it: repentance from sin and faith in the person and work of Christ.

godrulz
March 22nd, 2005, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Although the content of the messages of Paul and the 12 were different it was still the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Matthew 24:14 _And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.


The context of this verse is the Great Tribulation, not the age of Grace or the Church Age.

Clete
March 22nd, 2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

John 1 reminds us that Jesus was full of grace. His message was mercy and grace.

His message was to trust and follow Him. This is the core of Paul's message. Paul talked about the resurrection after the fact. Jesus did not emphasize it because He had not risen yet.

Paul expanded on the heart of the message of Christ, but he did not contradict the essence of it: repentance from sin and faith in the person and work of Christ.
Paul expanded nothing. He taught a gospel that he specifically said has been kept hidden until Jesus Himself revealed it to him.
Further, if what you say is so, why Paul? What was the point in bringing Paul into the picture? Weren't the twelve commanded to "go unto the whole world and preach the gospel"? Why did they disobey that command and minister to the circumcision (Israel) while Paul went to the gentiles? Was there something wrong with them?
Further still, Jesus explicitly commanded His disciples NOT to tell anyone about the fact that He was the Messiah or that He was to be crucified.

Luke 9:18 And it happened, as He was alone praying, that His disciples joined Him, and He asked them, saying, "Who do the crowds say that I am?"

19 So they answered and said, "John the Baptist, but some say Elijah; and others say that one of the old prophets has risen again."

20He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."

21 And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, 22 saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day."

And yet in verse 6 of the very same chapter it says...

6 So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

So if they weren't preaching anything about the death or resurrection of Jesus, what were they preaching? Is it even remotely possible to preach the gospel today and leave out the death and resurrection of Jesus? Certainly not! I don't care what else you believe today, if you do not believe that Jesus died and was raised from the dead three days later, you are not saved, period. And yet Jesus and His disciples preached the gospel according to all four gospels. So either they were preaching a different gospel or the gospels are in error, one or the other.

Resting in Him,
Clete

elected4ever
March 22nd, 2005, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Clete

What I am saying is that you are not answering the question.

Where in the four gospels is Jesus ever recorded as having uttered the word grace?

Where in the four gospels did Jesus ever say anything remotely like, "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Where did Jesus ever say, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. ", or "if you become circumcised, I (Christ) will profit you nothing."

Where? Did anyone before Paul ever say such things in connection with the gospel? NO! I think not! Either the Gospel changed or else Paul is a fraud. Take your pick.!


I want for you to answer these questions directly! Will you do it, or will you continue to ignore the argument? This is now the 3rd time (or 4th if you count the responses you've made to Turbo) that you have evaded answering the questions posed to you. Are you still confused about why someone might thing you were a bit cryptic or vague in communicating your beliefs? Stop playing games and just answer the questions. If your position is correct you should be able to do so without doing injury to your position. If that cannot be done then your case is beyond weak and you should desire to abandon your position for one that more closely adheres to the Biblical record.

Resting in Him,
Clete Me thinks you are shooting skiters with an elephant gun.

elected4ever
March 22nd, 2005, 02:31 PM
Or else you are throwing it on the wall and hoping some of it sticks.

elected4ever
March 22nd, 2005, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

The context of this verse is the Great Tribulation, not the age of Grace or the Church Age. What great tribulation are you talking about?

Clete
March 22nd, 2005, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Me thinks you are shooting skiters with an elephant gun.
I am doing nothing but asking a simple question or two. Will you answer them or not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

elected4ever
March 22nd, 2005, 03:55 PM
When you answer mine

elected4ever
March 22nd, 2005, 04:00 PM
A yes or no will do.

ApologeticJedi
March 22nd, 2005, 04:19 PM
godrulz said: Paul expanded on the heart of the message of Christ, but he did not contradict the essence of it: repentance from sin and faith in the person and work of Christ.


Even backing off the issue that far shows that you couldn't find a true similarity. For Paul stresses the belief in the work of Christ, but actually Jesus just stressed the belief in the person of Christ.

They are different. For instance, Christ tells people they should not eat flesh sacrificed to idols. Paul says that it is okay. Christ tells poeple that they should follow the ordinances that the Pharisees give when they teach from the seat of Moses. Paul says that we should not follow the law.

I understand the point of view that says they are close enough that if we step far enough back, and look with squinted eyes, they bear some small resemblances toward one another. However any look at basic structure of the two gospels will show that they are not the same.

The message Jesus and His apostles taught had nothing to do with His death! As it was pointed out, Jesus told his apostles not to tell anyone that He said He would die. And not only were they told not to say anything, but they didn't believe Him themselves. These apostles then went out and taught a kingdom gospel that didn't speak of Jesus' death (his work) only that he was Messiah (his person).

Would that work today? I submit that the gospel cannot today be rightly told without the knowledge that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. That is what we place our faith in, is it not? Yet, it could not have been what the disciples placed their faith in. They placed their faith in Jesus as the Messhiah.

Yes, both are placing their faith in Jesus, so if we back far enough away it looks like similar blurs on the horizon. But when you can stand where you can see both clearly for what they are, it is evident they are not the same.

Clete
March 22nd, 2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

When you answer mine

Your what?

You've asked me nothing except in response to my having asked you these questions.

If you can't answer them just say so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lighthouse
March 22nd, 2005, 04:25 PM
Excellent post, AJ.:thumb:

Turbo
March 22nd, 2005, 05:01 PM
Welcome back, ApologeticJedi! :jump:

MercyBreeze
March 22nd, 2005, 05:21 PM
Whew... that threw me. Turbo must have moved this one into the forum. Or was it here before and I missed it?

Turbo
March 22nd, 2005, 05:32 PM
It was split from another thread in another forum. (I added a note at the beginning of the thread.)

MercyBreeze
March 22nd, 2005, 05:36 PM
Yep... I saw that. :)

Two GREAT arguments (points) that were shared I'd like to highlight again...

Clete:

Further, if what you say is so, why Paul? What was the point in bringing Paul into the picture? Weren't the twelve commanded to "go unto the whole world and preach the gospel"? Why did they disobey that command and minister to the circumcision (Israel) while Paul went to the gentiles? Was there something wrong with them?
Further still, Jesus explicitly commanded His disciples NOT to tell anyone about the fact that He was the Messiah or that He was to be crucified.

Phenomenal questions that are actually more vital to answer than the other three or four that keep being repeated to no avail.
;)

ApologeticJedi:

Yes, both are placing their faith in Jesus, so if we back far enough away it looks like similar blurs on the horizon. But when you can stand where you can see both clearly for what they are, it is evident they are not the same.

No doubt it seems so elementary, but AJ, your statement here was so refreshingly unique to me that I had to say it. Great way to word it, sir. :)

In Christ Alone,

Mercy

elected4ever
March 22nd, 2005, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by MercyBreeze

Yep... I saw that. :)

Two GREAT arguments (points) that were shared I'd like to highlight again...

Clete:


Phenomenal questions that are actually more vital to answer than the other three or four that keep being repeated to no avail.
;)

ApologeticJedi:


No doubt it seems so elementary, but AJ, your statement here was so refreshingly unique to me that I had to say it. Great way to word it, sir. :)

In Christ Alone,

Mercy But they are the same. If I were speaking of myself then the speech I us will be totally different than the speech you might use to describe me. So it is with Paul and Jesus. That does not make it a different gospel but a continuation of the same Gospel.

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 05:48 PM
e4e, Clete, Turbo, whoever... What kinds of things do you think that the disciples were saying when they preached the gospel of the kingdom?

MercyBreeze
March 22nd, 2005, 05:59 PM
Sozo,

I, being dispensational, believe that the disciples taught Jesus as the Messiah, crucified and risen. They did not, however, teach grace in the terms that we now are saved, for they included a preaching of the Mosaic Law as customary for those who believed. Paul was given revelation of two very distinct things (one of which Peter came to understand in Acts 10)...

1. That this Crucified and Risen Lord was not only salvation for the Jews, but now also for the Gentiles as one unit... not seperate entities.

2. That the Mosaic Law was no longer the instruction to those who are considered the children of God, for "we are not under law, but under grace."

The Disciples taught Jesus crucified and risen, yes. But along side of that teaching were instructions to continue honoring the Law of Moses. Something that you and I don't do today.... at least not all 616 of them. :)

Mercy

Poly
March 22nd, 2005, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

e4e, Clete, Turbo, whoever... What kinds of things do you think that the disciples were saying when they preached the gospel of the kingdom?

The same thing that John the Baptist was preaching. Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 06:29 PM
The Gospel of the Uncircumcision is a term Paul used to differeniate his gospel from that which was first committed to the twelve apostles.

E4E disagrees, so E4E or Sozo, if would please answer the following question for me, I would greatly appreciate it. And E4E, answer here, dont come to my room or wait till I come out. Thanks.

The fact sould be self evident that Paul had truth which the 12 did not have, A) for why would Paul insist that he had not received his gospel from man if, indeed he was preaching the same thing as the 12,

and

B) Why would God send him to Jerusalem by special revelation to make known his gospel to the 12 if they already knew it and were the first to receive it?

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

The Gospel of the Uncircumcision is a term Paul used to differeniate his gospel from that which was first committed to the twelve apostles.



Paul preached to the uncircumcision, but his message was the gospel of grace and peace.

I'm simply wanting to understand what the disciples mindset was concerning the gospel of the kingdom. What did they think was the outcome of those who received their message? Did they preach eternal life? Or what? Did they preach salvation by faith?

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Poly

The same thing that John the Baptist was preaching. Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. What does that mean?

swanca99
March 22nd, 2005, 07:22 PM
E4E, you might also want to check out my post in "The Gospel" thread, post number 27. I doubt if it will convince you of anything, but I think it may at least help you understand the traditional dispensationalist view on the issue.

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

What does that mean?

It simply means the 12 were expecting Jesus to return almost immediately and restoring the Kingdom. Isreal rejected the message of the cross and thereby were set aside until God decides to use them again.

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Paul preached to the uncircumcision, but his message was the gospel of grace and peace.

Right, but it wasn't the 12's message.

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

It simply means the 12 were expecting Jesus to return almost immediately and restoring the Kingdom. Isreal rejected the message of the cross and thereby were set aside until God decides to use them again.

So when Jesus sent out the 12 to preach the gospel, and perform signs and wonders, their message was that Jesus was going to return from where? What did they believe that the Kingdom entailed?

ApologeticJedi
March 22nd, 2005, 08:48 PM
Joy Dispenser said: If I were speaking of myself then the speech I us will be totally different than the speech you might use to describe me. So it is with Paul and Jesus. That does not make it a different gospel but a continuation of the same Gospel.


None of the examples others have given can be explained by a pronoun alteration. In some places Paul and Jesus outright contradict one another. That can’t be explained away as a pronoun issue.

For instance, Paul says that you should not follow the law (Galatians 3:11-3), and if you do Christ has no value for you (Galatians 5:2-3). Does Jesus say the same thing about the Law? No, Jesus says the opposite! Jesus says you must follow the law or you won’t get into heaven (Matthew 5:17-20; 19:17-20; John 15:10). Jesus rebukes Jewish churches for eating food sacrificed to idols (Revelation 2:14; 20) and Paul teaches that it is really okay to eat food sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:1-10). I fail to see how these contradictions are solved as merely misapplied pronouns. Perhaps you can enlighten us how these are really just pronoun issues?

I still believe you are trying to step us all back far enough that no details are viewable in order to say "See, they are the same". For instance, I would agree that they both taught Jesus, and they both taught love, and they both taught that you need faith. However there is a point at which the similarities cease, and the differences appear. If you can't explain the differences along with the similarities, and your solution is merely to ignore that there are differences, then I'd suggest you need to rethink your position.

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

So when Jesus sent out the 12 to preach the gospel, and perform signs and wonders, their message was that Jesus was going to return from where?

Well, he ascended into heaven right? Which means he is coming and would have then come back from heaven. As a side note, Sozo, and please pay attention to this. When Jesus ascended, there was an angel who gave comfort to the apostles. You remember what he said? Here it is


"Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

Please notice the you. The angels were talking to the apostles. It was Gods initial plan to have Jesus return very close to the time he left. This is important to grasp. The time was short. The apostles should have seen Jesus return. But because Isreal rejected the message of Peter, God gave them up for a time and then Paul became a apostle ( not part of the 12) to start a new plan with the Gentiles.


What did they believe that the Kingdom entailed?

As Poly eluded to, Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by ApologeticJedi

None of the examples others have given can be explained by a pronoun alteration. In some places Paul and Jesus outright contradict one another. That can’t be explained away as a pronoun issue.

For instance, Paul says that you should not follow the law (Galatians 3:11-3), and if you do Christ has no value for you (Galatians 5:2-3). Does Jesus say the same thing about the Law? No, Jesus says the opposite! Jesus says you must follow the law or you won’t get into heaven (Matthew 5:17-20; 19:17-20; John 15:10). Jesus rebukes Jewish churches for eating food sacrificed to idols (Revelation 2:14; 20) and Paul teaches that it is really okay to eat food sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:1-10). I fail to see how these contradictions are solved as merely misapplied pronouns. Perhaps you can enlighten us how these are really just pronoun issues?

I still believe you are trying to step us all back far enough that no details are viewable in order to say "See, they are the same". For instance, I would agree that they both taught Jesus, and they both taught love, and they both taught that you need faith. However there is a point at which the similarities cease, and the differences appear. If you can't explain the differences along with the similarities, and your solution is merely to ignore that there are differences, then I'd suggest you need to rethink your position. :up:

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 09:50 PM
Sozo,

I may have over simplified the answer to your 2nd question.


What did they believe that the Kingdom entailed?

Well, what was Jesus' ministry?


Matthew 4:23 (New King James Version)

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people


Matthew 10:7,8 (New King James Version)

And as you go, preach, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

It was the same message as John the Baptist.


Matthew 3:1,2 (New King James Version)

In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"

It is so important to realize Sozo, that the earthly ministry of Christ was not aimed at Gentiles but ONLY at Isreal. Jesus ministry was in the Dispensation of Law.


Galatians 4:4 (New King James Version)

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

The purpose was to call the lost sheep of Isreal back into right relationship with God through the baptism of repentancefor the remission of their sins. There is a big difference between calling a backslidden people back into fellowship with God and in bringing spiritually dead and alienated sinners into a saving relationship with God, you think?:think:

For the life of me, I can't remember where I found that paragraph but it is approriate.

Hope that helps you see my view alittle more clearly.

elected4ever
March 22nd, 2005, 10:09 PM
Pardon me but my mind is just not into this right now. I just can't believe that the courts would commit murder by assisting in the death of an innocent person or would involve it self in assisted suicide. Somebody is ling big time an an Innocent person is on a death watch. I am sorry but I just can't think or concentrate on this right now.

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 10:12 PM
You do understand that I am not disputing what you are saying, but rather trying to see the whole picture.

Right now there are lots of pieces to the puzzle, but I don't know where the box is with the picture. :confused:

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

You do understand that I am not disputing what you are saying, but rather trying to see the whole picture.

Right now there are lots of pieces to the puzzle, but I don't know where the box is with the picture. :confused:

Thats cool Sozo. The box is the Bible with a timeline Put the timeline into place and you have your completed puzzle.

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 11:00 PM
I know I over simplified that last post. Is there anything specific you want to look to at as it pertains to this topic?

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Thats cool Sozo. The box is the Bible with a timeline Put the timeline into place and you have your completed puzzle.

:rolleyes:

I'm trying to get to the heart of this. I have a clear understanding of the old and new covenants, and that the cross is the dividing line. I simply have not heard anyone give a thorough explanation of what the 12 were proclaiming and what the outcome was for those who received their message. What is the gospel of the Kingdom?

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 11:02 PM
Gospel of the Kingdom as found in Matthew 4:23?

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 11:04 PM
It is my conviction the Gospel of the Kingdom is what we call the Old Testament. The Jewish Books.

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Gospel of the Kingdom as found in Matthew 4:23? That does not tell me what the gospel of the Kingdom is, it only tells me that Jesus mentioned it, and healed some people. Is the Kingdom getting healed?

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

It is my conviction the Gospel of the Kingdom is what we call the Old Testament. The Jewish Books. uh? :confused:

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

That does not tell me what the gospel of the Kingdom is, it only tells me that Jesus mentioned it, and healed some people. Is the Kingdom getting healed?

They were then.

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

They were then. What? :confused: :confused:

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

uh? :confused:

I knew I might confuse you with this. Sorry.

drbrumley
March 22nd, 2005, 11:23 PM
OK, let's see if I explain this where you might understand.

The term, "Gospel of the Kingdom" is found only in Matthew (4:23, 9:35 and 24:14)

The Gospel of the Kingdom is the good news that Christ will establish His Kingdom of righteouness and peace in the world.

It goes back for its foundation to the covenant of the Kingdom made with David.


2 Samuel 7
God's Covenant with David

God's Promise to David
1 Now it came to pass when the king was dwelling in his house, and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies all around, 2that the king said to Nathan the prophet, "See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells inside tent curtains."
3Then Nathan said to the king, "Go, do all that is in your heart, for the LORD is with you."

4But it happened that night that the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying, 5"Go and tell My servant David, "Thus says the LORD: "Would you build a house for Me to dwell in? 6For I have not dwelt in a house since the time that I brought the children of Israel up from Egypt, even to this day, but have moved about in a tent and in a tabernacle. 7Wherever I have moved about with all the children of Israel, have I ever spoken a word to anyone from the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people Israel, saying, "Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?"" 8Now therefore, thus shall you say to My servant David, "Thus says the LORD of hosts: "I took you from the sheepfold, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people, over Israel. 9And I have been with you wherever you have gone, and have cut off all your enemies from before you, and have made you a great name, like the name of the great men who are on the earth. 10Moreover I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more; nor shall the sons of wickedness oppress them anymore, as previously, 11since the time that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel, and have caused you to rest from all your enemies. Also the LORD tells you that He will make you a house.

12"When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. 15But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.""'

17According to all these words and according to all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

Emo
March 23rd, 2005, 12:30 AM
Matthew 5:17-20

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of 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. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Members of Israel had to keep the law. Christ is clearly teaching the Law which continues on from here through Matt. 7. Righteousness came through observance of the Mosaic Law, not from the death & resurrection of Jesus alone.

Acts 26:14-18

'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' 15 So I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'

Paul was exclusively given the Gospel by Jesus which shows that the Body of Christ members will be sanctified by faith in Christ only.

No works salvation required, just salvation by grace.

Gal. 2:6-9

But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 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.

The distinction here is made between Paul & Peter clearly showing the 2 different Dispensations.

The Gospel of the Kingdom pertains to Israel.
Jesus' earthly kingdom is solely with Israel & He will return someday & rule with an iron fist according to the law.

The Gospel preached by Paul is a heavenly gospel which establishes the Church & The Body of Christ. His message was Grace.

No other apostle ever mentioned the Body of Christ.

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 10:29 AM
Bump

elected4ever
March 23rd, 2005, 11:40 AM
Ephesians 2:8 _For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

There has never been a time in the history of man that that passage of scripture has not been true. From Adam to the present day men have been saved the same way. That has never changed. The Law never saved anyone. Israel was never saved by law. The law condemned a person to death and executed them. All the troubles of Israel were caused by there inability to keep the law.

Sacrifice and oblations were introduced in the religious ceremonies of the nation of Israel to provide a covering for their sin. In actuality the sacrifices did nothing if they were offered in the absence of faith. When those sacrifices and oblation were reduced to just religious ceremony they profited Israel nothing and at time were abandoned by Israel all together.

Hebrews 1:1 _¶God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Now if this is what is meant by dispensationalism then one would be hard pressed to disagree. Tho the gospel of grace through faith has always been true from Adam onward the methods that God used to communicate with man has changed with the passage of time. To say that man was saved by another gospel is quite another.

Hebrews 1:2 _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; :e4e:

Clete
March 23rd, 2005, 12:54 PM
e4e,

You are the king of unresponsiveness! Practically every word you say testifies against your own position. If you had attempted to say that animal sacrifices were anything other than absolutely mandatory in order to be saved prior to the Apostle Paul's ministry, you would have been stoned to death! But now if you attempt to say that you can legitimately offer an animal sacrifice, you would prove yourself to be an unbeliever!

If that isn't a change, what is it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

elected4ever
March 23rd, 2005, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Clete

e4e,

You are the king of unresponsiveness! Practically every word you say testifies against your own position. If you had attempted to say that animal sacrifices were anything other than absolutely mandatory in order to be saved prior to the Apostle Paul's ministry, you would have been stoned to death! But now if you attempt to say that you can legitimately offer an animal sacrifice, you would prove yourself to be an unbeliever!

If that isn't a change, what is it?

Resting in Him,
Clete Then I guess that the prophet Daniel wasn't saved. No Israelite in the captivity was saved then. Think about what you are saying. "If you had attempted to say that animal sacrifices were anything other than absolutely mandatory in order to be saved prior to the Apostle Paul's ministry,"

Clete
March 23rd, 2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Then I guess that the prophet Daniel wasn't saved. No Israelite in the captivity was saved then. Think about what you are saying. "If you had attempted to say that animal sacrifices were anything other than absolutely mandatory in order to be saved prior to the Apostle Paul's ministry,"

Again, completely unresponsive! Changing the subject won't win you the debate.

Had Daniel or any other captured Jew had the opportunity to do so they not only would have, they would have HAD TO offer sacrifices in order to remain in covenant relationship with God.
Further, for a Jew (including Jesus and the twelve) to offer animal sacrifices DID NOT remove them from their covenant relationship with God but it certainly would today! As I said, if you offer an animal sacrifice this afternoon, you are not a beleiver!
So any way you slice it, there was a time (before Paul) that one was obligated to make animal sacrifice and now (after Paul) we are required NOT to make animal sacrifices.

Is that a change or isn't it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

elected4ever
March 23rd, 2005, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Clete

Again, completely unresponsive! Changing the subject won't win you the debate.

Had Daniel or any other captured Jew had the opportunity to do so they not only would have, they would have HAD TO offer sacrifices in order to remain in covenant relationship with God.
Further, for a Jew (including Jesus and the twelve) to offer animal sacrifices DID NOT remove them from their covenant relationship with God but it certainly would today! As I said, if you offer an animal sacrifice this afternoon, you are not a beleiver!
So any way you slice it, there was a time (before Paul) that one was obligated to make animal sacrifice and now (after Paul) we are required NOT to make animal sacrifices.

Is that a change or isn't it?

Resting in Him,
Clete Talking about tolal ideiocy, you take the cake.:freak: Wath someone does or does not do as far as religious practic is concerned has no bearing on one's salvation.

The Mosacic Law had a great deal to do with one's being an Israelite or not but being an Israrlite did not make a person saved or lost.:doh:

Sold Out
March 23rd, 2005, 01:48 PM
Romans 4:1-11

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about–but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them."

Clete
March 23rd, 2005, 02:38 PM
You guys keep changing the subject (although I know you don't understand that you are). Whether you see it or not, I won't let you get away with it.

Could a man refuse to offer animal sacrifices and remain saved under the old covenant?

Yes or No?

Can a person today offer animal sacrifices and be considered a Christian?

Yes or No?

Resting in Him,
Clete

elected4ever
March 23rd, 2005, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Clete

You guys keep changing the subject (although I know you don't understand that you are). Whether you see it or not, I won't let you get away with it.

Could a man refuse to offer animal sacrifices and remain saved under the old covenant?

Yes or No?

Can a person today offer animal sacrifices and be considered a Christian?

Yes or No?

Resting in Him,
Clete Yes in both cases sense in ether case the work of the flesh is not the justification for salvation before God. Jesus Christ is our justification before and after the resurrection of Christ.

MercyBreeze
March 23rd, 2005, 03:12 PM
Jesus Christ is our justification before and after the resurrection of Christ.

Isn't that an oxy moron?

Clete
March 23rd, 2005, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Yes in both cases sense in ether case the work of the flesh is not the justification for salvation before God. Jesus Christ is our justification before and after the resurrection of Christ.

Then why was God going to kill Moses in the following passage?

Exodus 4:24And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him. 25Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses'[b] feet, and said, "Surely you are a husband of blood to me!" 26So He let him go. Then she said, "You are a husband of blood!"--because of the circumcision.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sold Out
March 23rd, 2005, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Clete

You guys keep changing the subject (although I know you don't understand that you are). Whether you see it or not, I won't let you get away with it.

Could a man refuse to offer animal sacrifices and remain saved under the old covenant?

Yes or No?

Can a person today offer animal sacrifices and be considered a Christian?

Yes or No?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete - The animal sacrifices were only a picture of what saves. The acts themselves did not save. When Jesus came in the flesh, there was no need to proclaim the gospel via the sacrifices because the ACTUAL sacrifice had finally showed up! Either way, you had to put faith in the picture that the sacrifice represented (Christ) or the actual sacrifice (Jesus' death, burial and resurrection), which is what we do now in the church age.

Question for you: In Genesis 4, Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God. How did they know about sacrifices? They lived centuries before the law was given to Moses.

Nimrod
March 23rd, 2005, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Clete

Then why was God going to kill Moses in the following passage?

Exodus 4:24And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him. 25Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses'[b] feet, and said, "Surely you are a husband of blood to me!" 26So He let him go. Then she said, "You are a husband of blood!"--because of the circumcision.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You are confusing death and justification. Lets say for an instance that God did kill Moses. Does that mean Moses did not go to heaven? Noooooooo it does not.

Moses, a decendant of Abraham, should of had circumcision. Apparently this was important to God.

Turbo
March 23rd, 2005, 04:20 PM
e4e & Sold Out,
Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"

If someone asked you this question, how would you answer?

Would you answer like this?

So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

He said to Him, "Which ones?"

Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Matthew 19:16-19

I sure wouldn't! :nono:

Clete
March 23rd, 2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

You are confusing death and justification. Lets say for an instance that God did kill Moses. Does that mean Moses did not go to heaven? Noooooooo it does not.

Moses, a decendant of Abraham, should of had circumcision. Apparently this was important to God.

No sir, if God had killed Moses he would have been just as hell bound as the whole generation of Israelite who's carcasses fell dead in the desert.

Further, this is beside the point. I'm not talking about the question is, was circumcision or the law in general optional? If it was then why would God seek to kill Moses over it?

You'd basically have to be stupid to think that it was optional! And getting circumcised (as a religious rite) is not an option at all today!

THAT"S A CHANGE FOLKS! A pretty big one at that!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sold Out
March 23rd, 2005, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Clete

No sir, if God had killed Moses he would have been just as hell bound as the whole generation of Israelite who's carcasses fell dead in the desert.
Resting in Him,
Clete


Where does it say they went to hell?

Turbo
March 23rd, 2005, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Sold Out

Where does it say they went to hell? Where does it say they believed that Christ would be crucified and raised from the dead?

(Not that this would have been necessary for them to avoid hell. But you think it was necessary, right?)

elected4ever
March 23rd, 2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

e4e & Sold Out,
Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"

If someone asked you this question, how would you answer?

Would you answer like this?

So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

He said to Him, "Which ones?"

Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Matthew 19:16-19

I sure wouldn't! :nono: That is absolute righteousness and is a good answer. It is clear that absolute righteousness is required. If you wont to have eternal life then you must be absolutely righteous. I agree with Jesus.

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

That is absolute righteousness and is a good answer. It is clear that absolute righteousness is required. If you want to have eternal life then you must be absolutely righteous. I agree with Jesus.

So, who is right on the way to eternal life, Jesus in Matthew 19:16-19 or Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9?


Matthew 19:16-17 (New King James Version)

Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments. He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, ""You shall not murder,' "You shall not commit adultery,' "You shall not steal,' "You shall not bear false witness,' "Honor your father and your mother," and, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."'

compared to



Ephesians 2:8-9 (New King James Version)

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

BTW, I agree with Christ also. Just if Isreal had not rejected Him we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sozo
March 23rd, 2005, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley




Just if Isreal had not rejected Him we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm still trying to understand what message you guys think that they rejected. :confused:

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 07:40 PM
The Kingship of Christ. The resurrection of Christ. That Jesus was the Son of God. Shall I contunue?

Sozo
March 23rd, 2005, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

The Kingship of Christ. The resurrection of Christ. That Jesus was the Son of God. Shall I contunue?

:confused: I thought that your whole argument was that the 12 were preaching a different gospel and that they were in the dark about Christ's death and resurrection.

elected4ever
March 23rd, 2005, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

So, who is right on the way to eternal life, Jesus in Matthew 19:16-19 or Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9? Both:bannana:

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Both:bannana:

Good we agree. So when Christ was teaching the Jews how to have eternal life in the Matthew passage, Paul could say what he said in Ephesians at the very same time?

swanca99
March 23rd, 2005, 07:57 PM
Below is a post I made in the thread "The Gospel" a few days ago. It may help, it may just be gasoline on the fire, or it may be answering questions that nobody is asking or cares about, but here goes...

==================================================

What I am going to do in this post is present the traditional dispensationalist view (what I think some on this board refer to as "Acts 2 dispensationalism"). I'm not going to go to great lengths here to defend it, I'm just going to present it. Perhaps I'll attempt to defend it once others attempt to take it apart, but maybe not.

We could say that there are three or four different GOSPELS, or that there are three or four different messages of good news. Take your pick.

First, there is the gospel or good news of the kingdom (Mt 4:23, 9:35). This is the good news that God intends to set up the kingdom of Christ in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:16). This message was preached by John the Baptist, by our Lord during His first advent, and will be preached during the tribulation (Mt 24:14).

Second, there is the gospel or good news of the grace of God, i.e., that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world, was raised from the dead for our justification, and that by Him all who believe are justified. I'm not going to quote any Scripture about this one, since there has already been a lot quoted concerning it in this thread, and most of us agree that this one exists anyway. <8^)

Third, there is the "everlasting gospel" of Rev. 14:6-7. It is described in the New Scofield Refernce Bible (1967) "as the announcement of divine judgment upon the wicked in the coming great tribulation. It is good news for the suffering believers as it heralds their coming deliverance and reward (cp. v. 12). In view of this those who 'dwell on the earth' are exhorted to fear God and worship Him (v. 7)."

Chafer and Scofield (in his 1917 edition) add a fourth, that which Paul calls "my Gospel." They describe this as the gospel of grace in its fullest development, and it includes a lot of stuff about the church.

This "does not mean that there is more than one Gospel of salvation. Grace is the basis for salvation in all dispensations, and is under all circumstances the only way of salvation from sin." -- Scofield Reference Bible, 1967 edition

Covenant or Reformed theologians object to a distinction between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace. This statement by Chafer is similar to those made by some of the previous posters in this thread: "Here nevertheless will arise an absurdity which does not deter this type of theologian, namely, that men could preach the grace gospel based as it is on the death and resurrection of Christ when they did not believe Christ would die or be raised again (cf. Luke 18:31-34)." -- Systematic Theology, Vol. VII, page 176.

Please excuse the long post and my over-reliance on other sources -- I'm NOT a theologian by any means despite my overpriced education. But I hope this has helped in gaining an understanding of at least a traditional dispensationalist position on this issue.

==================================================

Yours because His,
Swanca

elected4ever
March 23rd, 2005, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Good we agree. So when Christ was teaching the Jews how to have eternal life in the Matthew passage, Paul could say what he said in Ephesians at the very same time?

Matthew 19:20 _The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 _Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 _But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Can anyone be perfect outside of Christ Jesus? The young man was depending on his good works and Jesus just helped him see the truth. If anyone can keep the whole law then that person will be saved. Jesus keep the whole law and outside of Jesus no man keeps the law but in Jesus the law is fulfilled.

Romans 8:1 _¶There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.:bannana:

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

I'm still trying to understand what message you guys think that they rejected. :confused:

They rejected Jesus as thier Messiah did they not?

Sozo
March 23rd, 2005, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

They rejected Jesus as thier Messiah did they not? So then they are lost, and they do not have eternal life?

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

So then they are lost, and they do not have eternal life?

Isreal is lost and have no enternal life without Christ. But God gave them a promise or covenant so he will remember them when he deems it is time.

Sozo
March 23rd, 2005, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Isreal is lost and have no enternal life without Christ. But God gave them a promise or covenant so he will remember them when he deems it is time.

This must also include the 12, because they did not receive the gospel that Paul proclaimed, correct?

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Matthew 19:20 _The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 _Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 _But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Can anyone be perfect outside of Christ Jesus? The young man was depending on his good works and Jesus just helped him see the truth. If anyone can keep the whole law then that person will be saved. Jesus keep the whole law and outside of Jesus no man keeps the law but in Jesus the law is fulfilled.

Romans 8:1 _¶There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.:bannana:

Agreed. Noone can be perfect outside of Jesus. But did not Jesus say follow the law right above what you posted? He listed the commandments. Those look like requirements to me that a person being a Jew had to do. Jesus doesnt say thru me you can keep the commandments. The young man had to keep em, right?

elected4ever
March 23rd, 2005, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

This must also include the 12, because they did not receive the gospel that Paul proclaimed, correct? Nether did Stephen :confused:

Sozo
March 23rd, 2005, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Nether did Stephen :confused: I guess not!

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

This must also include the 12, because they did not receive the gospel that Paul proclaimed, correct?

No. The 12 had the mystery which is the Body of Christ revealed to them when God by a special revelation sent Paul to Jerusalem to make it known to them.

Sozo
March 23rd, 2005, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

No. The 12 had the mystery which is the Body of Christ revealed to them when God by a special revelation sent Paul to Jerusalem to make it known to them. Then why did they stay with writing letters tainted by the old gospel message?

:help: :confused:

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Nether did Stephen :confused:

I guess your going to say the Church which is the Body of Christ started at Pentecost right?

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Then why did they stay with writing letters tainted by the old gospel message?

:help: :confused:

Good question. Peter had all sorts of trouble with that. I guess old habits die hard.

elected4ever
March 23rd, 2005, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Agreed. No one can be perfect outside of Jesus. But did not Jesus say follow the law right above what you posted? He listed the commandments. Those look like requirements to me that a person being a Jew had to do. Jesus doesn't say thru me you can keep the commandments. The young man had to keep em, right? The law never saved Israel. The law condemned Israel. Only those who keep the law are saved. The only way to keep the law was to believe God in faith. Ritualism and works do not save. Jesus was received by those who were of faith in God and not of their works and ritualism.

Evidently he did not keep the law except for those portions he chose. No the young man did not keep the law. If you fail in one part you fail in all parts.

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

The law never saved Israel. The law condemned Israel. Only those who keep the law are saved. The only way to keep the law was to believe God in faith. Ritualism and works do not save. Jesus was received by those who were of faith in God and not of their works and ritualism.

Evidently he did not keep the law except for those portions he chose. No the young man did not keep the law. If you fail in one part you fail in all parts.

What you are forgetting E4E is Isreal was, by virtue of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Passover, and the Covenant sacrifices were on redemption ground and were considered to be God's chosen nation and the people of God before ever a law was imposed on them.

Paul makes it plain that the law, which was given 430 years after the promose to Abraham, could not disannul the promise.


Galatians 3:17 (New King James Version)

And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.

So it should be clear that salvation under the Dispensation of Law was on the basis of the promise, and that while breaking of the law might bring physical death, as it did in many cases, the law could not disannul the promise.

elected4ever
March 23rd, 2005, 09:18 PM
drbrumley
What you are forgetting E4E is Isreal was, by virtue of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Passover, and the Covenant sacrifices were on redemption ground and were considered to be God's chosen nation and the people of God before ever a law was imposed on them. Wrong. Just because God chose to reveal the law and establish Israel as caretaker of the law did not guarantee the salvation of Israel.

Sold Out
March 24th, 2005, 04:21 PM
Agreed. Noone can be perfect outside of Jesus. But did not Jesus say follow the law right above what you posted? He listed the commandments. Those look like requirements to me that a person being a Jew had to do. Jesus doesnt say thru me you can keep the commandments. The young man had to keep em, right?


Jesus was showing the rich man that he could NOT keep all the commandments, which is why he needed Christ. Remember, he walked away sad when Jesus told him to go sell all he had, give it to the poor, then follow Jesus. He had broken the 1st and 2nd commandments - his money was his god and his idol.

There are two ways to enter heaven - keep all the commandments and never break a SINGLE one your entire life or trust Jesus as Savior because you HAVE broken the commandments and need forgiveness. Since the bible says ALL have sinned, the only option is to trust Jesus for salvation..

Clete
March 24th, 2005, 07:16 PM
Then why did they stay with writing letters tainted by the old gospel message?

:help: :confused:
OUTSTANDING QUESTION!!!! :BRAVO:

Because "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable! (Rom 11:29). The twelve were saved under the previous dispensation and so remained under that dispensation until their death, as did their converts whom they agree with Paul that they would minister to while he ministered to the Gentiles.
So for a while there were two groups coexisting, one under the dispensation of law, the other under the dispensation of the mystery; the former with twelve apostles, the latter with only one. The twelve ministered and wrote too, for, and about the Circumcision, while Paul ministered and wrote too, for, and about the Body of Christ, and never the twine shall meet.
It is interesting to note that nearly all the various issues that divide the church has to do with this very topic. Everything from water baptism to eternal security and tithing are touched by this single question. One of the most powerful arguments in support of this whole idea is the fact that such a simple and straight forward idea as this can allow one to resolve countless theological debates while leaving the simple surface meaning of the text in tact and leaving one with no problem texts!
When you see the distinct nature of Paul's ministry and message, you can read the Bible and take it for what it seems to be saying and understand that it means what it says and it causes no confusion or difficulty whatsoever. I can read Rom. 4:5 and James 2:17 and take them both totally at face value and there is no contradiction whatsoever. I don't have to have one or the other saying something more or different that what it simply seems to be saying at all. They both mean exactly what they say, and yet do not contradict! This is only possible if you understand that when Saul was on his way to Damascus, God decided because of Israel's unbelief to do something completely different and new which had been kept secret since the world began (Rom. 16:25).

Resting in Him,
Clete

elected4ever
March 24th, 2005, 07:25 PM
OUTSTANDING QUESTION!!!! :BRAVO:

Because "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable! (Rom 11:29). The twelve were saved under the previous dispensation and so remained under that dispensation until their death, as did their converts whom they agree with Paul that they would minister to while he ministered to the Gentiles.
So for a while there were two groups coexisting, one under the dispensation of law, the other under the dispensation of the mystery; the former with twelve apostles, the latter with only one. The twelve ministered and wrote too, for, and about the Circumcision, while Paul ministered and wrote too, for, and about the Body of Christ, and never the twine shall meet.
It is interesting to note that nearly all the various issues that divide the church has to do with this very topic. Everything from water baptism to eternal security and tithing are touched by this single question. One of the most powerful arguments in support of this whole idea is the fact that such a simple and straight forward idea as this can allow one to resolve countless theological debates while leaving the simple surface meaning of the text in tact and leaving one with no problem texts!
When you see the distinct nature of Paul's ministry and message, you can read the Bible and take it for what it seems to be saying and understand that it means what it says and it causes no confusion or difficulty whatsoever. I can read Rom. 4:5 and James 2:17 and take them both totally at face value and there is no contradiction whatsoever. I don't have to have one or the other saying something more or different that what it simply seems to be saying at all. They both mean exactly what they say, and yet do not contradict! This is only possible if you understand that when Saul was on his way to Damascus, God decided because of Israel's unbelief to do something completely different and new which had been kept secret since the world began (Rom. 16:25).

Resting in Him,
CleteAre you saying that the twelve were obligated to contenue in the ceramoneal law that was also fulfilled along with the rest of the law. Are you saying that Jesus was not the fulfillment of the law for them? :confused:

Sozo
March 24th, 2005, 07:34 PM
Wow Clete, now I am really confused! :confused:

You guys seem to be telling me that the 12 are presenting a message different than Paul proclaimed and that message was rejected. However, Paul's message is preached to those who, having accepted it, are saved by grace thorugh faith, and they have been given the gift of eternal life. After hearing Pauls' message, the 12, continue to preach a message that is rejected, even though, they themselves, accepted Paul's message and are saved, they are commissioned to keep those whom they are preaching to in the dark. Is that correct?

elected4ever
March 24th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Wow Clete, now I am really confused! :confused:

You guys seem to be telling me that the 12 are presenting a message different than Paul proclaimed and that message was rejected. However, Paul's message is preached to those who, having accepted it, are saved by grace thorugh faith, and they have been given the gift of eternal life. After hearing Pauls' message, the 12, continue to preach a message that is rejected, even though, they themselves, accepted Paul's message and are saved, they are commissioned to keep those whom they are preaching to in the dark. Is that correct?That is a good question, Sozo

Clete
March 24th, 2005, 09:43 PM
Wow Clete, now I am really confused! :confused:

You guys seem to be telling me that the 12 are presenting a message different than Paul proclaimed and that message was rejected.
It was rejected by Israel as a nation but not rejected by every single individual. Those who believed what the twelve were preaching were saved, they were saved under the dispensation of law and remained under that dispensation until their death despite the fact that God cut off Israel on the whole. In other words, God did not cut off ALL of Israel; there was a remnant. Namely, the twelve and their converts who were dispersed because of the persecution they suffered at the hands of the authorities in Jerusalem. These "dispersed" Jewish believers were the very one's whom James address his epistle too.


However, Paul's message is preached to those who, having accepted it, are saved by grace through faith, and they have been given the gift of eternal life. After hearing Paul's' message, the 12, continue to preach a message that is rejected, even though, they themselves, accepted Paul's message and are saved, they are commissioned to keep those whom they are preaching to in the dark. Is that correct?
No, that is not correct.
The Twelve were not saved because they believed Paul's message, they were already saved long before Paul came on the seen. They did acknowledge the validity of Paul message (which, incidentally, would not have been necessary had it been the same message) but were not saved by it, and neither were any of their converts. James said, in fact, that his converts were all zealous for the law, and well they should have been. They were saved under a dispensation of law and so followed the law just as they should have done and just as Peter, James and John (i.e the twelve) continued to do and to teach through their epistles.

Resting in Him,
Clete

drbrumley
March 24th, 2005, 10:00 PM
Good job Clete!

And may I also mention Acts 15.


6Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[a] we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

With this, I want to solidify Clete's post that when he says


They did acknowledge the validity of Paul message (which, incidentally, would not have been necessary had it been the same message)

Fact 1. They disputed what Paul was saying. If Paul was preaching the same thing, then there should be no dispute.

Fact 2. Please notice verse 11. "But we (Peter and the 11) believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we (Peter and the 11) shall be saved in the same manner as they (Gentiles)."

So Sozo and E4E, it is plainly evident by the plain language of Gods Holy Word that Peter himself made the distinction.

Sozo
March 24th, 2005, 10:24 PM
It was rejected by Israel as a nation but not rejected by every single individual. Those who believed what the twelve were preaching were saved, they were saved under the dispensation of law and remained under that dispensation until their death despite the fact that God cut off Israel on the whole.


How were those individuals saved? What evidence did they have that they were saved? When Paul says... "For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves" is he mislead?

The Gentiles never had the Law, so what does Paul mean, and of whom is he speaking when he declares...

"For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them." Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "The righteous man shall live by faith."

How is that no one is justified by the Law, and yet the 12 are preaching salvation through the Law?


The Twelve were not saved because they believed Paul's message, they were already saved long before Paul came on the seen. Saved how?


They were saved under a dispensation of law and so followed the law just as they should have done and just as Peter, James and John (i.e the twelve) continued to do and to teach through their epistles. Then Paul is lying when he says that...

"Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident"

Lighthouse
March 24th, 2005, 11:14 PM
e4e, Clete, Turbo, whoever... What kinds of things do you think that the disciples were saying when they preached the gospel of the kingdom?
I'm glad you asked.

The disciples still taught the Mosaic Law, as has been said. Acts 15 shows this.

Sozo
March 24th, 2005, 11:17 PM
I'm glad you asked.

The disciples still taught the Mosaic Law, as has been said. Acts 15 shows this. That doesn't explain anything! What does the Law have to do with the gospel of the kingdom?

Lighthouse
March 24th, 2005, 11:31 PM
:confused: I thought that your whole argument was that the 12 were preaching a different gospel and that they were in the dark about Christ's death and resurrection.
No. Not at all. The reference to the disciples not preaching Christ's death and resurrection was before his death. They didn't preach his death and resurrection until after they occured. But Christ still told them to preach the gospel. At that time the gospel was merely who Christ was. They also preached the law. After His death and resurrection those were added to it. But Israel continued to reject it, and were cut off, like the fig tree in the parable Jesus spoke in Luke 13. They didn't bear any fruit. So God changed His mind, and called Paul to go to the Gentiles. And the gospel He gave Paul was without the law. I believe the reasons for this difference [the law in the circumcision gospel, and not in the uncircumcision gospel] is because Israel grew up with the law, and the Gentiles did not. Well, at least one fo the reasons. There are more, and I hope to be able to discuss this with you so that you may understand it.

Lighthouse
March 24th, 2005, 11:35 PM
This must also include the 12, because they did not receive the gospel that Paul proclaimed, correct?
No. The 12 did not reject Christ. But Israel did, as a whole [in general] and was cut off. Then it was about individual salvation, instead of corporate, which is what Israel had before Christ. And the reason Peter, and the rest continued to write letters containing the law was because for a time, both gospels worked, depending on who was preaching, and to whom.

Lighthouse
March 24th, 2005, 11:42 PM
OUTSTANDING QUESTION!!!! :BRAVO:

Because "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable! (Rom 11:29). The twelve were saved under the previous dispensation and so remained under that dispensation until their death, as did their converts whom they agree with Paul that they would minister to while he ministered to the Gentiles.
So for a while there were two groups coexisting, one under the dispensation of law, the other under the dispensation of the mystery; the former with twelve apostles, the latter with only one. The twelve ministered and wrote too, for, and about the Circumcision, while Paul ministered and wrote too, for, and about the Body of Christ, and never the twine shall meet.
It is interesting to note that nearly all the various issues that divide the church has to do with this very topic. Everything from water baptism to eternal security and tithing are touched by this single question. One of the most powerful arguments in support of this whole idea is the fact that such a simple and straight forward idea as this can allow one to resolve countless theological debates while leaving the simple surface meaning of the text in tact and leaving one with no problem texts!
When you see the distinct nature of Paul's ministry and message, you can read the Bible and take it for what it seems to be saying and understand that it means what it says and it causes no confusion or difficulty whatsoever. I can read Rom. 4:5 and James 2:17 and take them both totally at face value and there is no contradiction whatsoever. I don't have to have one or the other saying something more or different that what it simply seems to be saying at all. They both mean exactly what they say, and yet do not contradict! This is only possible if you understand that when Saul was on his way to Damascus, God decided because of Israel's unbelief to do something completely different and new which had been kept secret since the world began (Rom. 16:25).

Resting in Him,
Clete
:noway:

Amazing post, Clete!

Lighthouse
March 24th, 2005, 11:45 PM
That doesn't explain anything! What does the Law have to do with the gospel of the kingdom?
Everything. The gospel of the Kingdom was for Israel, who was under the law.

Sozo
March 24th, 2005, 11:46 PM
You guys are making absolutely no sense.

Let's do it this way.

I'm a Jew living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. His disciples (who are preaching the gospel of the kingdom) walk up to me and say...?

Lighthouse
March 25th, 2005, 12:04 AM
You guys are making absolutely no sense.

Let's do it this way.

I'm a Jew living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. His disciples (who are preaching the gospel of the kingdom) walk up to me and say...?

The Messiah has come. He's here, and Jesus is He. That's pretty much it. Since the death and resurrection had not happened, and Jesus told them not to preach it... also, they didn't understand Him when He spoke of it, anyway.

swanca99
March 25th, 2005, 12:13 AM
You guys are making absolutely no sense.

Let's do it this way.

I'm a Jew living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. His disciples (who are preaching the gospel of the kingdom) walk up to me and say...?

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Jesus of Nazareth is our promised Messiah, who is here to reign over us on the throne of David, in fullfillment of the covenant which God made with David. But before we can enjoy the blessing of His reign, we must repent (as a nation and individually) and come back to the keeping of the law which was given through Moses."

(OK, so they probably did a much better job of it, but my guess is that it would be along those lines)

I'm brainstorming, more or less. Comments?

swanca99
March 25th, 2005, 12:16 AM
Lighthouse, looks like we were posting at the same time. Does it look to you like we're thinking along the same lines?

Lighthouse
March 25th, 2005, 12:23 AM
Well, I would think they didn't preach a need to return to the keeping of the law, but maybe a return to the actual law, instead of the additions that some had made to it.

swanca99
March 25th, 2005, 12:30 AM
Yes, it would be the law as Moses gave it, not the law as interpreted and expanded by the Pharisees. But this was so they could enjoy the blessing of having their Messiah rule over them, not for purposes of salvation.

Lighthouse
March 25th, 2005, 12:36 AM
Of course.

Sozo
March 25th, 2005, 07:27 AM
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Jesus of Nazareth is our promised Messiah, who is here to reign over us on the throne of David, in fullfillment of the covenant which God made with David. But before we can enjoy the blessing of His reign, we must repent (as a nation and individually) and come back to the keeping of the law which was given through Moses."

I'm brainstorming, more or less. Comments? "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ."

Here we have one of the 12 (John) making a clear distinction between the Law and grace. Jesus was not bringing the Law for salvation, but grace and truth. Jesus used the Law to show them that they all fall short of the glory of God, but He did not point to the Law for salvation... He pointed to Himself.

""If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. "There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true. "You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. "But the witness which I receive is not from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. "He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. "But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. "And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. "And you do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life."

Jesus makes it clear that salvation is not in the Law, but in Him alone... in His life!

The scriptures declare that salvation is in Christ alone, and not in the Law. The Jews believed that they were saved because they kept the Law, and it was their trust in the Law that revealed their distrust of Christ.

"..."I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him. "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? "Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me."

The gospel that Paul proclaimed came from the very scriptures that the Jews used to claim that salvation is in the Law.

"And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures (OT) daily, to see whether these things were so."

"And when he (Apollos) wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures (OT) that Jesus was the Christ."

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (OT), and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (OT)"

"You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings (Scripture) (OT) which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture (OT) is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

"For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."


The message of God is revealed to us in the holy Scriptures, and the New Testament gives us an account of the Word made flesh and the message of the gospel, that is contained in the Scriptures.

Romans 10: 17 literally is saying to us:

So faith comes by hearing the message concerning Christ.

The Scriptures are where Jesus, Paul and the others turned to confirm that Jesus was the fulfillment of all that the Scriptures spoke of concerning Christ. The New Testament is written to affirm, confirm, and convince us that the Scriptures point to Jesus as the Christ and the message concerning Christ.

I am not seeing the presentation of the gospel by the 12 as you guys claim it to be. I seriously doubt that Jesus would tell them to say something different, than what He is saying, or what John himself wrote.

Clete
March 25th, 2005, 08:04 AM
Sozo,

Are you denying that following the law was a requirement for the Jews?
This seems like you are just trying to find something to object about. I really don't understand how this isn't being presented just as clear as crystal. It seems just as plain and simple as can be.
No one is suggesting that the law saved them, only that they were required to keep it once saved. They were saved because they put their faith in God. No one, save Jesus Himself, was ever able to follow the law perfectly and so the dispensation of the law was under girded by God's grace or else no one prior to Paul could ever have been saved at all. But that in no way changes the fact that the Jews in Jesus' day and before were REQUIRED under their dispensation, to follow the law to the best of their ability. The law did not save them, God's grace did that, but God decides under what conditions His grace will be applied. And during the dispensation of the law there was a two fold requirement, 1. Faith and 2. Good works (i.e. following the law).

See? Simple! ;)

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo
March 25th, 2005, 08:32 AM
Sozo,

Are you denying that following the law was a requirement for the Jews?


No, why do you ask?
No one is suggesting that the law saved them, only that they were required to keep it once saved.Why? How is the message of the gospel of the kingdom, a demand to keep the Law, when Jesus tells them not to trust in the Law, but in Him.
They were saved because they put their faith in God. What does that mean?
No one, save Jesus Himself, was ever able to follow the law perfectly and so the dispensation of the law was under girded by God's grace or else no one prior to Paul could ever have been saved at all. The Law never had anything to do with anyone being saved, and salvation was accounted through the promise, but not realized until Christ was glorified. Salvation is the impartation of the life of God in those who have come to Him by faith, but those who came to Him by faith, before Christ was glorified, were not saved or righteous until the mystery was revealed, it was simply accounted to them.
But that in no way changes the fact that the Jews in Jesus' day and before were REQUIRED under their dispensation, to follow the law to the best of their ability. Best of their ability? :noway: :doh:

"Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them."
The law did not save them, God's grace did that, but God decides under what conditions His grace will be applied. And during the dispensation of the law there was a two fold requirement, 1. Faith and 2. Good works (i.e. following the law). That is simply not true. The statements made by James about Abraham are false. Abraham was not justified by works when he offered up his son on the altar. He was justified when he believed, or else the account in Genesis is false. Paul says that NO FLESH (that includes the Jews) are justified by the works of the Law.

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God."

Clete
March 25th, 2005, 10:36 AM
That is simply not true. The statements made by James about Abraham are false. Abraham was not justified by works when he offered up his son on the altar. He was justified when he believed, or else the account in Genesis is false. Paul says that NO FLESH (that includes the Jews) are justified by the works of the Law.
What?!
Sozo, this single statement should be enough to send the red flags a waving all over the place in your own head!
James himself may have told a lie during his lifetime but to suggest that the book of James teaches a lie is to directly attribute a lie to God Himself! The Scriptures do not teach lies Sozo! If you think they do, you are mistaken and confused beyond reckoning!
You know, it would be really easy to formulate a theology that is in 100% agreement with the Biblical text if you were allowed to formulate the theology and then removed all the portions of scripture that teach something that contradicts it.
I'm disappointed in you greatly Sozo, I really thought you were above this sort of thing. What is the point of even continuing if you are only going to do a hatchet job an any portion of Scripture that disagrees with your position? Please tell me that I've misunderstood you somehow.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo
March 25th, 2005, 10:45 AM
What?!
Sozo, this single statement should be enough to send the red flags a waving all over the place in your own head!
James himself my have told a lie during his lifetime but to suggest that the book of James teaches a lie is to directly attribute a lie to God Himself! The Scriptures do not teach lies Sozo! If you think they do, you are mistaken and confused beyond reckoning!
You know, it would be really easy to formulate a theology that is in 100% agreement with the Biblical text if you were allowed to formulate the theology and then removed all the portions of scripture that teach something that contradicts it.
I'm disappointed in you greatly Sozo, I really thought you were above this sort of thing. What is the point of even continuing if you are only going to do a hatchet job an any portion of Scripture that disagrees with your position? Please tell me that I've misunderstood you somehow.

Resting in Him,
Clete

First of all, you ignored all of my points.

Secondly, James is quoting someone else whose statements are false. I did not suggest that those are the ideas of James, but James is showing what the Jews were falsely proclaiming about Abraham's faith.

Did Peter, James, John, and the others of the 12, believe Paul or not?

There is no reason to continue to share a message with people that will not save them.

swanca99
March 25th, 2005, 11:30 AM
"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ."

Here we have one of the 12 (John) making a clear distinction between the Law and grace. Jesus was not bringing the Law for salvation, but grace and truth. Jesus used the Law to show them that they all fall short of the glory of God, but He did not point to the Law for salvation... He pointed to Himself.


Just to clarify...the gospel of the kingdom had nothing to do with salvation. It had to do with bringing in the earthly reign of Israel's Messiah.

As to how the 12 would have preached the gospel of salvation before the death and resurrection of Jesus, I'm not sure how that would have gone...do the Scriptures say anything about that?

Clete
March 25th, 2005, 11:35 AM
First of all, you ignored all of my points.
I didn't ignore them, there was just no point in responding if you ae going to through out whole sections of Scripture to suit your theology, which it appeared you were doing.


Secondly, James is quoting someone else whose statements are false. I did not suggest that those are the ideas of James, but James is showing what the Jews were falsely proclaiming about Abraham's faith.
Can you establish this? I doubt that you can. The book of James is pretty straight forward.


Did Peter, James, John, and the others of the 12, believe Paul or not?
Asked and answered. They acknoweldged the validity of his message but were not saved by it, they had already been saved before the gospel of the grace of God had been revealed to Paul.


There is no reason to continue to share a message with people that will not save them.
I didn't say they did. They continued to minister to those who had been coverted under them that is all. They did not continue fulfulling the great commission as they were commanded by Christ to do, they stayed and ministered to the Circumcision as they agreed to do (Gal. 2:9)

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo
March 25th, 2005, 11:52 AM
I didn't ignore them, there was just no point in responding if you ae going to through out whole sections of Scripture to suit your theology, which it appeared you were doing.


Can you establish this? I doubt that you can. The book of James is pretty straight forward.


Asked and answered. They acknoweldged the validity of his message but were not saved by it, they had already been saved before the gospel of the grace of God had been revealed to Paul.


I didn't say they did. They continued to minister to those who had been coverted under them that is all. They did not continue fulfulling the great commission as they were commanded by Christ to do, they stayed and ministered to the Circumcision as they agreed to do (Gal. 2:9)

Resting in Him,
Clete


I will respond to these latest points of yours, when mine are addressed.

Clete
March 25th, 2005, 03:29 PM
No, why do you ask?
Because you say things like...


Why? How is the message of the gospel of the kingdom, a demand to keep the Law, when Jesus tells them not to trust in the Law, but in Him.
I ask you again, Are you suggesting that obedience to the law was optional for the believing Jew of Jesus' day and before?


What does that mean? The Law never had anything to do with anyone being saved, and salvation was accounted through the promise, but not realized until Christ was glorified. Salvation is the impartation of the life of God in those who have come to Him by faith, but those who came to Him by faith, before Christ was glorified, were not saved or righteous until the mystery was revealed, it was simply accounted to them. Best of their ability? :noway: :doh:
"Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them."
The clear teaching of Scripture is that if a Jew refused to obey the law, he would be cut off; that if they put their hand to the plow and then looked back, they were not worthy of the kingdom. There can be no question that ones relationship with God hinged on both faith (which itself was part of the law) and good works, not simply one or the other. Now, we are saved by grace plus nothing through faith plus nothing in Christ plus nothing. This simply could not be truthfully stated prior to the apostle Paul's ministry, otherwise Paul lied.


Paul says that NO FLESH (that includes the Jews) are justified by the works of the Law.
"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God."
This is not in dispute.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sold Out
March 25th, 2005, 03:59 PM
What?!
Sozo, this single statement should be enough to send the red flags a waving all over the place in your own head!
James himself may have told a lie during his lifetime but to suggest that the book of James teaches a lie is to directly attribute a lie to God Himself! The Scriptures do not teach lies Sozo! If you think they do, you are mistaken and confused beyond reckoning!
You know, it would be really easy to formulate a theology that is in 100% agreement with the Biblical text if you were allowed to formulate the theology and then removed all the portions of scripture that teach something that contradicts it.
I'm disappointed in you greatly Sozo, I really thought you were above this sort of thing. What is the point of even continuing if you are only going to do a hatchet job an any portion of Scripture that disagrees with your position? Please tell me that I've misunderstood you somehow.

Resting in Him,
Clete

To clarify Sozo's statement - James is saying Abraham's faith was made known BY HIS WORKS, not that his works saved him. There are two types of faith - SAVING FAITH and SERVING FAITH. James is speaking of the latter.

Clete
March 25th, 2005, 04:33 PM
To clarify Sozo's statement - James is saying Abraham's faith was made known BY HIS WORKS, not that his works saved him. There are two types of faith - SAVING FAITH and SERVING FAITH. James is speaking of the latter.

You're just flatly wrong. The theme of the entire book of James is salvation, not sanctification or anything else.
The question he wrote the book to answer was, "What sort of faith saves you?"

Your comment is typical however of those who do not see the distinctive nature of Paul's ministry. They always attempt to make Paul and James say the same thing when they clearly where not. I prefer to acknowledge Paul distinctive message just as the twelve acknowledged it and thereby be able to take both Paul and James at face value.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo
March 26th, 2005, 08:00 AM
To clarify Sozo's statement - James is saying Abraham's faith was made known BY HIS WORKS, not that his works saved him. There are two types of faith - SAVING FAITH and SERVING FAITH. James is speaking of the latter.

Ummm... no I am not.

James says... "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?"

The answer to that question is... ABOSOLUTELY NOT!

Paul says... "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

It matters not who was preaching what "gospel" to whom, the comments about Abraham stand on their own merit. A different audience does not change the truth about justification.

Genesis 15:4-6

"Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir." And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."

Clete
March 26th, 2005, 08:24 AM
Ummm... no I am not.

James says... "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?"

The answer to that question is... ABOSOLUTELY NOT!

Paul says... "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

It matters not who was preaching what "gospel" to whom, the comments about Abraham stand on their own merit. A different audience does not change the truth about justification.

Genesis 15:4-6

"Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir." And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."

Sozo,

You're sounding more and more like a lunatic, even to me! Please explain how it is you can say the above and not think that the book of James is in error and should be rejected and removed from the Bible?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo
March 26th, 2005, 08:29 AM
Sozo,

You're sounding more and more like a lunatic, even to me! Please explain how it is you can say the above and not think that the book of James is in error and should be rejected and removed from the Bible?

Resting in Him,
Clete


Then you believe, Abraham was justified by works when he offered up his son Issac?

Clete
March 26th, 2005, 08:50 AM
Then you believe, Abraham was justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac?
Abraham was an exceptional case. Abraham was the father of two distinct groups of people and was used to represent both. This is why both Paul and James could legitimately use him in the way they did without contradiction or error. He was under two covenants with God, one conditional the other not. And so from a certain perspective he was justified in both ways, at least he was in a manner of speaking. In actual point of fact he was justified by faith because his belief that he would have a son came long before his offering up of that son to God. But that does not negate James point because, like I said, Abraham was under two covenants at the same time. One was unconditional because God had caused him to fall asleep when it was entered into, and so all the obligation fell to God. The other was conditional and required Abrahams obedience, thus he was and is the father of both the Body of Christ and of Israel and thus both Paul and James make valid and non-contradictory points.

Now, would you please explain how it is that, if you are correct in your previous post, we shouldn't rip the book of James out of our Bibles?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo
March 26th, 2005, 09:02 AM
Abraham was an exceptional case. Abraham was the father of two distinct groups of people and was used to represent both. This is why both Paul and James could legitimately use him in the way they did without contradiction or error. He was under two covenants with God, one conditional the other not. And so from a certain perspective he was justified in both ways, at least he was in a manner of speaking. In actual point of fact he was justified by faith because his belief that he would have a son came long before his offering up of that son to God. But that does not negate James point because, like I said, Abraham was under two covenants at the same time. One was unconditional because God had caused him to fall asleep when it was entered into, and so all the obligation fell to God. The other was conditional and required Abrahams obedience, thus he was and is the father of both the Body of Christ and of Israel and thus both Paul and James make valid and non-contradictory points.

Now, would you please explain how it is that, if you are correct in your previous post, we shouldn't rip the book of James out of our Bibles?

Resting in Him,
Clete


That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

James is quoting the false teachings of the Jews who reject Christ as Messiah... "Someone may well say..."

These same Jews are persecuting the Jewish believers who do believe in Christ, and are under their authority.

I am not going to take the time to write an entire commentary on the book of James.

Abraham was NOT justified by works, or Paul and Moses are lying.

NOT ONE OF YOU has provided anything to show what "gospel" the 12 were preaching.

Clete
March 26th, 2005, 09:25 AM
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
So what?


James is quoting the false teachings of the Jews who reject Christ as Messiah... "Someone may well say..."
These same Jews are persecuting the Jewish believers who do believe in Christ, and are under their authority.
You can't escape the theme of the book Sozo. "Faith without works is dead." That pretty much sums the whole thing up.


I am not going to take the time to write an entire commentary on the book of James.
No one is asking for that. Simply establish what you've claimed, that's all I want.


Abraham was NOT justified by works, or Paul and Moses are lying.
Then rip the book of James out of your Bible or else explain to me why you won't.


NOT ONE OF YOU has provided anything to show what "gospel" the 12 were preaching.
Now who is lying Sozo! Good greif, you sound like Hilston! The whole thread is here for everyone to read, the answer has been given to you at least a half dozen times. Your protestations to the contrary don't change the facts and you're failure to comprehend is not our fault. If you don't like our answers read the Gospels, it's in there as well, just as plain and clear as can be!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo
March 26th, 2005, 09:38 AM
So what?


The whole thread is here for everyone to read, the answer has been given to you at least a half dozen times.


That is a lie! You guys have said NOTHING about the gospel of the kingdom, except that there is one, and it is different than Paul's.

So what?

There is NO OTHER name than the name of Jesus in which men are saved. Unless you believe the gospel delivered by Paul, then you are not saved, whether or not you are a Jew or Gentile.

Clete
March 26th, 2005, 02:43 PM
That is a lie! You guys have said NOTHING about the gospel of the kingdom, except that there is one, and it is different than Paul's.

So what?

There is NO OTHER name than the name of Jesus in which men are saved. Unless you believe the gospel delivered by Paul, then you are not saved, whether or not you are a Jew or Gentile.
No, it's not a lie Sozo. Your question has been answered several times, you just can't acknowledge it or else you'd have to change your tune.

And no one has suggested that there is any other name by which men must be saved, no one has suggested that at all.

As I said from the very start, either the gospel message changed or else Paul is a fraud because there was a time when you were required to follow the law of Moses and now, under and only because of the teachings of Paul, we are required to not follow the law or else Christ will profit us nothing. Now, if that isn't different, I don't know what is, Sozo, I don't know what is.

The gospel has always been basically believe in God and obey Him and He will save you. That much has not changed, what has changed is what is including in the "obey" portion of that statement. At one time it was "follow the law", now it is "do not place yourself under the law". How much clearer can it be Sozo? I can't do a mind meld and deliver it to you via a direct mental link and if I could, it wouldn't be any clearer than this. What more do you want? Can't you see that if not for the apostle Paul we would all still be circumcising our children on the eighth day, observing the feasts and not eating pork, etc? How do you not see that as a change? Before, the gospel message included such things (even if those things didn't save in and of themselves) and now its not only not included in the message, they are forbidden by it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo
March 26th, 2005, 03:04 PM
No, it's not a lie Sozo. Then it is just ignorance.
Your question has been answered several times, you just can't acknowledge it or else you'd have to change your tune. I do not acknowledge those things that are said out of ignorance.
And no one has suggested that there is any other name by which men must be saved, no one has suggested that at all. You simply added the Law to the equation.
As I said from the very start, either the gospel message changed or else Paul is a fraud because there was a time when you were required to follow the law of Moses and now, under and only because of the teachings of Paul, we are required to not follow the law or else Christ will profit us nothing. Gentiles, were NEVER required to follow the Law, could Gentiles receive the promise? Could they be accounted righteous? God gave the Law to prove that man is a sinner, not because He believed they could keep it.
The gospel has always been basically believe in God and obey Him and He will save you. What do you mean by obey? No one has ever obeyed the Law.
At one time it was "follow the law", now it is "do not place yourself under the law". No it wasn't. No one was ever justified by the works of the Law.
Can't you see that if not for the apostle Paul we would all still be circumcising our children on the eighth day, observing the feasts and not eating pork, etc? I'm not Jewish, are you? Paul had nothing to do with it. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, and Paul only told us what was already true.

ApologeticJedi
March 26th, 2005, 03:20 PM
Sozo said:James says... "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?"

The answer to that question is... ABOSOLUTELY NOT!



Jame's entire point in chapter two is that sola fida will not save you. James' point is actually that Abraham was justified by works and James is right! Abraham was justified by works.

In the verses before James says this, he says "What good is it if a man says he has faith, but doesn't have works. can faith save him?" He goes on to prove that faith can't save a person. Then he points out that it was works that saved Abraham (to which you response "ABSOLUTELY NOT") and then says "See how it was his works that excerised his faith.

James goes on to give more princples similar to the theme. James says ... "Likewise [in the same manner that Abraham was saved by works] also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she received the messengers, and had sent thm out another way?"

James' entire point is that salbvation is by a combination of faith and works. He says that faith alone cannot save a man, and is itself nothing until that person walks out his faith with works. This is a different gospel than what Paul teaches.

Sozo
March 26th, 2005, 04:40 PM
Jame's entire point in chapter two is that sola fida will not save you. James' point is actually that Abraham was justified by works and James is right! Abraham was justified by works.

No... he... was... not!

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

Is Abraham a man?

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness"

Clete
March 26th, 2005, 05:09 PM
This is a waste of time. You are not even trying.

Believe what you want and tear out the book of James if you like, whatever, I no longer care.

Sozo
March 26th, 2005, 05:14 PM
This is a waste of time. You are not even trying.

Believe what you want and tear out the book of James if you like, whatever, I no longer care.

YOU are the ONE who twists the bible to fit your "another gospel" crap!

Paul is speaking of the same Abraham that James is referring. That SAME Abraham was not justified by works and justified by works at the SAME time! To make that conclusion only proves that YOU are insane!!!

Clete
March 26th, 2005, 06:00 PM
YOU are the ONE who twists the bible to fit your "another gospel" crap!

Paul is speaking of the same Abraham that James is referring. That SAME Abraham was not justified by works and justified by works at the SAME time! To make that conclusion only proves that YOU are insane!!!

Then why can't you answer any of my questions concerning the book of James or the existence of Paul's ministry? You've lost your ability to think Sozo. You simply react, and allow your emotions to take over your mind. You know as well as anyone I am not insane and yet you allow yourself to say such asinine things. It's pathetic and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo
March 26th, 2005, 06:30 PM
Then why can't you answer any of my questions concerning the book of James or the existence of Paul's ministry? You've lost your ability to think Sozo. You simply react, and allow your emotions to take over your mind. You know as well as anyone I am not insane and yet you allow yourself to say such asinine things. It's pathetic and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Resting in Him,
Clete


I started by asking these questions...

What kinds of things do you think that the disciples were saying when they preached the gospel of the kingdom?

I'm simply wanting to understand what the disciples mindset was concerning the gospel of the kingdom. What did they think was the outcome of those who received their message?

Did they preach eternal life?

Did they preach salvation by faith?

What did they believe that the Kingdom entailed?

What is the gospel of the Kingdom?

How were those individuals saved? What evidence did they have that they were saved?

How is that no one is justified by the Law, and yet the 12 are preaching salvation through the Law?

What does the Law have to do with the gospel of the kingdom?

How is the message of the gospel of the kingdom, a demand to keep the Law, when Jesus tells them not to trust in the Law, but in Him?

Did Peter, James, John, and the others of the 12, believe Paul or not?

I have NEVER received answers, that make a lick of sense, to these questions.

Clete
March 26th, 2005, 07:02 PM
I must be a glutton for punishment, maybe fellowship week is getting close enough to start effecting me or something. Either way, I will make another attempt to answer these questions but not right now, I'll do it later tonight if I can.

Resting in Him,
Clete

elected4ever
March 26th, 2005, 07:33 PM
YOU are the ONE who twists the bible to fit your "another gospel" crap!

Paul is speaking of the same Abraham that James is referring. That SAME Abraham was not justified by works and justified by works at the SAME time! To make that conclusion only proves that YOU are insane!!!I think there is something to be said here.

Romans 14:17 *For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 *For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 *Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 *For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 *It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 *Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 *And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Actually Paul and James taught the same thing. It may not appear so but they did.

First of all Paul accents the negative, "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink". Sense Paul was addressing meat sacrificed to a false god he spoke in terms of eating and drinking. Things that all do to sustain human life. Those things that affect human life are those things that we see every day. It is our relationship to one another. Those things do not effect our relationship with God. Why? Because The Kingdom of God is first of all righteousness, second the Kingdom of God is peace; Not peace with man but peace with God. and third The Kingdom of God is Joy. These three are absolutes. If these three are not present in your faith then you are not of faith. You do not have faith.

For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure;

What is important to God is not what we eat or drink. What is important to God is that we be righteous, that we live in peace and that we have Joy. I tell you today that I am righteous, I am at peace and I am filled with joy. I do not always express those things but for the most part I try. Why? because that is what I am in the inter man. The things that I do in my relationships with this world should exhibit those qualities. It is by the exhibition of those things within that you know what I am. In my relationship with you, you know what I am by the things that I do. James says the same thing, Show me your faith with out the work of faith and I will show you my faith by the work of faith that I do. Our relationship with others and among ourselves is important to God. Jesus said the same thing, You shall know them by their fruit. There should be an exhibit of Christ in our lives.

For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense.

Why is it evil for a man to eat with offense? Meat is not destructive and all things are pure. Then what is the offense. It is really very simple. Those things in the physical world do not destroy the things of God. If by the things that you do or don't do destroy your righteousness, your peace or your joy then those things are of yourself and not of God and you are in sin because you are not of faith and are sinful. You have not believed unto salvation. You trust in your works and do not trust God to keep His word.

THE THINGS OF THIS WORLD CANNOT DESTROY THE THINGS OF GOD AND IF WHAT YOU DO OUR DON'T DO DESTROYS YOUR FAITH THEN THAT FAITH IS NOT OF GOD AND YOUR TESTIMONY IS FALSE!

swanca99
March 26th, 2005, 07:46 PM
Hello Sozo,

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can. Clete and I may not have the same answers to your questions as we may have different views on certain things.

"What kinds of things do you think that the disciples were saying when they preached the gospel of the kingdom?"

Please see my post number 122. I know you've already read it, but perhaps my answers to your other questions may clarify that post for you.

"I'm simply wanting to understand what the disciples mindset was concerning the gospel of the kingdom. What did they think was the outcome of those who received their message?"

If Israel, as a nation, received their message and accepted Jesus as their King, He would have set up His earthly reign. I believe their message was an extension of that which John the Baptist started. John was a prophet under the old covenant, when Israel was required to keep the law in order to enjoy the blessings of being in their land (see Deuteronomy). The function of Old Testament prophets was to bring Israel, as a nation, back into compliance with the law. This had to be done in order for Israel to enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. A smattering of individuals receiving this message would not bring about these results. That's why it didn't happen.

"Did they preach eternal life? Did they preach salvation by faith?"

As part of the gospel of the kingdom, I'm not really sure. After the death and resurrection of Christ, yes.

More to come. I'm at work and will give what answers I can, but I have to reboot about half the Unix systems in the world tonight (well, maybe I'm exagerating, but just a little...) so I'll be pretty busy.

Sozo
March 26th, 2005, 09:00 PM
What "gospel" were the 12 preaching here...

"And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16. "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. 17. "And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18. they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly [poison], it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." 19. So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed"

swanca99
March 26th, 2005, 10:54 PM
In response to post 156: This would be the gospel of salvation by grace through faith. The same gospel that Paul later preached to the gentiles, but perhaps preached a little differently when preached to their fellow Jews...just as I would present the gospel of salvation differently to a Roman Catholic than I would to an unsaved Protestant.

Sozo
March 26th, 2005, 11:05 PM
With all the so-called Open Theist, Acts 9ers, and dispys on this site, you'd think one of you guys could offer an intelligent argument for your contentions. :yawn:

drbrumley
March 26th, 2005, 11:31 PM
You guys are making absolutely no sense.

Let's do it this way.

I'm a Jew living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. His disciples (who are preaching the gospel of the kingdom) walk up to me and say...?

Repent for the Kingdom is at hand!!!!!! The same message John the Baptist said. The same message Christ taught. The same message Peter and the 11 taught.

swanca99
March 27th, 2005, 12:46 AM
"What did they believe that the Kingdom entailed?"

Probably all that neat stuff in the Old Testament about the great place that Israel would be someday, with their Messiah reigning over the land and over the whole world.

"What is the gospel of the Kingdom?"

See my post number 90.

"How were those individuals saved? What evidence did they have that they were saved?"

They were saved by grace through faith, but I don't know what evidence they had at that time.

"How is that no one is justified by the Law, and yet the 12 are preaching salvation through the Law?"

The 12 were not preaching salvation through the Law.

"What does the Law have to do with the gospel of the kingdom?"

If anything, that Israel needed to return to the keeping of the Law in order to bring in the blessings of the Kingdom, just as they needed to keep the Law in order to enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, i.e., to remain in their land.

Ooops...gotta go...be back later.

swanca99
March 27th, 2005, 02:14 AM
"How is the message of the gospel of the kingdom, a demand to keep the Law, when Jesus tells them not to trust in the Law, but in Him?"

See my response to "What does the Law have to do with the gospel of the kingdom" above. Keeping the Law was not for individual salvation.

"Did Peter, James, John, and the others of the 12, believe Paul or not?"

Yes, they did.

If you have questions about my answers, feel free to ask and I'll try to answer.

Sold Out
March 28th, 2005, 08:05 AM
Abraham was an exceptional case.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Uh-oh Clete....God does not make exceptions for ANYONE: Acts10:34 " Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons":

Romans 2:11, "For there is no respect of persons with God."

When someone says that God makes exceptions, then that person is trying to manipulate the word of God to fit their teaching.

The bible is harmonious and does not contradict. Paul and James were not contradicting each other. If you read James 2:1, he begins with 'my brethren....'. Who was he talking to? CHRISTIANS! That is how we know he is referring to SERVING faith, not SAVING faith. That is why Paul and James do not contradict.

drbrumley
March 28th, 2005, 11:46 AM
The bible is harmonious and does not contradict. Paul and James were not contradicting each other. If you read James 2:1, he begins with 'my brethren....'. Who was he talking to? CHRISTIANS! That is how we know he is referring to SERVING faith, not SAVING faith. That is why Paul and James do not contradict.

And I guess your attempting to say we, which is the Body Of Christ, must be Isreal? You mention James 2:1 and the use of "my brethren." I submit you are off your rocker. Now unless your saying we are Isreal as I mentioned above, which in blatantly wrong, then the words of James defeats your whole argument. And what verse is this? Look below.


James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,


To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:

We are NOT the twelve tribes. So please deposit $.25 and try again.

So it is established fact thru Gods word that James was writing to the twelve tribes. There can be no dispute.

Clete
March 28th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Uh-oh Clete....God does not make exceptions for ANYONE: Acts10:34 " Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons":

Romans 2:11, "For there is no respect of persons with God."

When someone says that God makes exceptions, then that person is trying to manipulate the word of God to fit their teaching.

Fellowship week or not, this statement is idiotic. I didn't say God made an exception I said that Abraham was an exceptional case, as in out of the ordinary. How many other people in the whole history of the world are representative of both the nation of Israel and the Body of Christ? How many Sold Out? Is it 50? 5000? maybe 1,000,000? Oh! wait a minute! It's ONE isn't it? One single guy in the whole history of mankind and you don't think that makes him an exceptional case. Whatever! :kookoo:


The bible is harmonious and does not contradict. Paul and James were not contradicting each other. If you read James 2:1, he begins with 'my brethren....'. Who was he talking to? CHRISTIANS! That is how we know he is referring to SERVING faith, not SAVING faith. That is why Paul and James do not contradict.
James was talking to Chrstian JEWS (i.e. MEssianic Jews or Jewish believers whatever you want to call them) of the dispersion and there are only two ways to keep Paul and James from contradicting one anyother. Either one of them was saying something other than what it seems by a simply reading of the text, or they were talking to two different audiences. I prefer to keep the plain meaning of the text in tact and acknowledge the obvious fact that they were speaking to two different groups of people.

Resting in Him,
Clete

ApologeticJedi
March 28th, 2005, 08:33 PM
Uh-oh Clete....God does not make exceptions for ANYONE: Acts10:34 " Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons":

Romans 2:11, "For there is no respect of persons with God."

When someone says that God makes exceptions, then that person is trying to manipulate the word of God to fit their teaching.



So will God throw both the righteous and the wicked in hell? Or will God be a respecter of persons? Romans 2 is saying that God is no respecter of persons with regards to being judged by the law. But actually, Paul goes on to say that Christians will not be judged by the law! Paul is establishing a default principle of being condemned by the law, before bringing up the exceptions.

In Acts 10:34, Peter says that now God is not a respecter of persons with regard to salvation. However that doesn’t mean that the law never existed, or wasn’t from God. God, in the Old Testament law, stated that Jews should not be present in the homes of Gentiles, and that God told the Jews not to marry the Gentiles. It is a little far fetched to claim that God wasn't a respecter of persons with regards to certain respects, in the Law.

When someone is woodenly literal with these passages, or they try to remove them from direct context and give them an overriding meaning beyond what is specifically spoken of, then that person is trying to manipulate the word of God to fit their teaching, not someone who is showing God has made exceptions.

Lighthouse
March 29th, 2005, 12:31 AM
What "gospel" were the 12 preaching here...

"And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16. "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. 17. "And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18. they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly [poison], it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." 19. So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed"
Does baptism save? Jesus said it does, in the quote above. But things changed, when the Jews rejected Christ, and salvation was sent to the Gentiles, apart from the law. It was then that the law was removed from the equation. The law never saved, I agree. But the Jews were required to keep it, to show themselves set apart from teh world. And the 12 preached the law, as a means to show their separation.

Clete
March 29th, 2005, 06:38 AM
Whether the law saved or not, it was definitely part of the gospel message that Jesus and the twelve and all the prophets, etc. preached prior to the current gospel message which was given to Paul for us by revelation.
You know the whole point that it was undoubtedly given to Paul by revelation of God should be enough to end this debate. What would have been the point of divinely revealing something that was already being preached? Saul had already heard the twelve preach and had rejected their message to the point of trying to kill them for crying out loud! I've asked it before and I ask it again, if the gospel hasn't changed since Jesus' ministry, why Paul? I do not believe that this question can be answered satisfactorily. Either Paul was preaching something legitimately new or else he was a fraud.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Sozo, I'll get to your questions later today if at all possible.

Sold Out
March 29th, 2005, 02:10 PM
Whether the law saved or not, it was definitely part of the gospel message that Jesus and the twelve and all the prophets, etc. preached prior to the current gospel message which was given to Paul for us by revelation.
You know the whole point that it was undoubtedly given to Paul by revelation of God should be enough to end this debate. What would have been the point of divinely revealing something that was already being preached? Saul had already heard the twelve preach and had rejected their message to the point of trying to kill them for crying out loud! I've asked it before and I ask it again, if the gospel hasn't changed since Jesus' ministry, why Paul? I do not believe that this question can be answered satisfactorily. Either Paul was preaching something legitimately new or else he was a fraud.
.

Clete - what you can't seem to get past is that there has only been one thing EVER that has saved ANYONE and that is the blood of Christ. Since that is true, there is only one gospel - the DEATH, BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Christ. Luke 18:31-33 says, "Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.”

Turbo
March 29th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Clete - what you can't seem to get past is that there has only been one thing EVER that has saved ANYONE and that is the blood of Christ. No one has said otherwise.


Since that is true, there is only one gospel - the DEATH, BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Christ. Luke 18:31-33 says, "Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.”
And the very next verse says:


But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken. Luke 18:34

Keep in mind that this was after the twelve, at Jesus' command, had been "preaching the gospel." (Luke 9:6)

But later in Luke 9, when Jesus told the twelve for the first time that he would be killed and resurrected, Jesus told them to tell no one.


And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day." Luke 9:21-22

(When Matthew and Mark wrote about this event, they specifically mention that Peter didn't even believe what Jesus said about being killed. see Matthew 16:22-23 & Mark 8:32-33)

Sold Out,
If Jesus had already sent the twelve to preach that He would be killed and raised, why did He later tell them to keep that information to themselves?
Why did Peter and the twelve have such a hard time accepting that information if they had already been preaching it throughout Israel?

Clete
March 29th, 2005, 06:33 PM
Turbo,

Outstanding post! You took the words right out of my mouth! It's like we're the same person or something! :cool:

Clete
March 29th, 2005, 08:26 PM
I started by asking these questions...

What kinds of things do you think that the disciples were saying when they preached the gospel of the kingdom?
I'm sure they said things very similar to, if not exactly like, what Jesus said in Matthew 5-7.


I'm simply wanting to understand what the disciples mindset was concerning the gospel of the kingdom. What did they think was the outcome of those who received their message?
Well, salvation of course, but more than that, a relationship with God as well. This might seem to be the same as today and it is to a certain degree but the nature of our relationship is dramatically different today than it would have been prior to Paul's gospel, thus the change in the Gospel itself. Israel had a corporate relationship with God as members of a nation with laws and a hierarchy of authority and a political structure etc.. We, on the other hand are personally (individually) identified in Jesus Christ Himself and are members of a body, the Body of Christ which is not political nor does it have an authority structure where any one member rules over another.


Did they preach eternal life?
Of course!


Did they preach salvation by faith?
Certainly!


What did they believe that the Kingdom entailed?
A nation, on earth with laws and a King who ruled with a rod of iron and enforced justice and vanquished those who would have/had oppressed the members of that nation. They expected that Jesus would become that King and in fact after the Holy Spirit had been given they preached this very thing.
Acts 3:17 Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said to the fathers, "The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.'24 Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold[c] these days. 25 You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, "And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'26 To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities."


What is the gospel of the Kingdom?
Israel had been promised a kingdom, an earthly one. A kingdom through which God intended to evangelize the entire world and thereby bring salvation to all those who would believe.


How were those individuals saved? What evidence did they have that they were saved?


How is that no one is justified by the Law, and yet the 12 are preaching salvation through the Law?
The law was only part of the gospel. Faith in God was really what saved because no one could ever follow the law sufficiently to be saved. But be that as it may, the law was an integral part of the gospel message.
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.


What does the Law have to do with the gospel of the kingdom?
Practically everything!
How can you have a nation without laws?


How is the message of the gospel of the kingdom, a demand to keep the Law, when Jesus tells them not to trust in the Law, but in Him?
To suggest that Jesus did not teach to follow the law is simply ridiculous. Do a search on words like 'Moses', 'law', 'ordinance' and see how many times such terms are used in the gospels, then do a similar search on 'grace', the difference with be staggering.
In fact Jesus said directly that ALL the law should be followed...
Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
Matthew 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.


Did Peter, James, John, and the others of the 12, believe Paul or not?
Of course they did, but they were not saved by having believed it! They had already been saved, long before. They had already been indwelt by the Holy Spirit and had already been preaching for at least a year before Saul was converted in Acts 9.
The whole fact that there was such a thing as "Paul's message" is proof that things had changed. If the twelve preached the same gospel as Paul, how does it make sense to even ask the question "Did Peter, James, John, and the others of the 12, believe Paul or not?"?


I have NEVER received answers, that make a lick of sense, to these questions.
Well, actually you have, you just don't seem to be able to see it. It would help I think to point out that the gospel (in any dispensation) has to do with more than simply salvation. It has to do with the whole of God's dealings with mankind which of course includes salvation but is by no means limited to it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lighthouse
March 30th, 2005, 03:07 AM
Excellent points, Clete and Turbo.:thumb:

elected4ever
March 30th, 2005, 10:03 AM
Excellent points, Clete and Turbo.:thumb:Acts 2:17 *And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 *And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 *And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 *The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
21 *And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
22 *Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs,
23 *Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 *Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25 *For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 *Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
Acts 2:26 *Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27 *Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28 *Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29 *Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 *Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 *He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 *This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 *Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 *For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 *Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36 *Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 *For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The gospel that the apostles preached. What has changed?

Jerry Shugart
March 30th, 2005, 11:43 AM
The gospel that the apostles preached. What has changed?
elected4ever,

Did you notice that the "gospel" that was preached on the day of Pentecost mentioned nothing about the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross?

That is what has changed.

Today,the Christian hasbeen given the "ministry of reconciliation" to preach the "word of reconciliation"(2Cor.5:18,19).

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life"(Ro.5:10).

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight"*Col.1:20-22).

It was not until Paul was converted that anyone was given the ministry of reconciliation to preach the word of reconciliation.And it is impossible to preach that word without mentioning the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus.That is why no one before Paul said anything at all about that "purpose" until Paul.

The message that was preached to the Jews beginning with John the Baptist and continuing through the Acts period was centered on the fact that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah of Israel.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Sold Out
March 30th, 2005, 11:52 AM
Sold Out,
If Jesus had already sent the twelve to preach that He would be killed and raised, why did He later tell them to keep that information to themselves?
Why did Peter and the twelve have such a hard time accepting that information if they had already been preaching it throughout Israel?

Why does ANYONE have a problem understanding, because a lot of people do. Since ages past, the fact that God would become a man, live on the earth, die and rise again has been a very difficult concept for a lot of people. The disciples were no exception.

What the disciples were preaching was that the promised OT Messiah had finally come. What were the prophecies concerning the OT Messiah? That he would be scorned, rejected by his own people, subsequently die, and then rise again. The OT scriptures plainly stated what the Messiah would do and why.

elected4ever
March 30th, 2005, 12:04 PM
elected4ever,

Did you notice that the "gospel" that was preached on the day of Pentecost mentioned nothing about the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross?

That is what has changed.

Today,the Christian hasbeen given the "ministry of reconciliation" to preach the "word of reconciliation"(2Cor.5:18,19).

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life"(Ro.5:10).

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight"*Col.1:20-22).

It was not until Paul was converted that anyone was given the ministry of reconciliation to preach the word of reconciliation.And it is impossible to preach that word without mentioning the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus.That is why no one before Paul said anything at all about that "purpose" until Paul.

The message that was preached to the Jews beginning with John the Baptist and continuing through the Acts period was centered on the fact that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah of Israel.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/dispensationalism_made_easy.htmlThe only thing different is that now the gentiles received the Gospel of the Kingdom by virtue of Israel's rejection. This was a mystery to Israel but not unknowable. The like of understanding by Israel does not equal a different gospel. A mystery explained does not equal a new gospel. :juggle:

drbrumley
March 30th, 2005, 12:41 PM
The only thing different is that now the gentiles received the Gospel of the Kingdom by virtue of Israel's rejection. This was a mystery to Israel but not unknowable. The like of understanding by Israel does not equal a different gospel. A mystery explained does not equal a new gospel. :juggle:

Not unknowable????
:darwinsm: Is that a joke???????

Clete
March 30th, 2005, 01:16 PM
Why does ANYONE have a problem understanding, because a lot of people do. Since ages past, the fact that God would become a man, live on the earth, die and rise again has been a very difficult concept for a lot of people. The disciples were no exception.

What the disciples were preaching was that the promised OT Messiah had finally come. What were the prophecies concerning the OT Messiah? That he would be scorned, rejected by his own people, subsequently die, and then rise again. The OT scriptures plainly stated what the Messiah would do and why.
Did you forget about Matthew 16?

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"

14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven."

20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

Doesn't this directly contradict what you just said?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jerry Shugart
March 30th, 2005, 02:41 PM
The only thing different is that now the gentiles received the Gospel of the Kingdom by virtue of Israel's rejection.
elected4ever,

You just ignored what I said,but that does not surprise me.What is different is the fact that on the day of Pentecost the Apostles spoke nothing about the purpose of His death upon the Cross.They were not preaching the same "word of reconciliation" that has been commited to believers under the present dispensation.

Today we are given the ministry of reconciliation to preach the word of reconciliation,and that word cannot be preached apart from the proclamation concerning the "purpose" of that death.

On the day of Pentecost there was no mention whatsoever concerning the "purpose" of His death.

If you want to close your ears and eyes to the truth,then that is your business.But that does not change the fact that the gospel message which was preached on the day of Pentecost was not the same gospel that was revealed to Paul and not made known until Paul was converted.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/dispensationalism_made_easy.html

elected4ever
March 30th, 2005, 05:20 PM
Not unknowable????
:darwinsm: Is that a joke???????John 3:6 *That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 *Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 *The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 *Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 *Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 *Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 *If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 *And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Jesus said that Nicodemus should have known. Meaning that it was knowable.

John 5:37 *And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38 *And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39 *Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.[/b]
40 *And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41 *I receive not honour from men.
42 *But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43 *I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 *How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

If it is not known then there is a reason for not knowing. That cannot be that they were not told.

elected4ever
March 30th, 2005, 05:33 PM
Doesn't this directly contradict what you just said? No

elected4ever
March 30th, 2005, 05:39 PM
elected4ever,

You just ignored what I said,but that does not surprise me.What is different is the fact that on the day of Pentecost the Apostles spoke nothing about the purpose of His death upon the Cross.They were not preaching the same "word of reconciliation" that has been commited to believers under the present dispensation.

Today we are given the ministry of reconciliation to preach the word of reconciliation,and that word cannot be preached apart from the proclamation concerning the "purpose" of that death.

On the day of Pentecost there was no mention whatsoever concerning the "purpose" of His death.

If you want to close your ears and eyes to the truth,then that is your business.But that does not change the fact that the gospel message which was preached on the day of Pentecost was not the same gospel that was revealed to Paul and not made known until Paul was converted.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/dispensationalism_made_easy.html I have not ignored anything and I am beginning to think that the words of a man is more important to you than the revealed word! You guys are beginning to give me concern about your welfare. :(

drbrumley
March 30th, 2005, 05:48 PM
So now the question becomes why.

Nicodemous should have known God would have saved Gentiles thru Isreal. Why didn't he? I agree that God's plan was to save the world by bringing Gentiles into the fold. But what was expected to happen was Gentiles would be saved thru the nation of Isreal. When Isreal basically said hell with that, Paul clearly states Isreal was cut off. Then God raised Paul as the uncircumsion minister to the Gentiles and the Body of Christ was formed. This was UNKNOWABLE and the MYSTERY. God was forced by Isreals constant rejection to save the Gentiles another way.

Knight
March 30th, 2005, 05:51 PM
Hey Doc and e4e... in case you missed this post....
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19252

Were trying to make TOL more focused. See what ya think. :up:

Love ya guys!

Clete
March 30th, 2005, 05:54 PM
No

That's terrific e4e! Care to elaborate a bit?

RevThom
April 1st, 2005, 06:39 PM
They were preaching what Jesus told them to preach, "The Kingdom of God." It was along the same lines as to what John the Baptistwas preaching to the pulic as well. It was, "repent for the Kingdom or God is at hand."

What Jesus and John the Baptist and the disciples preached was the Gospel of Jesus, but not the words of Paul.

RevThom
April 1st, 2005, 06:47 PM
Taking a look at the gnostic Gospels shead some insight into whay the disciples may have been preaching in the first century.

Clete
April 1st, 2005, 07:04 PM
Taking a look at the gnostic Gospels shead some insight into whay the disciples may have been preaching in the first century.
Just the regular Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John would work pretty nicely on their own if you ask me.

ApologeticJedi
April 1st, 2005, 11:42 PM
Sold Out said: Clete - what you can't seem to get past is that there has only been one thing EVER that has saved ANYONE and that is the blood of Christ. Since that is true, there is only one gospel - the DEATH, BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Christ.

The blood of Christ is the only thing that ever saved anyone. Such a statement has never been truer. It’s your conclusion that requires more thought.

Abraham may not have known about Christ, his death, his burial, or his resurrection. Abraham knew that God had told him that he would be the father of a nation, and Abraham believed THAT and was saved. That was Abraham’s gospel! Does that mean that Abraham wasn’t saved because his gospel was not based on knowledge of Jesus? - of course not. So while no one in history would be saved if Jesus hadn’t died, that indicates only that it is the means, but not always the method, of everyone in history’s salvation.

Abraham’s gospel was to believe God. Moses gospel was to obey God. Peter’s gospel was that Jesus was the Messiah (his death wasn’t even believed by Peter, let alone preached), and Paul’s gospel has been the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.



Sold out said later Since ages past, the fact that God would become a man, live on the earth, die and rise again has been a very difficult concept for a lot of people.

Actually, that God would become a man is absent from Old Testament until the prophet Isaiah. Millions who lived before that time, were never even told that God would come to earth, let alone believed in it. That the Messiah would die really isn’t understood until Daniel (forget Psalms 22 – there’s no indication in there that it is speaking of the Messiah). And I’m not sure I could put my finger on a single passage in the Old Testament that says that the Messiah will rise from the grave (I may be forgetting something I know, but off the top of my head there is no passage that comes to mind).

So it wasn’t just a difficult concept, it was one that God didn’t feel was that important to communicate.

Lighthouse
April 1st, 2005, 11:53 PM
You are going to be one of my favorite people, Jedi.

Apollos
April 2nd, 2005, 09:29 AM
What Jesus and John the Baptist and the disciples preached was the Gospel of Jesus, but not the words of Paul.

Greetings -
Anyone...

What is it that Jesus and John were preaching ???

Thanking you in advance... (If this info is contained somewhere earlier in this thread, just direct me...)

Jerry Shugart
April 2nd, 2005, 02:12 PM
Greetings -
Anyone...

What is it that Jesus and John were preaching ???

Thanking you in advance... (If this info is contained somewhere earlier in this thread, just direct me...)
Apollos,

The Baptist said:

"And I knew Him not,but that He should be made manifest to Israel,therefore am I come baptizing with water"(Jn.1:31).

The Lord Jesus was to be revealed to Israel as the promised Messiah,and the Lord Jesus said that He was that Messiah:

"The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am He"(Jn.4:25,26).

However,after the leaders of Israel plotted His death,He told His disciples not to make Him known (Mt.12:14-16).He then began to speak in parables.

But His message was clear,and that message proclaimed that all who believed the words which His Father told Him to speak would receive eternal life and would not come into judgment:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment; but is passed from death unto life"(Jn.5:24).

The Jews who believed what He said received eternal life the moment that they believed His words.

However,it was not until Paul was converted that it was revealed how the Lord could save men--"while we were enemies,we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son"(Ro.5:10).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

HopeofGlory
April 2nd, 2005, 03:55 PM
Apollos,

But His message was clear,and that message proclaimed that all who believed the words which His Father told Him to speak would receive eternal life and would not come into judgment:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment; but is passed from death unto life"(Jn.5:24).

The Jews who believed what He said received eternal life the moment that they believed His words.



Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Did they not have to endured to the end to receive eternal life?

Craig

Apollos
April 2nd, 2005, 05:38 PM
Jerry -

You said - "But His message was clear,and that message proclaimed that all who believed the words which His Father told Him to speak would receive eternal life and would not come into judgment..."

So what were the words??? What did Jesus talk about for -3- years?

I guess what I want to know from you is what was the CONTENT of the message... What did Jesus tell them, besides that He was the Messiah ?

Jerry - "The Jews who believed what He said received eternal life the moment that they believed His words."

No one was saved before the cross, but this is not what I want to discuss.

A

Apollos
April 2nd, 2005, 05:40 PM
Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Did they not have to endured to the end to receive eternal life?

Craig

Craig -

Of course they did! They had eternal life in prospect of faithfulness. That one passage from John is not the WHOLE of all that was said in reference to obtaining eternal life. Example: See John 3:3f...

A

Jerry Shugart
April 3rd, 2005, 12:08 AM
Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Did they not have to endured to the end to receive eternal life?

Craig
The enduring toi the end to be saved is in regard to "temporal" salvation,as the context indicates.

Craig,I have already demonstrated that they already possessed eternal life.I provided the tense in the Greek,and it is the "present" tense.

You just cannot seem to grasp the difference between "present" tense and "future" tense.It is actually a simple concept,but you continue to prove that you cannot understand the difference between the two.

No one was saved before the cross, but this is not what I want to discuss.
"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And He said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace"(Lk.7:48-50).

Again,the words "hath saved" are in the "present" tense,and not in the "future" tense.

In His grace,--Jerry

Apollos
April 3rd, 2005, 06:22 PM
Jerry -

I have to agree - there were a few that Jesus did save before the cross by His personal authority while He walked the earth. Unfortunately for us, we will not have the opportunity to have our sins forgiven and to be saved in this fashion. But some of these were told to go and sin no more...

But this is still not what I hope to discuss here at this point in this thread.

I am still hoping that you or some other will tell me what the content of Jesus' message was for the -3- years that He preached here on earth. I just would like to know what other people think Jesus was talking about. Hey, even tell me what John the baptizer was preaching just before Jesus arrived on the scene.

Thanks !

Jerry Shugart
April 4th, 2005, 10:00 AM
Apollos,

You said:

I am still hoping that you or some other will tell me what the content of Jesus' message was for the -3- years that He preached here on earth. I just would like to know what other people think Jesus was talking about. Hey, even tell me what John the baptizer was preaching just before Jesus arrived on the scene.

Before the Lord Jesus appeared on the scene John the Baptist was preaching that ”The kingdom of heaven is at hand”(Mt.3:2).

The Jews would have understood that if the kingdom was at hand,then the King also must be at hand.

The Baptist said:

"And I knew Him not,but that He should be made manifest to Israel,therefore am I come baptizing with water"(Jn.1:31).

The Baptist also proclaimed that the Lord Jesus is the “Son of God”:

”And I saw,and bore witness that this is the Son of God”(Jn.1:34).

The Jews would also knew that the words “Son of God” meant that the Lord Jesus was God,as witnessed by the words of the Jews themselves:

” Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God”(Jn.5:18).

After the Baptist was put in prision,the Lord Jesus took up the same message,preaching that the Kingdom of God is at hand.He also said that He was that Messiah:

"The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am He"(Jn.4:25,26).

He also told the Jews that the Lord God had sent Him into the world,and that they should believe Him:

”This is the work of God,that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent”(Jn.6:29).He said that those who “believeth on Him” would receive eternal life:

” And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day”(Jn.6:40).

The Lord Jesus told the Jews that He was before Abraham:

”Before Abraham was,I am”(Jn.8:58).

By His words the Jews would have known that He was proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah,the Son of the Living God.Combine that with the fact that He was able to perform miracles so the Jews had no excuse whatsoever for their unbelief.

Every thing about the ministry of John the Baptist and of the Lord Jesus pointed to one thing,and that is the fact that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah,the Son of the Living God.

And those who believed this fact were “born of God” at the moment that they believed this fact (Jn.1:12,13—1Jn.5:1-5).They also received eternal life at the moment that they believed (Jn.5:24).

However,after the leaders of Israel plotted His death,He told His disciples not to make Him known (Mt.12:14-16).He then began to speak in parables.He knew that the Jews would be given a second chance to believe after His crucifixion and resurrection,and that is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Clete
April 5th, 2005, 09:24 AM
Excellent post Jerry!

Jerry Shugart
April 5th, 2005, 12:00 PM
Excellent post Jerry!
Thanks,Clete,I really appreciate it!

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

elected4ever
April 5th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Apollos,

You said:


Before the Lord Jesus appeared on the scene John the Baptist was preaching that ”The kingdom of heaven is at hand”(Mt.3:2).

The Jews would have understood that if the kingdom was at hand,then the King also must be at hand.

The Baptist said:

"And I knew Him not,but that He should be made manifest to Israel,therefore am I come baptizing with water"(Jn.1:31).

The Baptist also proclaimed that the Lord Jesus is the “Son of God”:

”And I saw,and bore witness that this is the Son of God”(Jn.1:34).

The Jews would also knew that the words “Son of God” meant that the Lord Jesus was God,as witnessed by the words of the Jews themselves:

” Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God”(Jn.5:18).

After the Baptist was put in prision,the Lord Jesus took up the same message,preaching that the Kingdom of God is at hand.He also said that He was that Messiah:

"The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am He"(Jn.4:25,26).

He also told the Jews that the Lord God had sent Him into the world,and that they should believe Him:

”This is the work of God,that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent”(Jn.6:29).He said that those who “believeth on Him” would receive eternal life:

” And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day”(Jn.6:40).

The Lord Jesus told the Jews that He was before Abraham:

”Before Abraham was,I am”(Jn.8:58).

By His words the Jews would have known that He was proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah,the Son of the Living God.Combine that with the fact that He was able to perform miracles so the Jews had no excuse whatsoever for their unbelief.

Every thing about the ministry of John the Baptist and of the Lord Jesus pointed to one thing,and that is the fact that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah,the Son of the Living God.

And those who believed this fact were “born of God” at the moment that they believed this fact (Jn.1:12,13—1Jn.5:1-5).They also received eternal life at the moment that they believed (Jn.5:24).

However,after the leaders of Israel plotted His death,He told His disciples not to make Him known (Mt.12:14-16).He then began to speak in parables.He knew that the Jews would be given a second chance to believe after His crucifixion and resurrection,and that is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.htmlIt is a very good post but there is nothing there that constitutes another gospel

Clete
April 5th, 2005, 02:52 PM
It is a very good post but there is nothing there that constitutes another gospel

:bang:

elected4ever
April 5th, 2005, 03:09 PM
:bang:Serves you right for reading a stupid book and letting it define your position for you. I hope you get a headache :dunce:

drbrumley
April 5th, 2005, 06:22 PM
Serves you right for reading a stupid book and letting it define your position for you. I hope you get a headache :dunce:



:yawn: And what book would this be?

Jerry Shugart
April 5th, 2005, 06:24 PM
It is a very good post but there is nothing there that constitutes another gospel
elected4ever,

Nobody said that more than one gospel was being preached at the time the Lord Jesus walked the earth.

The gospel that was preached to the Jews at that time and throughout the Acts period concerned the fact that it is the Lord Jesus who is the promised Messiah of Israel.Just read all of the accounts of what was being preached to the Jews during the Acts period and it is clear that the gospel preached to them was in regard to the fact that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ"(Acts17:2,30).

That is exactly what Peter preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ"(Acts2:36).

That is the same message that Apollos preached to the Jews:

"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus is Christ"(Acts18:28).

And that is the same gospel that Paul preached to the Jews immediately after he was converted:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ"(Acts9:20,22).

That is the gospel that went to the Jews,and it is plain that the heart and soul of that gospel was in regard to the "identity" of the Lord Jesus.

However,in the present dispensation we are to preach another gospel,and the heart and soul of the gospel we are to preach concerns the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross.This gospel is referred to by Paul as the "word of reconciliation".The Christian has been given the "ministry of reconciliation" to preach the "word of reconciliation"(2Cor.5:18,19).

This gospel,unlike the gospel that was preach to the Jews,cannot be preached apart from the "purpose" of His death:

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death"(Col.1:20-22).

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son..."(Ro.5:10).

There is a difference between preaching that "Jesus is the Christ" and preaching that "while we were enemies we were reconciled by the death" of the Lord Jesus Christ.

They are both "good news",but they are not the same "good news".

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Clete
April 5th, 2005, 08:35 PM
:yawn: And what book would this be?

ACTS???

elected4ever
April 5th, 2005, 08:43 PM
ACTS???No, that book you have always got your nose stuck in called "Despensationism Made Easy". Or something like that. You know the one you cut and paste out off. :dizzy:

elected4ever
April 5th, 2005, 08:47 PM
elected4ever,

Nobody said that more than one gospel was being preached at the time the Lord Jesus walked the earth.

The gospel that was preached to the Jews at that time and throughout the Acts period concerned the fact that it is the Lord Jesus who is the promised Messiah of Israel.Just read all of the accounts of what was being preached to the Jews during the Acts period and it is clear that the gospel preached to them was in regard to the fact that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ"(Acts17:2,30).

That is exactly what Peter preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ"(Acts2:36).

That is the same message that Apollos preached to the Jews:

"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus is Christ"(Acts18:28).

And that is the same gospel that Paul preached to the Jews immediately after he was converted:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ"(Acts9:20,22).

That is the gospel that went to the Jews,and it is plain that the heart and soul of that gospel was in regard to the "identity" of the Lord Jesus.

However,in the present dispensation we are to preach another gospel,and the heart and soul of the gospel we are to preach concerns the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross.This gospel is referred to by Paul as the "word of reconciliation".The Christian has been given the "ministry of reconciliation" to preach the "word of reconciliation"(2Cor.5:18,19).

This gospel,unlike the gospel that was preach to the Jews,cannot be preached apart from the "purpose" of His death:

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death"(Col.1:20-22).

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son..."(Ro.5:10).

There is a difference between preaching that "Jesus is the Christ" and preaching that "while we were enemies we were reconciled by the death" of the Lord Jesus Christ.

They are both "good news",but they are not the same "good news".

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.htmlYou mean that Israel was not the enemy of God just like we are? Man is the enemy of God. Israel included. Same message, same gospel.

Clete
April 5th, 2005, 09:37 PM
No, that book you have always got your nose stuck in called "Despensationism Made Easy". Or something like that. You know the one you cut and paste out off. :dizzy:

:darwinsm:

I don't cut and past out of any book hardly at all except for "The Complete Green Letters" by Miles J Standford, which has nothing to do with Calvinism or Open Theism.

Jerry Shugart quotes from that book, but I think he wrote it so that doesn't really count does it?

In all fairness, I do quote from Bob Hill quite a bit but not from any book he has written.

Jerry Shugart
April 5th, 2005, 09:50 PM
You mean that Israel was not the enemy of God just like we are? Man is the enemy of God. Israel included. Same message, same gospel.
elected4ever,

All men,whether they be Israelites or Gentiles,are enemies of God until they are born of God.But that was not the gospel that was preached to the Jews dutring the Acts period.As I have demonstrated,the message that was being preached to the Jews during the Acts period was the good news that the Lord Jesus is their promised Messiah.

There are numerous of examples of what was being preached to Jews in the Acts narrative,and those verses will be searched in vain for one single instance where the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus was preached to the Jews.Instead,the gospel that was preached to them was the fact that their promised Messiah was among them in the Person of the Lord Jesus.

The Jews who believed this gospel were "born of God" and were blessed with eternal life"

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him...For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?(1Jn.5:1,4,5).

The Jew who believed the gospel that was preached to the Jews--that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God--recived the "blessing" of being born of God (Jn.1:12,13).The Lord Jesus asked Peter:

"But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven"(Mt.16:15-17).

So you can go on and on and deny that there was but one gospel being preached during the Acts period,but the Scriptures tell the truth that the central fact of the gospel that was preached to the Jews is that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.The heart and soul of the gospell that was preached to the churches which Paul founded is the truth concerning the "purpose" of His death on the Cross:

"For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness,but unto us who are saved it is the power of God"(1Cor.1:18).

Two different gospels--"the gospel of the uncircumcision" and "the gospel of the circumcision"(Gal.1:7).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

elected4ever
April 5th, 2005, 11:30 PM
elected4ever,

All men,whether they be Israelites or Gentiles,are enemies of God until they are born of God.But that was not the gospel that was preached to the Jews dutring the Acts period.As I have demonstrated,the message that was being preached to the Jews during the Acts period was the good news that the Lord Jesus is their promised Messiah.

There are numerous of examples of what was being preached to Jews in the Acts narrative,and those verses will be searched in vain for one single instance where the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus was preached to the Jews.Instead,the gospel that was preached to them was the fact that their promised Messiah was among them in the Person of the Lord Jesus.

The Jews who believed this gospel were "born of God" and were blessed with eternal life"

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him...For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?(1Jn.5:1,4,5).

The Jew who believed the gospel that was preached to the Jews--that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God--recived the "blessing" of being born of God (Jn.1:12,13).The Lord Jesus asked Peter:

"But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven"(Mt.16:15-17).

So you can go on and on and deny that there was but one gospel being preached during the Acts period,but the Scriptures tell the truth that the central fact of the gospel that was preached to the Jews is that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.The heart and soul of the Gospel that was preached to the churches which Paul founded is the truth concerning the "purpose" of His death on the Cross:

"For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness,but unto us who are saved it is the power of God"(1Cor.1:18).

Two different gospels--"the gospel of the uncircumcision" and "the gospel of the circumcision"(Gal.1:7).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.htmlAre you serious? Do you actually mean to say that Jesus is not the Messiah to us? That Jesus Christ is not the only begotten Son of god to us? Do you mean that faith in Christ Jesus was not preached to the Jews as well as to us? Use your head please. It is the same gospel. Stop kidding your self. :doh:

Jerry Shugart
April 6th, 2005, 11:26 AM
Are you serious?... Use your head please. It is the same gospel.
elected4ever,

It is you who parts company with your common sense by asserting that there was only one gospel.Let us examine your ideas and see if the Scriptures are in agreement.

Here is the "gospel" that was preached to the Jews during that Acts period:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ"(Acts17:2,30).

"This Jesus...is Christ."

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ"(Acts2:36).

"God hath made the same Jesus...both Lord and Christ"

"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus is Christ"(Acts18:28).

"Jesus is Christ."

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ"(Acts9:20,22).

"That this is the very Christ."

The gospel that was preached to the Jews was in regard to the fact that Jesus is the Christ.

Here is the gospel that was preached to the churches which Paul founded:

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death"(Col.1:20-22).

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son..."(Ro.5:10).

Here the gospel concerns the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross.Anyone with the least bit of Spiritual discernment can recognize that the "good news" that was preached to the Jews during the Acts period was not the same "good news" that was preached in the churches that Paul founded.

But for some reason you will not believe it.It seems as if you put more faith in the doctrines invented by men than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.When Paul went to preach the gospel he "reasoned" out of the Scriptures:

"And Paul,as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures..."

You must throw your reason to the wind in order to continue to insist that there was only one gospel.You would rather cling to the "traditions" invented by men instead of believing what the Scriptures clearly teach.

And then you have the temerity to tell me to please use my head.We can see that the only use that you have for your head is as a place to put your hat.

"...because they seeing,see not,and hearing,they hear not,neither do they understand"(Mt.13:13).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Clete
April 6th, 2005, 11:53 AM
Jerry,

Excellent! :BRAVO:

POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=715671#post715671) :first:

elected4ever
April 6th, 2005, 12:08 PM
elected4ever,

It is you who parts company with your common sense by asserting that there was only one gospel.Let us examine your ideas and see if the Scriptures are in agreement.

Here is the "gospel" that was preached to the Jews during that Acts period:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ"(Acts17:2,30).

"This Jesus...is Christ."

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ"(Acts2:36).

"God hath made the same Jesus...both Lord and Christ"It is the same gospel. A mystery revealed is not a new gospel. I would agree however that after Pentecost the message was The death burial and resurrection of Jesus. Making the old covenant of sacrifices a desolation. But this message was preached to the Jews as well as the gentiles. Same gospel to both.

"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus is Christ"(Acts18:28).

"Jesus is Christ."

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ"(Acts9:20,22).

"That this is the very Christ."

The gospel that was preached to the Jews was in regard to the fact that Jesus is the Christ.

Here is the gospel that was preached to the churches which Paul founded:

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death"(Col.1:20-22).

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son..."(Ro.5:10).

Here the gospel concerns the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross.Anyone with the least bit of Spiritual discernment can recognize that the "good news" that was preached to the Jews during the Acts period was not the same "good news" that was preached in the churches that Paul founded.

But for some reason you will not believe it.It seems as if you put more faith in the doctrines invented by men than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.When Paul went to preach the gospel he "reasoned" out of the Scriptures:

"And Paul,as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures..."

You must throw your reason to the wind in order to continue to insist that there was only one gospel.You would rather cling to the "traditions" invented by men instead of believing what the Scriptures clearly teach.

And then you have the temerity to tell me to please use my head.We can see that the only use that you have for your head is as a place to put your hat.

"...because they seeing,see not,and hearing,they hear not,neither do they understand"(Mt.13:13).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.htmlNonsense. Your understanding is flawed.

Clete
April 6th, 2005, 12:35 PM
Nonsense. Your understanding is flawed.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

Tell us specifically how is his understanding flawed? I'm dying to know whether you have a real response in you at all.

elected4ever
April 6th, 2005, 12:43 PM
Saying it doesn't make it so.

Tell us specifically how is his understanding flawed? I'm dying to know whether you have a real response in you at all.What? you are as dumb as I though. You can't read. I have told you and you just will not listen.

Jerry Shugart
April 6th, 2005, 05:23 PM
ABSOLUTE RIGHTEOUSNESS IS GOD'S DEMAND NOT HIS SUGGESTION!
"Whatever is not of faith is sin"(Ro.14:23).

Jerry Shugart
April 6th, 2005, 08:07 PM
I have already demonstrated that the Jews were reciving a different gospel than the one that was preached to the Gentiles.Next,we can see that Paul received two different gospels from the Lord,one which he preached to the Jews and another that he preached to the Gentiles.Here is what Paul says about the events which occured after he recived the gospel that he preached to the Gentiles:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...that I might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus"(Gal.1:11,12,16,17).

Paul says in words that cannot be misunderstood that when he reeived the gospel that he preached unto the Gentiles that he did not confer with any other men,and he went immediately into Arabia.

That is not what happened after Paul received the gospel which he preached to the Jews:

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

"And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And immediately he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God"(Acts9:17-20).

Here we can clearly see that upon receiving the "gospel of the circumcision" that he was with other disciples in Damascus and he immediately preached Christ to the Jews.

When Paul recived the "gospel of the uncircumcision" he said that he went "immediately" into Arabia,and he did not confer with any other men.

This demonstrates conclusively that Paul recived two different gospels from the Lord--"the gospel of the circumcision" and "the gospel of the uncircumcision"(Gal.2:7).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

elected4ever
April 6th, 2005, 08:26 PM
"Whatever is not of faith is sin"(Ro.14:23).Do you sin?

ApologeticJedi
April 6th, 2005, 08:36 PM
I have already demonstrated that the Jews were reciving a different gospel than the one that was preached to the Gentiles.Next,we can see that Paul received two different gospels from the Lord,one which he preached to the Jews and another that he preached to the Gentiles.Here is what Paul says about the events which occured after he recived the gospel that he preached to the Gentiles:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...that I might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus"(Gal.1:11,12,16,17).

Paul says in words that cannot be misunderstood that when he reeived the gospel that he preached unto the Gentiles that he did not confer with any other men,and he went immediately into Arabia.

That is not what happened after Paul received the gospel which he preached to the Jews:

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

"And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And immediately he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God"(Acts9:17-20).

Here we can clearly see that upon receiving the "gospel of the circumcision" that he was with other disciples in Damascus and he immediately preached Christ to the Jews.

When Paul recived the "gospel of the uncircumcision" he said that he went "immediately" into Arabia,and he did not confer with any other men.

This demonstrates conclusively that Paul recived two different gospels from the Lord--"the gospel of the circumcision" and "the gospel of the uncircumcision"(Gal.2:7).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html


:thumb:

elected4ever
April 6th, 2005, 08:40 PM
:thumb:Do you sin?

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 08:43 PM
Quit changing the topic.

God_Is_Truth
April 7th, 2005, 01:40 AM
Are you serious? Do you actually mean to say that Jesus is not the Messiah to us? That Jesus Christ is not the only begotten Son of god to us? Do you mean that faith in Christ Jesus was not preached to the Jews as well as to us? Use your head please. It is the same gospel. Stop kidding your self. :doh:

i think they are saying that it was not preached to the Jews before the resurrection that he was the Christ. consider this passage:

Mark 16
20Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

now at this point the disciples had been preaching the gospel for quite some time, but yet they are told specifically not to say he is the Christ. thus, whatever was in the gospel they preached before the resurrection, would not have included that Jesus was the Christ. we do see in Acts 2 that Peter says Jesus is the Messiah, but this is after the resurrection.

Jerry Shugart
April 7th, 2005, 08:40 AM
. thus, whatever was in the gospel they preached before the resurrection, would not have included that Jesus was the Christ.
Before the Lord Jesus appeared on the scene John the Baptist was preaching that ”The kingdom of heaven is at hand”(Mt.3:2).

The Jews would have understood that if the kingdom was at hand,then the King also must be at hand.

The Baptist said:

"And I knew Him not,but that He should be made manifest to Israel,therefore am I come baptizing with water"(Jn.1:31).

The Baptist also proclaimed that the Lord Jesus is the “Son of God”:

”And I saw,and bore witness that this is the Son of God”(Jn.1:34).

The Jews would also knew that the words “Son of God” meant that the Lord Jesus was God,as witnessed by the words of the Jews themselves:

” Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God”(Jn.5:18).

After the Baptist was put in prision,the Lord Jesus took up the same message,preaching that the Kingdom of God is at hand.He also said that He was that Messiah:

"The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am He"(Jn.4:25,26).

He also told the Jews that the Lord God had sent Him into the world,and that they should believe Him:

”This is the work of God,that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent”(Jn.6:29).He said that those who “believeth on Him” would receive eternal life:

” And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day”(Jn.6:40).

The Lord Jesus told the Jews that He was before Abraham:

”Before Abraham was,I am”(Jn.8:58).

By His words the Jews would have known that He was proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah,the Son of the Living God.Combine that with the fact that He was able to perform miracles so the Jews had no excuse whatsoever for their unbelief.

Every thing about the ministry of John the Baptist and of the Lord Jesus pointed to one thing,and that is the fact that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah,the Son of the Living God.

And those who believed this fact were “born of God” at the moment that they believed this fact (Jn.1:12,13—1Jn.5:1-5).They also received eternal life at the moment that they believed (Jn.5:24).

However,after the leaders of Israel plotted His death,He told His disciples not to make Him known (Mt.12:14-16).He then began to speak in parables.He knew that the Jews would be given a second chance to believe after His crucifixion and resurrection,and that is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Jerry Shugart
April 7th, 2005, 11:24 AM
I have already shown two different ways that we can know that there were two different gospels preached during the Acts period.First,we can see from the Acts narrative that the message that the Jews received is the truth that it is the Lord Jesus Who is their promised Messiah.The gospel that was preached to the Gentiles is in regard to the “purpose” of His death—that He died for our sins.

Secondly,Paul revealed that when he received the gospel that he preached to the Gentiles that he did not confer with other men but instead he immediately went into Arabia.The Acts narrative reveals that when Paul received the gospel that he preached to the Jews he did in fact confer with other men and he was many days in Damascus preaching that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah.

Next,we can see that the gospel that was preached to the Jews was according to what had previously been prophesised,while the gospel that was preached to the Gentiles was a secret that was not prophesised.

When Paul was arrested and charged with being a ”mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world”(Acts24:5),he defended himself saying that what he tauf=ght among the Jews was according to what the Jewish prophets said would happen:

” Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles”(Acts26:22,23).

However,the gospel that Paul preached to the Gentiles had been kept secret and were not revealed by the prophets:

” But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this age knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”(1Cor.2:7,8).

The “purpose” of the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross was not revealed in prophecy,and the reason is simple.If the princes of this age knew that purpose they would not have put Him to death.

So the gospel that was preached to the Jews had been prophesised in the OT Scriptures,and the gospel that was preached to the Gentiles had not been prophesised but instead had been kept secret until Paul made it known.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Apollos
April 10th, 2005, 09:56 PM
Jerry –

Anyone’s response as to what John and Jesus preached during the time of their respective personal ministries has turned out to be quite meager, especially when you consider all that was taught. I am not certain why that is.

But on to other matters…


And those who believed this fact were “born of God” at the moment that they believed this fact (Jn.1:12,13—1Jn.5:1-5).

Let’s drag those verses out here and have a look.

John 1:12 ”But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:”

It appears that those who “receive” Him are the one to whom He give the “RIGHT” to become children of God - those that “believe on His name”. This is an expression that lends itself to the idea of recognizing & appealing to His authority. I can not find the idea in this passage of being saved “at the moment” of belief. At the “moment” of belief, only the “right” is granted to become a child of God.

13who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Who were born of God - is the thought presented in this verse. It is by God’s will that will we become children of God. So what is it that God wills that we may become His children? When we learn and do what is meant in the expressions “receive Him” and “believe on His name”, then we can know we are “born of God”. I know that more information can be found in John 3:3f – not all of God’s will for becoming His child is found in John 1:12&13.

[b]John 12:42 - ”Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [it], lest they should be put out of the synagogue…”

I am wondering if one would think that these rulers were “born of God” at the moment they believed – or should we consider the differences between objective and subjective belief ?


They also received eternal life at the moment that they believed (Jn.5:24).

John 5:24 – “…He that hears my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

Those who would rush headlong into obtaining everlasting life might want to heed - “He that hears my word…”. The would-be believer has something to hear first – perhaps some of the things that Jesus taught during His 3 year ministry here on earth. Perhaps something like…

Matt. 7:21 – “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

And just for added emphasis…
Verse 24 – Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock…

It appears to me that Jesus wants us to do more than just acknowledge His presence and that there won’t be any lazy dummies in heaven. Just a few thoughts to think about…



However,after the leaders of Israel plotted His death,He told His disciples not to make Him known (Mt.12:14-16).He then began to speak in parables.He knew that the Jews would be given a second chance to believe after His crucifixion and resurrection,and that is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost.

It may just be me, but there seems to be some inferences made here that need to be thought out.

In Matthew 12, after healing a man’s hand, the Pharisees (with the Herodians) plot to destroy Jesus. When Jesus knew this, He withdrew (to the sea of Galilee). After many were healed by Him here, He told them to not “make him known”.

It seems to me that it is inferred above that it was at this time that Jesus had a change of mind about letting people know who he was, and also began to speak in parables at this time because of that change. That a second chance to “believe” was required due to these changes, is what I am reading here, without other opportunities to believe being afforded prior to Acts 2.

Some analysis…

Matthew 12 is not the first time Jesus told others to not reveal who he was or what He had done. Two prior events are recorded by Matthew. If you will check Matthew 8:4 when Jesus healed a leper, He charged the leper to “tell no man”. Later in Matthew 9:30 Jesus healed two blind men and He told them “See that no man knows”.

Jesus also charged His disciples & others after the occasion of Matthew 12 in Matthew 16:20, Matthew 17:9*, and in the account of Mark 7:36 which is not recorded in Matthew.

The event in Luke 8:49f which took place after the time of Matthew 12 must also be included. Interestingly, this involved reviving the daughter of a ruler of the synagogue, who, along with his wife, were given a prime opportunity to “believe” before the cross.

The charge not to tell that is made in Matthew 12 was not new or unique. The explanation found in verses 18-21 as to why Jesus was doing this is. Isaiah is quoted here and I believe we are told that Jesus was to go about His Father’s business quietly and humbly, without notoriety and glory to himself, but glory only unto the Father. This course of conduct also assured that the actions of Jesus were without question to his motives.

Later in Matthew 13 Jesus began to speak to them “many things in parables”. The disciples asked in verse 10 – “Why speakest thou unto them in parables?”
Verse 11 – “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven…” but to the others it was not. It was given to the disciples to know. Jesus further explained in verse 13 that this action fulfilled a prophecy of Isaiah as well. I conclude that if one thinks there is a “cause & effect” here between the plot to kill Jesus & His speaking in parables, it is a conclusion drawn outside of what scripture explains.

Jerry Shugart
April 11th, 2005, 10:22 AM
Jerry –
Anyone’s response as to what John and Jesus preached during the time of their respective personal ministries has turned out to be quite meager, especially when you consider all that was taught. I am not certain why that is.
Apollos,

Go back and read what I wrote on this subject.Are you saying that this was "meager"?

Let’s drag those verses out here and have a look.

John 1:12 ”But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:”

It appears that those who “receive” Him are the one to whom He give the “RIGHT” to become children of God - those that “believe on His name”. This is an expression that lends itself to the idea of recognizing & appealing to His authority.
To believe on His name was in regard to believing that He was the Christ,the Son of the Living God.Those who believed that were "born of God":

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"(1Jn.5:1,4,5).

Thse who "believe" the gospel are "born again":

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever... And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you"(1Pet.1:23,25).

I can not find the idea in this passage of being saved “at the moment” of belief. At the “moment” of belief, only the “right” is granted to become a child of God.
You overlook the words that follow--"Who were born of God."

John 12:42 - ”Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess , lest they should be put out of the synagogue…”[/color]

I am wondering if one would think that these rulers were “born of God” at the moment they believed – or should we consider the differences between objective and subjective belief ?
If they believed in their heart that He is the Christ,the Son of God,then they were indeed born of God.

Just because some might deny their beliefs in front of men is not evidence that they were not born of God.Peter himself denied his belief before men,but he was born of God.

John 5:24 – “…He that hears my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”[/color]

Those who would rush headlong into obtaining everlasting life might want to heed - “He that hears my word…”. The would-be believer has something to hear first – perhaps some of the things that Jesus taught during His 3 year ministry here on earth. Perhaps something like…

Matt. 7:21 – [i]“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
The Lord Jesus told them exactly how to do the will of the Father:

"Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent'(Jn.6:28,29).

And just for added emphasis…
Verse 24 – Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock…

It appears to me that Jesus wants us to do more than just acknowledge His presence and that there won’t be any lazy dummies in heaven. Just a few thoughts to think about…
This says nothing about obtaining eternal life by doing works.In fact,Paul makes it as plain as possible that no one's righteousness before God is dependent on "works":

"For by grace are ye saved...not of works,lest any man should boast"(Eph.2:8,9).

There are those who say that they "believe" but at the same time prove that they do not believe the "gospel of grace".Despite the Scriptual evidence that the sinner is saved by faith apart from works they just do not believe.It is those people who really have no faith at all,and the same people who the Lord speaks of in the following verse:

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity"(Mt.7:22,23).

There will be many who profess to be Christians but will not be saved.They never really believed the gospel of grace and so they were never "born of God"--"I never knew you"!

Matthew 12 is not the first time Jesus told others to not reveal who he was or what He had done. Two prior events are recorded by Matthew. If you will check Matthew 8:4 when Jesus healed a leper, He charged the leper to “tell no man”. Later in Matthew 9:30 Jesus healed two blind men and He told them “See that no man knows”. In regard to the man with leprosy,apparantly the Lord wanted the priest to be the first to examine him.In regard to the blind men who were healed,his words not to tell anyone was for a purpose.He knew that if this was made known then there would be multitudes coming to Him merely for the purpose of physical healing.Even though He healed many from physical diseases,His miracles were for the purpose of authenticating that He is the promised Messiah.But He came primarly for spiritual healing and not for physical healing.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

HopeofGlory
April 14th, 2005, 08:49 PM
2Co 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.

The Jews were bound to the law during the ministry of Jesus yet the new testament of His blood granted eternal life to all that believed.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus revealed the "new testament" not of the law but of the spirit to the twelve and that the purpose of His death was for the remission of sins.

Jesus also revealed that the shed blood of this new testament granted eternal life and it is believing in His shed blood for remission not the letter that is the essence of conversion and it is the Spirit that indwells upon conversion that enables the believer to endure to the end of their faith.

Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Lev 7:27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

Paul's gospel is the same that Jesus taught in Matt. 26:28 before His death yet you will not find this gospel revealed by the apostles at pentecost. The apostles continued to preach what John the Baptist taught.

Rom 3:25 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;

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Craig

elected4ever
April 14th, 2005, 09:11 PM
2Co 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.

The Jews were bound to the law during the ministry of Jesus yet the new testament of His blood granted eternal life to all that believed.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus revealed the "new testament" not of the law but of the spirit to the twelve and that the purpose of His death was for the remission of sins.

Jesus also revealed that the shed blood of this new testament granted eternal life and it is believing in His shed blood for remission not the letter that is the essence of conversion and it is the Spirit that indwells upon conversion that enables the believer to endure to the end of their faith.

Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Lev 7:27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

Paul's gospel is the same that Jesus taught in Matt. 26:28 before His death yet you will not find this gospel revealed by the apostles at pentecost. The apostles continued to preach what John the Baptist taught.

Rom 3:25 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;

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

CraigI can agree up to a point. When you state, " The apostles continued to preach what John the Baptist taught."You imply that the message that was preached at Pentecost was not the same as Preached by Paul. Am I correct in making this connection?

HopeofGlory
April 14th, 2005, 10:22 PM
The apostles at Pentecost did not reveal the new testament of His shed blood for remission (Matt 26:28) yet Paul clearly did. Paul did not teach a baptism of repentance for remission and said Christ sent him not to baptize. Water baptism for remission as the Baptist taught is not the same as faith in His shed blood for remission as Paul taught.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Rom 3:25 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;

Craig

elected4ever
April 14th, 2005, 10:59 PM
When you were saved did you become righteous or did you remain unrighteous?

HopeofGlory
April 16th, 2005, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Clete

Where in the four gospels is Jesus ever recorded as having uttered the word grace?

He may have never uttered the words but the scriptures tell us He was full of grace and truth and He granted free and unmerited favor to those that believed in Him. Actions speak louder than words!


Where in the four gospels did Jesus ever say anything remotely like, "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."


He had not yet died but He saved many that believed in Him.


Where did Jesus ever say, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. ", or "if you become circumcised, I (Christ) will profit you nothing."

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Did Jesus not say "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"?

Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Many uncircumcised were received by Jesus, he was persecuted for receiving publicans and sinners.


Where? Did anyone before Paul ever say such things in connection with the gospel? NO! I think not! Either the Gospel changed or else Paul is a fraud. Take your pick.!

The gospel is faith in the shed blood of Christ for the remission of sins and it did not originate with Paul!

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Rom 3:25 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;

Either Christ preached the gospel or He is a fraud, take your pick!




Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart
It was not until Paul was converted that anyone was given the ministry of reconciliation to preach the word of reconciliation.And it is impossible to preach that word without mentioning the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus.That is why no one before Paul said anything at all about that "purpose" until Paul.

2Co 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.

Christ revealed the "purpose" of His death it in Matt 26:28 to the apostles and it was before Paul.

Craig

Jerry Shugart
April 16th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Craig,

Earlier I said:

It was not until Paul was converted that anyone was given the ministry of reconciliation to preach the word of reconciliation.And it is impossible to preach that word without mentioning the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus.That is why no one before Paul said anything at all about that "purpose" until Paul.
To which you said:


Christ revealed the "purpose" of His death it in Matt 26:28 to the apostles and it was before Paul.
I said that before Paul was converted that no one preached the purpose of His death on the Cross.And that was not preached by anyone until Paul.

Knowing the purpose of His death and preaching it are two different things.

And the Acts narrative will be searched in vain for any incident where the purpose of His death was preached to the Jews.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

HopeofGlory
April 16th, 2005, 12:24 PM
I said that before Paul was converted that no one preached the purpose of His death on the Cross.And that was not preached by anyone until Paul.

Knowing the purpose of His death and preaching it are two different things.

And the Acts narrative will be searched in vain for any incident where the purpose of His death was preached to the Jews.

In His grace,--Jerry


Preach means to give religious or moral instruction and the fact is that Christ did preach the "purpose" of His death to the apostles and it was before Paul cannot be denied.

I know the purpose of His death was not preached to the Jews at Pentecost and I have posted that fact many times over.

The apostles were given the words of reconciliation and instructed to preach His words to every creature.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Craig

Jerry Shugart
April 16th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Preach means to give religious or moral instruction and the fact is that Christ did preach the "purpose" of His death to the apostles and it was before Paul cannot be denied.
The Apostles and only the Apostles were told that by the Lord Jesus.

I know the purpose of His death was not preached to the Jews at Pentecost and I have posted that fact many times over.
It was not preached to the Jews at Pentecost nor was it preached to the Jews during the Acts period.

The apostles were given the words of reconciliation and instructed to preach His words to every creature.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Craig
If the Twelve Apostles were preaching the "word of reconciliation" to every creature,then why did they not preach that message to the Jews?Do not the Jews come under the category of "every creature"?

In His grace,--Jerry

”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

HopeofGlory
April 17th, 2005, 10:53 AM
The Apostles and only the Apostles were told that by the Lord Jesus.

It was not preached to the Jews at Pentecost nor was it preached to the Jews during the Acts period.

If the Twelve Apostles were preaching the "word of reconciliation" to every creature,then why did they not preach that message to the Jews?Do not the Jews come under the category of "every creature"?

In His grace,--Jerry

”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html


Christ preached the "ministry of reconciliation" to the apostles, He clearly revealed to them the "purpose" of His death when He gave them the new testament. Because the purpose of His death was not preached at Pentecost does not mean it was not intended to be. What Paul preached is the "gospel of Christ" and it is the same gospel Christ gave to the apostles and it is a message of "everlasting life".

Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

2Co 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.

This gospel was to be given to the Jew first and such was Stephen's and Paul's ministry but because of unbelief Paul turned to the Gentiles.

I never said the twelve were preaching the word of reconciliation, I said Christ gave that word to the apostles and it was not veiled or in parable. Christ revealed His gospel progressively based on their belief. Jews first had to believe He was the Son of God before accepting Him as their Messiah and were required to perform water baptism in His name during the dispensation of law for remission of sins. This remission was temporary and would be replaced by the ministry of the new testament for remission. The Jews could not accept a message not of the letter thus it was not give in its entirety at Pentecost. Stephen was stoned when he began to preach a message of the spirit, the others did not speak in this manner. I believe that if they had spoken as did Stephen they would have all been stoned.

Act 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

2Co 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.

Paul was finally able to deliver the gospel to the Gentiles because they were not of the law and received it openly.

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Act 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.
Act 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.

Believing the words of Christ has always been the problem. The gospel was revealed progressively (not two gospels) and those that believed before it was fulfilled were saved but as it progressed they were required to continue to believe to receive eternal life.

Craig

Jerry Shugart
April 17th, 2005, 11:58 AM
I never said the twelve were preaching the word of reconciliation, I said Christ gave that word to the apostles and it was not veiled or in parable.
Craig,

Here are your own words:

The apostles were given the words of reconciliation and instructed to preach His words to every creature.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
You say:

Because the purpose of His death was not preached at Pentecost does not mean it was not intended to be.
So even though the Apostles had a clear understanding as to what they were to preach and they were being led by the Spirit,they just decided not to preach what the Lord Jesus had told them to preach?

You said:

The gospel was revealed progressively (not two gospels) and those that believed before it was fulfilled were saved but as it progressed they were required to continue to believe to receive eternal life.
If there was only one gospel then why does Paul speak of two separate and distinct gospels?:

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter"(Gal.2:7).

The circumstances surrounding Paul's reception of the "gospel of the circumcision" was entirely different than the circumstances surrounding his receiving of the "gospel of the uncircumcision".

Here is what Paul says about the events which occured after he recived the gospel that he preached to the Gentiles:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...that I might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus"(Gal.1:11,12,16,17).

Paul says in words that cannot be misunderstood that when he reeived the gospel that he preached unto the Gentiles that he did not confer with any other men,and he went immediately into Arabia.

That is not what happened after Paul received the gospel which he preached to the Jews:

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

"And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And immediately he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God"(Acts9:17-20).

Here we can clearly see that upon receiving the "gospel of the circumcision" that he was with other disciples in Damascus and he immediately preached Christ to the Jews.

When Paul recived the "gospel of the uncircumcision" he said that he went "immediately" into Arabia,and he did not confer with any other men.

This demonstrates conclusively that Paul recived two different gospels from the Lord--"the gospel of the circumcision" and "the gospel of the uncircumcision"(Gal.2:7).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

HopeofGlory
April 17th, 2005, 01:32 PM
Craig,
So even though the Apostles had a clear understanding as to what they were to preach and they were being led by the Spirit,they just decided not to preach what the Lord Jesus had told them to preach?

It is clear they were given the new testament yet they did not believe or they would have preached it. Peter was saved because he believed Jesus was the Christ yet spoke against his death. He also denied Christ and refused to go to a Gentile. He was led by Christ and later by the Spirit and still required further instruction. His acceptance of the ministry of reconciliation that was given to him in the new testament for remission of sins without the law was progressive and one does not preach what they do not believe.


The circumstances surrounding Paul's reception of the "gospel of the circumcision" was entirely different than the circumstances surrounding his receiving of the "gospel of the uncircumcision".

Here is what Paul says about the events which occured after he recived the gospel that he preached to the Gentiles:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...that I might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus"(Gal.1:11,12,16,17).

Paul says in words that cannot be misunderstood that when he reeived the gospel that he preached unto the Gentiles that he did not confer with any other men,and he went immediately into Arabia.

That is not what happened after Paul received the gospel which he preached to the Jews:

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

"And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And immediately he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God"(Acts9:17-20).

Here we can clearly see that upon receiving the "gospel of the circumcision" that he was with other disciples in Damascus and he immediately preached Christ to the Jews.

When Paul recived the "gospel of the uncircumcision" he said that he went "immediately" into Arabia,and he did not confer with any other men.

This demonstrates conclusively that Paul recived two different gospels from the Lord--"the gospel of the circumcision" and "the gospel of the uncircumcision"(Gal.2:7).

Because there were different circumstances surrounding a progression of reveleation doesn't infer to different gospels.

Paul never preached a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins and he was not the first to preach against the law. Stephen reflects that it was frist intended for the Jews to receive the ministry of reconciliation of the spirit and not the letter but the Jews stoned Spephen and then Paul was called. Paul receive the "gospel of Christ" progressively "not two gospels". Paul went to the Jew first and again they rejected it in favor of the law.


If there was only one gospel then why does Paul speak of two separate and distinct gospels?:

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter"(Gal.2:7).

I understand that Peter was preaching truth but it was tainted with the law (gospel the circumcision preached) and you must understand that Christ gave Peter the ministry of reconciliation that His shed blood was for the remission of sins, this was a new testimony for remission not a water baptism for remission as the Baptist taught. God never intended two spearated gospels. He intened that it first be given to the Jews and that nation would minister it to the Gentiles.

Joh 3:30 He must increase, but I must decrease.
Joh 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

Joh 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

I believe the gospel of Christ was revealed progressively because of man's inability to accept it and Peter displays man's progressive understanding even after it is clearly revealed to him.

When I say "God never intended two gospels", I want you to believe. You understand the words but it will take God's help for you to believe them. When Christ told Peter that His shed blood was for the remission of sins He wanted Peter to believe and preach that new testament without the law.

Craig

Apollos
April 17th, 2005, 11:17 PM
Jerry –

Thanks for the reply – regretz for the delay in getting back with you. Much has been said since then, but...

Jerry >> Go back and read what I wrote on this subject.Are you saying that this was "meager"?

The content was not meager, just the volume. Given all that John and Jesus had to say during the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, I did not get much feedback. Repentance, the kingdom, HS baptism, His death/burial/and resurrection, the church, marriage, and others were all topics of His ministry. I suppose my question was too general in scope to obtain specific replies.
<<<*>>>

On the questions about when one actually is “born of God” or receives eternal life, you surprise me that you accept “easy believe-ism”. I believe your response to my question on…

John 12:42 - ”Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [it], lest they should be put out of the synagogue…”

…indicates such may be true. But perhaps I did not give enough consideration to your phrase of if they believed “in their heart”, although I can not find that phrase in any of the passages you have been using to support your thoughts on being “born of God”, as I can not find “at the moment”. Does this phrase “in their heart” indicate sincerity, conviction, some emotion, or something else?

It also makes me rush to ask, must a man REPENT to be “born of God”?

You also used the expression “really believed” in reference to those in Matthew 7. I do not know if this expression will be important in this discussion as to create a need to define it or not. But also in reference to Matthew 7:22-24 you said…

Jerry >> “It is those people who really have no faith at all, and the same people who the Lord speaks - I never knew you….cont

I realize the context of Matthew 7 is false teachers, but Jesus speaks within that context of those that DO, and those that DON’T do the Father’s will. In this passage Jesus said of those two groups, that those who DO the Father’s will are those that will enter the kingdom of heaven.

I will continue to stand by my position that ONE verse does not tell us everything that we need to know to be “born of God” as John 3:3 expands upon (what is required to be “born again” – water and Spirit) along with…
John 1:12 - ”But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name…”

Those who “receive” Him are the ones to whom He gives the “RIGHT” to become children of God - those that “believe on His name”… an expression that lends itself to the idea of recognizing & appealing to His authority… not just a thought or feeling derived from ONE favorite expression or verse. To “believe” or “accept” is a comprehensive word indicating more than mental recognition of a fact.

We disagree on what it means to “BELIEVE”. Let’s use scripture to define the perimeters of what it means to “believe”. I reject the notion that mental acknowledgment alone of a fact is enough to appropriate salvation from God.
Perhaps your view on how REPENTANCE works into your final equation of being saved will be telling.

Jerry used >> "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent'(Jn.6:28,29).

He later remarked…

Jerry >> In fact, Paul makes it as plain as possible that no one's righteousness before God is dependent on "works":
"For by grace are ye saved...not of works,lest any man should boast" - (Eph.2:8,9).

Some may view these two remarks as contradictory. I am certain you can clarify this for me. Perhaps you are you saying that by a WORK we can be “born of God”, yet by our work(s) we cannot stand before God righteous ???
<<<*>>>

I will wait to see if the reason(s) as to why Jesus advised some to “tell no man” will be important in this discussion rather than review those items at this time.
<<<*>>>

Jerry >> He came primarly for spiritual healing and not for physical healing.
Agreed!
<<<*>>>

Jerry remarked in an earlier post in this thread…

>>>Here (Acts 9:17-20) we can clearly see that upon receiving the "gospel of the circumcision" that he was with other disciples in Damascus and he immediately preached Christ to the Jews.

When Paul recived the "gospel of the uncircumcision" (Gal.1:11,12,16,17) he said that he went "immediately" into Arabia,and he did not confer with any other men.

This demonstrates conclusively that Paul recived two different gospels from the Lord--"the gospel of the circumcision" and "the gospel of the uncircumcision"(Gal.2:7).<<<

Hardly. I have –3- initial impressions:

1.) You read these passages with presumption and carelessly – not for what it actually says. This why items #2 and #3 below occurred…
2.) You make no distinction in your mind between the words “preached” and “conferred” – 2 - different words that convey different meanings.
3.) You have no definite order in your mind of the events that take place at the time of Acts 9 as they compare directly to Galatians 1.


First the comparative chronology:

A Comparison of Acts 9 & Galatians 1

Event Recorded

1.) Damascus
Ananias Acts 9:3f Galatians 1:12-16
“Conferred not” Gal. 1:16

2.) To Arabia Gal. 1:17

3.) Returned to Damascus Gal. 1:17
“certain days there” Acts 9:19-22 (Gal. 1:17)
Preached Christ Acts 9:23-25
(Preached Christ) (Acts 26:20)
Out thru window Acts 9:23-25 (2 Cor. 11:33,32)

4.) First trip to Jerusalem Acts 9:26 Gal. 1:18
3 years after returning to Damascus Gal. 1:18
Saw Peter & James Acts 9:27 Gal. 1:18
(Warned to leave) (Acts 22:17f)

5.) To Tarsus of Cilicia Acts 9:30 Gal. 1:2

6.) To Antioch of Syria Acts 11:26 Gal. 1:21

7.) To Jerusalem Acts 11:30
Offering Acts 12:25
Apostles not there
Herod’s persecution
First journey

8.) Conf. at Jerusalem Acts 15:1ff Gal 2:1ff

Reference Dates:

30 AD – Pentecost (Acts 2)
34 AD – Paul’s Conversion
37 AD – Escape from Damascus
40-42 AD – Paul starts work at Antioch of Syria
(44 AD – Death of Herod – “Fixed” point of reference)
45-48 AD – First journey
50 AD – Jerusalem conference
51-54 AD – Second journey
54-58 AD – Third journey
58 AD – Arrested in Jerusalem
58-60 AD – In prison in Caesarea
60 AD – Voyage to Rome (60 AD – Festus takes office)
61-63 AD – Roman prison (64 AD – Rome burned)
70 AD – Destruction of Jerusalem

Luke does not record Paul’s trip into Arabia. However, in Acts 9:19b, Luke takes up Paul’s work upon his return to Damascus – which Paul tells us about in Gal. 1:17. The chronology I present is straightforward and co-ordinated scripture to scripture. I am certain you will let me know should you have a disagreement.

In Galatians 1:16-17 Paul informs the reader that he was selected to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Prior to this in verse 11 and 12 it is easy to note that Paul was assuring the Galatians that the gospel he received came via revelation. Then after receiving the gospel, Paul tells us that he “CONFERRED” with no man. Paul did not seek out any man for the purpose of receiving any type of advice or instruction.

Paul wants the Galatians to know –2- things:
1.)Of certain that he is a true Apostle of Christ (this is not the first time Paul defends his apostleship in his writings) and …
2.) That the gospel he preaches is the real gospel – not one that the Galatians were “removing” themselves to or that he got from man-made sources.
As Paul succinctly contains in this first chapter – I obtained the gospel by revelation of Jesus Christ (vs. 12)… I conferred with no man, not even the Apostles at Jerusalem (vs.16-17) to get it. I am a real Apostle and so is the source of the gospel I preach !

Upon Paul’s return from Arabia (Gal. 1:17), the account of Luke in Acts 9:19b shows Paul back in Damascus – now “PREACHING” Jesus (vs. 20).

You post #218 this thread shows you clearly made no distinction in these words:
Secondly,Paul revealed that when he received the gospel (that he preached to the Gentiles)* that he did not confer [Gal. 1:16]with other men but instead he immediately went into Arabia.The Acts narrative reveals that when Paul received the gospel (that he preached to the Jews) he did in fact confer [Acts 9:20 – preach]with other men and he was many days in Damascus preaching that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah. (Scripture references included by me for clarity – A.)

Your use of the word “CONFER” twice shows the carelessness in your exegesis.

(*Accurately, this passage (Gal. 1:16) states that Paul was selected to “preach Him” to the Gentiles & that His son was revealed in Paul. Paul does not say he was given a gospel to preach to just the Gentiles – which is a presumption. These are 2 totally different thoughts and I prefer what Paul said – not the man-made insertion.!)


You attempt to create –2- different gospels out of this…

You take –2- different actions (not conferring (1:16) and proclaiming Jesus (9:20)…), which are two completely different words, which take place at –2- different times (before Paul going to Arabia and his return to Damascus…), attempt to say the actions are the same and are therefore, mutually exclusive.

This idea of two gospels is, therefore, based on erroneous assumptions !

Once you clearly see WHAT Paul did – that he did not CONFER with anyone before going to Arabia – and when he returned he proclaimed Jesus AS THE SON OF GOD (not the Messiah as you say in your quote above) in Damascus -and-
once you see clearly WHEN Paul did what he did, you should see that there is no reality of a second gospel being introduced.

You have assumed –2- gospels, and–2- occasions of revelation from of 2 different actions that took place at –2- different times. The former action and occasion does not preclude anything of the latter.

Now if you can prove that Paul had –2- occasions of revelation, someone might give heed to some of the things you assume. But Paul only speaks of ONE occasion of revelation (Gal. 1:12) and Paul speaks of only ONE gospel (Gal. 1:11) – the one he proclaimed at Damascus (Acts 9:20).

Jerry Shugart
April 18th, 2005, 10:26 AM
Craig,

You said:

is clear they were given the new testament yet they did not believe or they would have preached it. Peter was saved because he believed Jesus was the Christ yet spoke against his death. He also denied Christ and refused to go to a Gentile. He was led by Christ and later by the Spirit and still required further instruction. His acceptance of the ministry of reconciliation that was given to him in the new testament for remission of sins without the law was progressive and one does not preach what they do not believe.
Paul knew and believed the “word of reconciliation”.But yet when he preached a gospel to the Jews he never once mentioned the purpose of the death of the Lord Jesus.He preached the same thing that the Twelve preached to them:

”And Paul,as his manner was,went into them,and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures,Opening and alleging that Christ needs have suffered,and risen again from the dead,and this Jesus,Whom I preach unto you,is Christ”(Acts17:2-4).

In His grace,--Jerry

Jerry Shugart
April 18th, 2005, 10:28 AM
Apollos,

You said:

On the questions about when one actually is “born of God” or receives eternal life, you surprise me that you accept “easy believe-ism”.
Just because I accept the teaching of the Scriptures you say that I accept “easy believ-ism”.The Lord Jesus said that those who ‘believe” His teaching received eternal life and shall not come into judgment (Jn.5:24).

He said that His “words” were Spirit and life (Jn.6:63).

Peter said that he was “born again” by the word of God (1Pet.1:23).

It seems as if you will not believe so why would you call it easy believ-ism?It is evidently not easy for you.

If it is so “easy” then why does John say that those who have “faith” have “overcome the world” (1Jn.5:4)?

But perhaps I did not give enough consideration to your phrase of if they believed “in their heart”, although I can not find that phrase in any of the passages you have been using to support your thoughts on being “born of God”, as I can not find “at the moment”. Does this phrase “in their heart” indicate sincerity, conviction, some emotion, or something else?
The phrase “in the heart” is to distinguish those who “believed on Him” because they had a “political” faith from those who truly believed that He was the Messiah,the Son of God.The Lord Jesus would not commit Himself to those whose faith in Him was based on His miracles or in the idea that He was there to deliver Israel from the yoke of Rome:

”Now when He was in Jeusalem at the passover,in the feast day,many believed in His name,when they saw the miracles which He did,But Jesus did not commit Himself unto them,because He knew all men”(Jn.2:23,24).

It also makes me rush to ask, must a man REPENT to be “born of God”?
The Greek word translated “repent” means “to have a change of mind”.The Jews were told to repent of their past way of life.They could not “serve” the Lord if they continued to live the way that they had been living.But yes,a man must have a change of mind in order to believe the gospel.By nature a man is an enemey of God.So he must change his mind about God,and the gospel that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit is the very instrument that brings about “repentance”.

I realize the context of Matthew 7 is false teachers, but Jesus speaks within that context of those that DO, and those that DON’T do the Father’s will. In this passage Jesus said of those two groups, that those who DO the Father’s will are those that will enter the kingdom of heaven.
The “kingdom” spoken of here is in regard to the kingdom which will be set up on heaven.And the Lord will “cause” all believers to do Hs will:

”And I will put My Spirit within you,and cause you to walk in My statutes…and do them”(Ex.36:27).

Some may view these two remarks as contradictory. I am certain you can clarify this for me. Perhaps you are you saying that by a WORK we can be “born of God”, yet by our work(s) we cannot stand before God righteous ???
Anyone recognizes that “believing” is not a “work”.A work is something that is done in the flesh.So when the Lord spoke of doing the “work” of God He was merely using the word in a figurative fashion.

Those who are “born of God” are born through faith and not through the will of the flesh:

”Who were born,not of blood,nor of the will of the flesh,nor of the will of man,but of God”(Jn.1:13).

Luke does not record Paul’s trip into Arabia. However, in Acts 9:19b, Luke takes up Paul’s work upon his return to Damascus – which Paul tells us about in Gal. 1:17.So you are saying that Paul went to Arabia between Acts9:19a and 19b?

”And when he had received food,he was strenghtened.Then was Paul certain days with the discilples who were at Damascus”(Acts9:19).

There is absolutely nothing in this verse that would indicate that Paul went into Arabia between the first part of that verse and the last part.You say that this is speaking of Paul’s “return” to Damascus,but there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that indicates that he ever left Damascus.

Then after receiving the gospel, Paul tells us that he “CONFERRED” with no man. Paul did not seek out any man for the purpose of receiving any type of advice or instruction.
Here is the meaning of the word “confer” means at Gal.1:16:

“with a dat. Of the pers. to put one’s self upon another by going to him,i.e. to commit or betake one’s self to another…to consult,to take one into counsel…Gal.1.16(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

By the definition of this Greek expert Paul did in fact “confer” with men when he “was certain days with the disciples” and it is certain that he conferred with other men when he preached Christ in the synagogues.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Apollos
April 21st, 2005, 11:29 PM
Jerry –

Thank you for your reply.


Just because I accept the teaching of the Scriptures you say that I accept “easy believe-ism”.The Lord Jesus said that those who ‘believe” His teaching received eternal life and shall not come into judgment (Jn.5:24).My point would be do you accept ALL that the scriptures teach about what it takes to be saved. You say here that those who believe “His teaching” are saved – Does this not require more than just “believing” (mental acknowledgement)? Before this post you have indicated this was all that was required, but now I am not certain your view has not “morphed” somewhat.


He said that His “words” were Spirit and life (Jn.6:63). I agree, but that means ALL of His words, not just to use those passages about belief. More is required than mental assent.


Peter said that he was “born again” by the word of God (1Pet.1:23). I believe the word of God tells what we need to do to be “born again”. Agreed?

It seems as if you will not believe so why would you call it easy believ-ism? It is evidently not easy for you.I don’t believe what you are saying in reference to “believing”. I believe being saved or “born again” requires more than you suggest.


If it is so “easy” then why does John say that those who have “faith” have “overcome the world” (1Jn.5:4)?Again, your “definition” of “belief” or “faith” is “easier” (requires less) than what I believe the Bible defines. See more below.


The phrase “in the heart” is to distinguish those who “believed on Him” because they had a “political” faith from those who truly believed that He was the Messiah,the Son of God.I am not certain how to respond to this because you have used -3- undefined man-made terms here – “in the heart”, “political faith”, and “truly believed”. I earlier suggested we use scripture to define “faith” or “belief” – may I continue to suggest such – for both example and precept. Jesus not trusting in human nature in John 2:23 does not define the terms used here, and this verse seems more a commentary on the human condition, more than on the type of faith they had. I am more than surprised that you did not take the position here that, because “many believed”, that they were saved “at that point” (or is that only if you perceive that they “truly believed” in a particular verse ?).

I asked in my last post if a man must REPENT to be “born of God” ?? You replied…

The Greek word translated “repent” means “to have a change of mind”. … …But yes,a man must have a change of mind in order to believe the gospel.Was that a yes that repentance is necessary in order to believe the gospel or a yes to be “born of God” ? I take you to mean the latter.

-2- points:

1.) I mentioned earlier in this post in regards to “easy believe-ism” that your view of what is required to be saved seemed to have “morphed”. You are now including repentance in the path of being saved / being “born of God” – so I would say I am correct that your view is morphing as I continue to probe that view of yours.

2.) Of the verses that you and I discussed in our prior posts (ei. John 1:12,13, 5:24, 1Jn 5:1-5, 1Pt.1:23,25), NONE of them mention REPENTANCE. This validates my early point that “ONE VERSE does not tell us everything that we need to know to be ‘born of God’ ”… The verses you have used certainly don’t mention all we need to know to be “born of God” as indicated by the point you make now on repentance.


By nature a man is an enemey of God.So he must change his mind about God,and the gospel that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit is the very instrument that brings about “repentance”.Enemies of God by nature? I disagree. But I don’t care to discuss this point. I do agree that God’s word is the instrument of power that brings about repentance – 2 Cor. 7:10, Romans 1:16.

At this point in our discussion, I have your list of things required to be “born of God” to be inclusive of hearing (or reading) the Word, believeing that Word, and that Word causing one to repent. We shall see if anything else has been overlooked from your list of “essentials” in time.

In reference to Matthew 7:21f you replied…

The “kingdom” spoken of here is in regard to the kingdom which will be set up on heaven.And the Lord will “cause” all believers to do Hs will… (Ex.36:27). I believe this kingdom that Jesus spoke in Matt. 7 is the kingdom that the saints were already being “translated into” as mentioned in Colossians 1:13 (cf. Rev. 1:9) and is in no way related to Exodus 36:27. But I care not to discuss the “kingdom” at this time.


Anyone recognizes that “believing” is not a “work”.A work is something that is done in the flesh.So when the Lord spoke of doing the “work” of God He was merely using the word in a figurative fashion.What “figure” would that be? Jesus clearly meant that this is something man must do here – that is to believe! John 6:29 says believeing IS a work and I agree with John. And if by “something that is done in the flesh” you mean something like a work of merit, then I can agree.
There are -3- types of works shown in the NT: 1.)Works of God, 2.) of the (OT) Law, & 3.) of merit. We must do the “works” of God.
As I pointed out a perceived contradiction of yours from your last post, it looks to me that you perceived how by “works” a man is “born of God”, but refuse to accept that by “works” a man is also “righteous” before Him.


Those who are “born of God” are born through faith and not through the will of the flesh… John 1:13… Our definitions of “faith” differ but I think we agree on this premise. We are “born of God” by doing what He directs us to do – these being works of God !
<<<*>>>

So you are saying that Paul went to Arabia between Acts9:19a and 19b?Yes! Some translations (Ex. ASV, RSV, NASV) indicate the change in thought Luke presents at this point and separate these 2 sentences by paragraph. Paul received food and was strengthened. THEN is an adverb… def. - next in order – of time. We do not know exactly how much time.

Acts9:19 – A.“ …and he took food and was strengthened.
B. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus.” ASV


There is absolutely nothing in this verse that would indicate that Paul went into Arabia between the first part of that verse and the last part.I agree. Look back at my post. I said – “Luke does not record Paul’s trip into Arabia”. But by comparing Luke/Acts 9 with Paul/Galatians 1, we can make a more complete chain of events. I included my time table – you made NO remark !


[A.]You say that this is speaking of Paul’s “return” to Damascus,[B.]but there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that indicates that he ever left Damascus.
A.) This is not what I said either. Luke does not speak of Paul’s “return” – look back again. I said – “However, in Acts 9:19b, Luke takes up Paul’s work upon his return to Damascus – which Paul tells us about in Gal. 1:17.”. Acts 9:19b is where Luke picks up what Paul was doing – which is at the point of Paul’s “return” from Damascus, as we know from Galatians chapter 1.

B.) We know Paul left Damascus – read Galatians 1:17 – “… returned again unto Damascus…” You are going have to figure out WHEN Paul did this. Do you know? If so, share it with us. If not, you have based your theology on the unknown! I also solicit more careful reading from you!


Here is the meaning of the word “confer” means at Gal.1:16: “with a dat. Of the pers. to put one’s self upon another by going to him,i.e. to commit or betake one’s self to another…to consult,to take one into counsel…Gal.1.16(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”). I have no problem with the definition. This definition is just how I used it to explain the event in Galatians 1:16… that being, Paul did not seek “consult” with any man or “take one into counsel”. Paul did not seek advice or instruction from any man. Now let’s look back at YOUR earlier quote.


Secondly,Paul revealed that when he received the gospel (that he preached to the Gentiles) that he did not confer with other men but instead he immediately went into Arabia.The Acts narrative reveals that when Paul received the gospel (that he preached to the Jews) he did in fact confer with other men… (Emphasis mine – A.)
It was YOU that failed to make the distinction between CONFER in Gal. 1:16 and PREACH in Acts 9:20 here. You are using –2- DIFFERENT words with –2- DIFFERENT meanings interchangeably.

Now for you, here is the definition of “preach” as used in Acts 9:20 –
“… to herald, to proclaim after the manner of a herald… always with the suggestion of gravity, formality, and authority which must be listened to and obeyed. – Thayer.

As you can see, what Paul did in Acts 9:20 – preach is different than what Paul did in Gal. 1:16 – confer. Therefore, when you compare these two you compare actions that are not equivalent – it is apples and oranges! Further, Paul’s first action is NOT mutually exclusive of the second. Your argument above for two revelations fails because it is based on errant information!


By the definition of this Greek expert Paul did in fact “confer” with men when he “was certain days with the disciples” and it is certain that he conferred with other men when he preached Christ in the synagogues.In fact, Paul did not. Our Greek expert Mr. Thayer tells us that Paul “confered” in Galatians 1:16, not in Acts 9:20. Mr. Thayer also tells us that Paul “preached” in Acts 9:20, not in Galatians 1:16. And by Mr. Thayer’s definitions we know these are different words with actions that are not equivalent.

Look at the color above in the quote from yourself. You take the word “confer” out of Galatians 1:16 and shove it into Acts 9:20 – “was certain days with the disciples”. “Confer” is not found in Acts 9:20. Jerry, you know this is improper exegesis – why are you attempting to do this?

Paul received only one revelation from Jesus Christ, which is recorded in two passages – Acts 9 & Galatians 1. Both passages together give us a fuller view of the events of the time and when they happened. Neither one of these passages indicates a second event of revelation at an unknown place and unknown time. Neither record contradicts the other.

Jerry Shugart
April 22nd, 2005, 11:10 AM
I believe the word of God tells what we need to do to be “born again”.
Apollos,

Peter said that he was born again by the word of God.How can one be born again by the word of God but by "believing" that word.Peter does not say that he was born again by "doing" the commandments of God.

I believe being saved or “born again” requires more than you suggest.
Yes,you believe that one or another knid of "works" are also required,don't you?

I asked in my last post if a man must REPENT to be “born of God” ??
The people who received the gospel were told to repent (or change their mind) in regard to their past way of living.This is in regard to "service" or "work" for the Lord.The Baptist came to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord"(Lk.1:17).They could not serve Him if they contiued in their past lifestyle.But if a believer[s "service" or "work" for the Lord comes up short they will still be saved (1Cor.3:15).

So the repentance that the Baptist spoke of is in regard to "service" and not a requirement in order to be born again.

Of the verses that you and I discussed in our prior posts (ei. John 1:12,13, 5:24, 1Jn 5:1-5, 1Pt.1:23,25), NONE of them mention REPENTANCE. This validates my early point that “ONE VERSE does not tell us everything that we need to know to be ‘born of God’ ”… The verses you have used certainly don’t mention all we need to know to be “born of God” as indicated by the point you make now on repentance.
So Paul just forgot to mention "works" when asked what a person must do to be saved?:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).

At this point in our discussion, I have your list of things required to be “born of God” to be inclusive of hearing (or reading) the Word, believeing that Word, and that Word causing one to repent. We shall see if anything else has been overlooked from your list of “essentials” in time.
Of course you must be referring to the Nicodemus sermon in regard to the water and the Spirit.

The Lord Jesus was not speaking of a rite of water baptism in this verse.Instead,he was speaking in "type".He said,"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?(Jn.3:12).He also makes it plain that Nicedomus should have know what HE was speaking of.And if we go to the OT we can see a chapter that deals with the nation of Israel being "born again" by the Word and the Spirit.First we see that Israel is described as being dried bones and in the "grave"(Ez.37:11,13).

Then we see that she is brought back to life by the Word and the Spirit (Ez.37:4,5,9,10).

So we see that the "eartly" teaching of which the Lord spoke was in regard to the Israelites being "born again" by the word of God that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit.And Peter did not leave out anything when he said that the sinner is born again by the word of God (1Pet.1:23).The sinner is born again when he believes the gospel which comes in the power of the Holy Spirit (1Thess.1:5).

Our definitions of “faith” differ but I think we agree on this premise. We are “born of God” by doing what He directs us to do – these being works of God !
If you think that you can be saved by "works" of any kind then you should consider the words of Paul:

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his works:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life"(Ro.1:5-7).

You must "continue" in well doing inorder to receive eternal life.But those who do not continue and commit a sin will perish.

By this way Paul says that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:23).

But if you think that you can continue in well doing then go ahead and try and be the first man who is saved by his works.

I agree. Look back at my post. I said – “Luke does not record Paul’s trip into Arabia”. But by comparing Luke/Acts 9 with Paul/Galatians 1, we can make a more complete chain of events. I included my time table – you made NO remark !
I did make a remark.I said that it is obvious that Paul did in fact consult other men at Acts 9.
[quoe]Paul did not seek “consult” with any man or “take one into counsel”. Paul did not seek advice or instruction from any man.[/quote]
That is not the only meaning of the word "consult".

It was YOU that failed to make the distinction between CONFER in Gal. 1:16 and PREACH in Acts 9:20 here. You are using –2- DIFFERENT words with –2- DIFFERENT meanings interchangeably.
The word "preach" can indeed be fit into the definition that I gave for "consult":

Here is the meaning of the word “confer” means at Gal.1:16: “with a dat. Of the pers. to put one’s self upon another by going to him,i.e. to commit or betake one’s self to another…to consult,to take one into counsel…Gal.1.16'(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).
How can one preach without taking a person into counsel?

The words are not mutually exclusive.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Apollos
April 23rd, 2005, 03:38 PM
Jerry –
Thank you for your reply.

Peter said that he was born again by the word of God.How can one be born again by the word of God but by "believing" that word.Peter does not say that he was born again by "doing" the commandments of God. What Peter suggests by “the word of God” is ALL that God has to say about being “born again”. I am not meaning to be difficult, but the opposite of what you have presented here is that we are saved by “doing” nothing. Peter certainly did not suggest that! “Believing” is Doing something and we must believe ALL of that word.

Yes,you believe that one or another knid of "works" are also required,don't you?
One or another kind? I am disappointed you would say such a thing. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that it is by doing the “works of God” (ex. John 6:29) that one appropriates (not merits) God’s blessings – including salvation.

Not every man will be saved – Matthew 7:14. What separates those that will be saved from those that will be lost? It is what they DO! EVERYONE believes man must DO something to appropriate the salvation God offers man by His grace, except Calvinists. (While it is only Calvinists that truly believe that man must DO nothing, they do recognize something must be DONE, so they have God DO that for man instead.) Whether or not you will admit it, you believe man must DO something to be saved. You and I differ ONLY on WHAT MUST BE DONE to be saved! You already have hear, believe, and repentance on YOUR list, as I have previously stated in my last post. Is there anything else?

YET, it is by the GRACE of God we are saved. But how can this be? Do I not contradict myself? I do not, for I recognize I can never “merit”, earn, or deserve the glory and salvation God affords me through His grace, made possible by the blood of Jesus on the cross, by any or all that I do for Him – Luke 17:7-10. I recognize that I have only done that which it is my duty to do – the duty placed upon me by God to do.

Eph. 2:8 –“For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; 9not of works, that no man should glory.

We are saved by His GRACE, through our faith (believing ALL that He says). This grace is not of ourselves, that is, there is nothing in us that merits that GRACE – there is no reason found in us that God should give His grace to us! This is why is it is GIFT ! We do not receive that GRACE by doing “boastful works”, ei. works that would allow us to boast we earned or deserved His GRACE – works of merit. We receive His grace through faith.

Now we are back to: What does “faith” consist of – what does “faith” require? What does it mean to “believe on” Him? To come to salvation we ask, at what “point” do we have the “faith” to be granted God’s grace? (I will save my analogies for a later time.)


So the repentance that the Baptist spoke of is in regard to "service" and not a requirement in order to be born again.
But repentance is required. Without a change of mind, a man will not turn to God to be born again – he won’t want to be born again, and he won’t be… why would he? Man’s mind must be in accord with the will of God. Jesus, Paul, and others speak of repentance as being necessary/required for man to approach salvation – Lk. 13:3, Acts 17:30. God is commanding repentance!


Apollos >> Of the verses that you and I discussed in our prior posts (ei. John 1:12,13, 5:24, 1Jn 5:1-5, 1Pt.1:23,25), NONE of them mention REPENTANCE. This validates my early point that “ONE VERSE does not tell us everything that we need to know to be ‘born of God’ ”… The verses you have used certainly don’t mention all we need to know to be “born of God” as indicated by the point you make now on repentance.
Jerry >>> So Paul just forgot to mention "works" when asked what a person must do to be saved?:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).

Quik answer: Well Jerry, you say repentance is necessary – and this verse doesn’t say anything about repentance, does it? So Paul just forgot to mention “repentance” when asked what a person must do to be saved, huh?

Full answer: “Believe on” is an expression that lends itself to the idea of recognizing and appealing to the authority of the LORD Jesus (see also John 1:12 again). Christ has ALL authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18f) and it is to that authority – ALL of that authority, that we are to submit ourselves. Mental assent is insufficient.

Once again, ONE verse does not tell us all we need to know to be saved.


Of course you must be referring to the Nicodemus sermon [Jn.3:3] in regard to the water and the Spirit.
I believe Jesus was referring to water baptism in this passage. I also believe you made some incorrect application in your “types”. And while I realize that I was the one that brought up John 3:3f, may I suggest we not yet debate this passage until you and I get the “born again” and “believe on” discussion cleared up a bit more. If we do not agree IF a man must do anything to be saved, then why debate the things we think a man should do at this point in the discussion?


If you think that you can be saved by "works" of any kind then you should consider the words of Paul: "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his works: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life".[#Typo corrrected to Rom. 2:5-7]
You must "continue" in well doing inorder to receive eternal life.But those who do not continue and commit a sin will perish.
By this way Paul says that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:23).
But if you think that you can continue in well doing then go ahead and try and be the first man who is saved by his works.
(First, let’s note that we have changed from talking about OBTAINING salvation, to MAINTAINING (keeping) salvation.)
Romans 2: Verse 4 asks if we despise God’s longsuffering [of our sins] while His goodness attempts to lead us to repentance and
(Verse 5) while our impenitent hearts store up wrath for us in view of God’s coming judgment.
Verse 6 says God will judge us according to our works – cf. Rev. 20:12.
Verse 7 - Paul tells us that God gives those who patiently continue in well-doing eternal life.
Verse 8 says those that “obey not the truth” shall receive things not so nice from God.
Verse 9&10 says this applies to both Jews and Gentiles – for those doing good or doing evil.

I have already discussed above that I do not believe I am saved by WORKS, so let’s proceed to commission of sin. Paul is not suggesting sinless perfection here, but, as he stated, to patiently CONTINUE in well doing after we repent of sin. Should we sin, John informs us that by confessing our sins (1Jn 1:9) God will forgive us – cf. Acts 8:22.
<<<+>>>

Apollos >> I included my time table – you made NO remark !
Jerry >>> I did make a remark.I said that it is obvious that Paul did in fact consult other men at Acts 9.
I was looking for remarks about the time table. Did you agree with it? WHEN do you think Paul went to Arabia?

In our discussion about the word “confer” in Galatians 1:16 you stated:
That is not the only meaning of the word "consult".
Okay, it is not the only meaning, BUT the meaning will be determined by the CONTEXT. I previously posted that at this point in Galatians 1 Paul was defending his apostleship (not the first time in his epistles) and Paul’s point in doing such was to show of a certainty that he did not get the gospel by “conferring” with man (ei. consulting with man for advice/instruction), but that he got it by revelation. This CONTEXT won’t allow the other meanings.

In reference to Acts 9:20 you stated:
The word "preach" can indeed be fit into the definition that I gave for "consult".
Maybe it can in English, but it can’t in the Greek. Mr. Thayer shows us two different words with different meanings. I am certain the HS would have used prosanatithemi (“confer” – Gal. 1:16) in BOTH passages if that was the thought that needed to be presented in both passages. But the HS chose kerusso (“preach” – Acts 19:20) to convey the proper thought in this passage. We “mix&match” a lot in English – in Greek it ain’t so, expecially since it is a “dead” language! The definitions of the words are different to convey different thoughts, and are, therefore, mutually exclusive. This was some heavy rationalizing by you on word usage.

Anyone computer savy enough to find this thread at TOL, can go to a site such as Blue Letter Bible, and with a few clicks, find all this info for themselves firsthand.

Jerry Shugart
April 24th, 2005, 09:05 AM
What Peter suggests by “the word of God” is ALL that God has to say about being “born again”. I am not meaning to be difficult, but the opposite of what you have presented here is that we are saved by “doing” nothing. Peter certainly did not suggest that! “Believing” is Doing something and we must believe ALL of that word.
Apollos,

You must "add" to Peter's words in order to cling to your false idea that "works" are necessary for salvation.But the following demonstrates that "works" (which cannot be performed apart from the will of the flesh) are not involved in the process of being "born of God":

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"(Jn.1:12,13).

The sinner is born of God at the moment he believes the gospel,and this process has nothing to do with "works".

One or another kind? I am disappointed you would say such a thing. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that it is by doing the “works of God” (ex. John 6:29) that one appropriates (not merits) God’s blessings – including salvation.
If one does "works" to be saved then the reward is not reckoned of grace but instaed the reward is owed (Ro.4:4).

If works are required then the reward is not of grace--if of grace then it is not of works,otherwise grace is no more grace (Ro.11:6).

YET, it is by the GRACE of God we are saved. But how can this be? Do I not contradict myself?
Yes,you are right.You do contradict yourself.

We are saved by His GRACE, through our faith (believing ALL that He says). This grace is not of ourselves, that is, there is nothing in us that merits that GRACE – there is no reason found in us that God should give His grace to us!
You say that there is nothing in us that merits salvation.But then you turn around and say that we cannot be saved without doing "works",as if these works have nothing to do with our salvation.

Now we are back to: What does “faith” consist of – what does “faith” require? What does it mean to “believe on” Him? To come to salvation we ask, at what “point” do we have the “faith” to be granted God’s grace?
What does faith consist of,you ask?:

"Where is boasting then?It is excluded.By what law?Of works?Nay,but by the law of faith"(Ro.3:27).

Quik answer: Well Jerry, you say repentance is necessary – and this verse doesn’t say anything about repentance, does it? So Paul just forgot to mention “repentance” when asked what a person must do to be saved, huh?
When one goes from being an "unbeliever" unto being a "believer",then it is obvious that since he now believes that he has also repented.

Until you come to an understanding of the true meaning of grace you are going to remain in the dark.Grace and works are mutually exclusive.It is those who believe the "gospel of grace" who are saved and it is only those people who "know the things that are freely given to us of God"(1Cor.2:12).

WHEN do you think Paul went to Arabia?
He could have gone there after he went to Tarsus (Acts9:30).

In His grace,--Jerry

”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Apollos
April 28th, 2005, 04:49 PM
Jerry –

Thank you for your reply.

Apollos >> “Believing” is Doing something and we must believe ALL of that word.
Jerry >>>You must "add" to Pater's words [1 Peter 1: 23]in order to cling to your false idea that "works" are necessary for salvation.
Add to Peter’s words? Not at all, please finish the thought presented here by Peter. He says we are “born again” by the “word of God”. Now can that be accomplished by one single word or two? Would that be by 2 sentences or 3? Perhaps 1 passage or 2 ? Did Peter mean 1 epistle or more? When we read the “word of God” in the passage it must mean ALL of His word. When it comes to being “born again” we need to know everything that God has said about being “born again”. I re-affirm, no one verse tells us everything we need to know about obtaining salvation. You have also affirmed this but for some reason attempt to deny yourself.


But the following demonstrates that "works" (which cannot be performed apart from the will of the flesh) are not involved in the process of being "born of God":

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"(Jn.1:12,13).
If man is obeying God’s will in doing the works that he does, then it is God’s will that he is doing - not the will of the flesh. A man in the flesh is able to “will” himself to do God’s will (John. 7:17), which is a big part of repentance – man must have a change of mind toward God and in doing His will.

These works may be done in the fleshly body, but we accomplish “the works of God” in this fleshly tabernacle – the source of these works being God. When God directs us through His word about being “born again”, we are but doing what God states He wants in the way God states He wants it to be. When God includes “works” it must be what God wants – and being “born again” does involve “works of God”. Only those who misunderstand or have a problem with what God says about being “born again” try to change or try to ignore what God has chosen to be done.


The sinner is born of God at the moment he believes the gospel,and this process has nothing to do with "works".
I previously illustrated and said that none of the verses that we have discussed teach this “at the moment” birth that you add into the thought of the passage. Nor do they teach salvation at the point of belief (mental assent). John 1:12,13 does not teach such, as the verse teaches the “who” that were “born”, were born [not by the will of the flesh] but of [the “will”] of God – those who make an appeal to His authority (“believe on his name”). We must know what God’s will is about being “born” of Him and appeal to his authority. It is out of context to insert the thought of “easy believe-ism” into this statement about doing the authority & “will” of God.

What makes people so unhappy with the thought that a man MUST DO something to appropriate salvation from God ? What has people conditioned to not want to attain to “obedience of faith” ? I expect it is their understanding of faith and works. With little exception, God blessings have been contingent upon obedient faith from man to receive them. Example:

The Walls of Jericho… (see Joshua chapter 6)

God said – All the men of war were to march around the city once a day for 6 days – with 7 priests bearing 7 rams horns (trumpets) going before the ark. On the seventh day, after marching around the city seven times, the priests were to blow their trumpets. When they heard a long blast upon the trumpets, and all the people shouted with a great shout, the walls would fall down flat.

The people did as God required (6:20) and the walls fell flat – as God promised!

Analysis of God’s plan: How silly, the plan doesn’t look anything like a plan that man would make – but then God’s ways are not the way of man. God made the plan – it was up to man to faithfully obey to receive what God promised.

The plan included “works” that did not allow any boasting – man could not brag about what he had done, marching about and blowing trumpets. This was hardly military logistics and planning. To a man of war, it was embarrassing!


The plan of God included works that were not meritorious. Would anyone think that marching around the walls, in place of something like a full frontal assault, would make anyone think they deserved the end result? Would any dare say that they EARNED what God gave to them for their obedience? No.

God said march and blow, and upon completion of the tasks, God delivered what He promised. Doing the “works of God’ was followed by God’s blessing.
<<<*>>>
One kind of work or another? I am disappointed you would say such a thing. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that it is by doing the “works of God” (ex. John 6:29 – not works of merit or of the Law) that one appropriates the salvation of God.

If one does "works" to be saved then the reward is not reckoned of grace but instaed the reward is owed (Ro.4:4).IF the “works” are done in the attempt to EARN or MERIT the reward I would agree. A better understanding of the CONTEXT of “works” Paul uses here in this verse is needed by many. But if one “works” by faith in the promise of God to give His blessing, then it is by GRACE.

If works are required then the reward is not of grace--if of grace then it is not of works,otherwise grace is no more grace (Ro.11:6). There are -3- types of works shown in the NT: 1.)Works of God, 2.) of the (OT) Law, & 3.) of merit. We must do the “works” of God.
In this verse, “works” of the OT law are the CONTEXT of Paul’s remarks and are not “required” as you put it. Paul is explaining to the Jewish part of his audience that grace displaced OT works.

Jerry >>> Yes,you are right.You do contradict yourself. Ouch – you took this “cheap shot” because you have not been paying attention in the past to:
a.) the different TYPES of works as seen in scripture and,
b.) the context of how the word “works” is used within these verses you quote and other passages as well .

You say that there is nothing in us that merits salvation.But then you turn around and say that we cannot be saved without doing "works",as if these works have nothing to do with our salvation.I can do better than that – there is nothing man can DO to merit/earn our salvation. But there is something man can do to appropriate salvation.
God as creator knew man’s short-comings, so God devised a plan whereby we can appropriate salvation by His grace. God chose some “works” (ei. works of God) for man to do. These “works” will never EARN that salvation. These “works” will never dispose MERIT within us. These “works” will never allow us to BOAST we devised or DESRVE that salvation.
God chose and God set up for man to do some “works” that exemplify obedient faith. When man faithfully complies with God’s will, man knows that he shall receive the blessing. Man will know that he did not EARN or MERIT that blessing, man will know he received it all by the grace of God – for it was He that devised the plan and made it possible for man.
Ironically, you believe man MUST DO (hear, believe, & repent) something yourself, yet do not admit to seeing the difference in the works that must be done as opposed to those works that are excluded.

Luke 17:10 – “Even so ye also, when ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do.”

What does faith consist of,you ask?:

"Where is boasting then?It is excluded.By what law?Of works?Nay,but by the law of faith"(Ro.3:27). This is a perfect verse to point out the TYPES of works under discussion. Works of boasting (merit) – these are excluded. Works of the Law – excluded. Works as required by faith – yea, by the law of faith – these works are included.


When one goes from being an "unbeliever" unto being a "believer",then it is obvious that since he now believes that he has also repented.Why is it obvious? What is here to indicate there has been a “change of mind” ? (2 Cor. 7:10) Nothing! Rather, the only thing a change of BELIEF indicates is that there has been an acknowledgment of information.


Until you come to an understanding of the true meaning of grace you are going to remain in the dark.Grace and works are mutually exclusive. Not at all. I believe I have clearly stated the relationship between grace and works above. You have not noticed the distinction in the NT made in regards to the types of “works”, and how God chose His works and uses those works that man may access His grace.


It is those who believe the "gospel of grace" who are saved and it is only those people who "know the things that are freely given to us of God"(1Cor.2:12). You have used this verse out of context.

BTW – Did you ever determine with any certainty WHEN Paul went to Arabia???
Why do you think it may have been Tarsus @ Acts 9:30??

<<<<<<*>>>>>>

Jerry Shugart
April 28th, 2005, 05:45 PM
Add to Peter’s words? Not at all, please finish the thought presented here by Peter. He says we are “born again” by the “word of God”. Now can that be accomplished by one single word or two? Would that be by 2 sentences or 3? Perhaps 1 passage or 2 ? Did Peter mean 1 epistle or more? When we read the “word of God” in the passage it must mean ALL of His word.
Apollos,

All of His word?Did you even bother to read Peter's words?If you would have you would know that he was referring to the "gospel":

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever... And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you"(1Pet.1:23,25).

That is why Paul calls the "word of truth" the "gospel of your savation"(Eph.1:13).

If no one can be born again until they hear all of God's word then we would all be in trouble.

I previously illustrated and said that none of the verses that we have discussed teach this “at the moment” birth that you add into the thought of the passage. Nor do they teach salvation at the point of belief (mental assent).
If a man's "born again" experience does not take place in a moment of time are we supposed to believe that this is a life-long birthing process?And if it life/long,why do the writers of the Scriptures speak of this experience in the "past" tense?

And are you not aware that after we believe that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the time when we will put on our new,immortal bodies?:

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession...the redemption of our body"(Eph.1:13,14,Eph.4:30,Ro.8:23).

What makes people so unhappy with the thought that a man MUST DO something to appropriate salvation from God ?
The reason some are unhappy by the teaching that "works" are required for salvation is because it is not Scriptual.

What has people conditioned to not want to attain to “obedience of faith” ? I expect it is their understanding of faith and works. With little exception, God blessings have been contingent upon obedient faith from man to receive them. Example:

The people did as God required (6:20) and the walls fell flat – as God promised!
This says nothing about eternal salvation.And the Christians that I know do in fact strive to be obedient to the faith.

The plan included “works” that did not allow any boasting – man could not brag about what he had done, marching about and blowing trumpets.
The verse you are referring to says that man is saved by grace (unmerited favor) through faith and not by works:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast"(Eph.2:8,9).

All the rest of your arguments that some kind of works are necessary for salvation are made null and void because of the fact that once the sinner believes the gospel he is sealed by the Holy Spirit and will remain sealed until he receives his new,glorified body.

One last thing.According to the Acts narrative it would be possible for him to go to Arabia after he got to Tarsus at Acts 9:30).

But the following verses leave no time when Paul would have gone into Arabia:

"And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And immediately he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God"(Acts 9:18-20).

We are supposed to believe that sometime in this time period Paul went to Arabia?And during this time he did not "confer" with any other men?Even though he was just saved and had the most amazing experience of his life and he was around other believers we are supposed to believe that he did not "confer" with anyone?

The word "confer" at Gal.1:16 means "to take one into counsel"."Counsel" means "to give or receive advice or opinion."

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

BChristianK
April 29th, 2005, 05:01 PM
All,

This has been one of those topics that I have gone back and forth over for awhile on this bulletin board.

One the one hand, Bob Hill does a pretty compelling job spelling out the differences in the gospels, showing how there are different requirements for one verses the other. There are those, like Jerry Shugart, that disavow the distinctions such as OSAS for one dispensation, and conditional security for another. Honestly, I have come away from conversations with them wondering what the big difference really is for Jerry Shugart type dispensationalists.

But for the more Hill and Enyart type of mid-acts dispensationalists there is a compelling reason to hear their arguments out.

That being said, I have come down on the side of a non-mid acts dispensationalist and a non-dispensationalist at that.

There are essentially 3 reasons why I have done so.

One: A lack of exegetical fidelity in pretribulation rapture eschatology.

1st. The lack of an exegetical fidelity in pretrib rapture type eschatology.
There is simply no clear articulation of a 7 year tribulation or a rapture prior to the tribulation in the New Testament. Most justification for the a pre-tribulation rapture rests on an interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel, inserting an arbitrary parenthesis between the 69th week of Daniel and the 70th week of Daniel. I have often asked those who believe in such a parenthesis what exegetical reason they have for interpreting this passage in such a way.

I have never heard an exegetical answer. I have heard numerable eisegetical answers that are aimed at reading dispensationalism into the 70 weeks of Daniel but no exegetical reason.

The bottom line for me is that week 2 followed directly after week 1, week 3 followed directly after week 2 so why doesn’t week 70 follow directly after week 69 as weeks are apt to do?

More on that point, I have found no reason to interpret that the rapture event as is described in 1 Thessalonians 4 as a pretribulation rapture.



Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.
Two important things this passage does say. One that this was not a brand spankin’ baby fresh new revelation from God given only to Paul to teach to the church. It was, as Paul says, “according to the Lords own word.”
Second, were one to make a primae facia comparison of this passage to Matthew 24:30 they would most likely conclude it was the same event, not a different one.

Consider the comparison:



For the Lord himself will (1) come down from heaven, with a loud command, (2) with the voice of the archangel and with (3) the trumpet call of God, and (4)the dead in Christ will rise first.




At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the (1) Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. (2) And he will send his angels with (3) a loud trumpet call, and (4) they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Incontestable parallelisms
(1) Son of man coming on the clouds
(2) Angelic hosts accompany Jesus
(3) Call of the Trump
(4) Gathering of the faithful.

Yet mid-acts dispensationalism must make two separate events out of these two passages in order to salvage a pretribulation rapture.

I just couldn’t continue to be honest and claim that a common sense, unbiased interpretation of these two passages suggests that they were different.

Second, the historical problem of the mid-acts dispensational repudiation of believers baptism.

The New Testament affirmation that Paul practiced baptism and that the early church continued to practice baptism continuously with no break and no indication that the cessation of water baptism was ever communicated to them. Furthermore, the only verse that one could rest the a theology of the cessation of baptism upon was the verse in 1 Corinthians.




For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. (1 Corinthians 1:17)



Now, there is no real easy answer to this passage. But for the mid-acts dispensationalist who sees this passage as an abrogation of baptism, the problem becomes why the early church seemingly ignored Paul. Yet even more of a question, why would Paul, who was sent by Christ not to baptize, baptize the woman at Lystra and her household (Acts 16:15), the Philippian Jailer and his household (Acts 16:33), Crispus and “many of the Corinthians” (Acts 18:8) and some disciples previously acquainted with the baptism of John (Acts 19:5) as well as Gaius and Stephanas (probably numbered among the “many” of Acts16)?

Can we assume that Paul was such an idiot as to practice something that God had told him he shouldn’t be doing?
Or should we do what most mid-acts dispensationalists do and say that God revealed the abrogation of baptism to Paul sometime during latter half of his third missionary journey long after he had founded and visited most of the churches that would become the early church.

So lets review, God calls Paul to be the disciple to the gentiles and he is sent out on his first missionary journey establishing churches and baptizing as he goes, he returns and goes on a second missionary journey founding other churches and strengthening the ones he planted during the first missionary journey and then he gets halfway through the third missionary journey when God drops the bomb and tells him to baptize no more.

What does Paul do. Send out an all point bulletin to all the churches he had founded and baptized in? No. He includes some obscure reference to his not being sent to baptize couched not in a dissertation on baptism at all, but couched in the context of admonishing those to identify with Christ not specific personalities.



For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you.
Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?


Here’s what’s troubling to the mid-acts dispensational position. Paul does not repudiate their baptisms but rather uses their legitimate baptisms, done in the name of Christ, to make the point that their current enamorment with certain personalities such as Apollos is inappropriate.
Then he goes on to say that Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel.
It just makes more sense to suggest that the context in which Paul makes the statement informs the statement itself, and that as such, Paul was not repudiating baptism, or abrogating baptism, but declaring that his purpose was not to get in the lake with them and baptize them but to leave that up to others in whom the Corinthians would do well not to think more highly of than they ought for they are not baptized in their name but in the Name of Christ.

Third, the historical problems of The Great Commission in Mid-Acts dispensationalism.

I can’t count the number of times I have heard mid-acts dispensationalists say that the gospels are products pertinent primarily for the “gospel of the circumcision.” Thus Matthew 28:19-20 was given as a commissioning statement to go make disciples of Jews.

There are 2 basic problems with this that are t00 problematic for me to embrace the mid-acts dispensational position.
1. Though the words were spoken to the disciples prior to the conversion of Paul and the supposed advent of the dispensation of Grace the words were written to the church and meant to be applied long, long, long after the conversion of Paul and well into the supposed dispensation of Grace. Thus we are left to assume that Matthew consummates his gospel with a message that is completely irrelevant.
How cathartic….
Matthew was written between 40-45 AD at the earliest, 60-65 at the latest at least 6 years after the conversion of Paul.
What would the purpose be in concluding a gospel account with a commission that was largely irrelevant?
Second, the greek word that matthew employs (eqnh) is a word that is commonly employed to describe gentiles and gentile/Jewish mixed groups much, much more often than it is used to describe people of Jewish decent and were that not enough, eqnh is used throughout the book of Matthew to refer to gentiles (Matthew 6:32, 12:21, 25:32) In fact, I can’t think of one other verse where Matthew uses the term eqnh where it means Jews. Come to think of it, I can’t think of one verse in the New Testament where eqnh means Jews only. Perhaps I will be educated in this thread.

Jerry Shugart
April 29th, 2005, 06:24 PM
[1st. The lack of an exegetical fidelity in pretrib rapture type eschatology.
There is simply no clear articulation of a 7 year tribulation or a rapture prior to the tribulation in the New Testament.
BChristianK,

If you will check the events described in the prophecies concerning the "great tribulation" and the events that follow you will see that there is absolutely no mention of the Church,which is His Body.It is as if that Body has disappeared off of the face of the earth before the "great tribulation".And that is exactly what is going to happen.

Most justification for the a pre-tribulation rapture rests on an interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel, inserting an arbitrary parenthesis between the 69th week of Daniel and the 70th week of Daniel. I have often asked those who believe in such a parenthesis what exegetical reason they have for interpreting this passage in such a way.
The reason is quite simple.We can see that the offer of the kingdom was "conditional" on whether or not the nation of Israel accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.At the end of the 69 weeks the Lord Jesus was "cut off",and then we see Peter offering the kingdom to Israel on the day of Pentecost:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began"(Acts3:19).

The Jews would have understood that the reference to the "times of refreshing" and the "restitution of all things" was in regard to the blessings that were to come to the Israelites at the end of the 70 weeks.

Non-dispensationalists seem to think that there was no "condition" whatsoever in regard to the Jews receiving the blessings set forth at the end of the 70th week.

However,one non-dispensationalist,Alfred Edersheim,recognized that the blessings promised were indeed "conditional" on reveiving the testimony of John the Baptist.He says that " 'the spirit and power' of Elijiah of the New Testament (the Baptist),which was to accomplish the inward restoration through penitent reception of the Kingdom of God in its reality,could only accomplish that object IF 'they received it'---if 'they knew him'.And as in his own view,and looking around and forward,so also in fact the Baptist,though Divinely such,was not really Elijiah to Israel--and this was the meaning of the words of Jesus: 'And if ye will receive it,this is Elias,which was to come.' "

He also wrote:

"Between the Elijiah of Ahab's reign,and him of Messianic times,lay the wide cleft of quite another dispensation"(Edersheim,"The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah",Book 1,p.341).

There was a dispensation that was not revealed in the OT,and Paul referes to this dispensation as the "dispensation of the mystery":

"...and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things"(Eph.3:9,ASV).

Today the believer is given a stewardship that was kept secret since the beginning of time.Although a "dispensation" is not in itself a period of time,it does in fact cover a period of time.And it will not be until the pesent dispensation comes to a close that the things that are prophesised will come to pass.

Today the Christian is to preach the "gospel of grace",the "word of reconciliation",and that is the stewardship that was kept secret.And the end of the present dispensation will come to an end when all those who are "in Christ" meet the Lord Jesus in the air.

Then sometimes after that the word that will be preached will be the "gospel of the kingdom"(Mt.24:14) and when that gospel goes into the whole world then the prophecies concerning the "end of the age" will began to be fulfilled.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Turbo
April 29th, 2005, 06:38 PM
All,

This has been one of those topics that I have gone back and forth over for awhile on this bulletin board.

One the one hand, Bob Hill does a pretty compelling job spelling out the differences in the gospels, showing how there are different requirements for one verses the other. There are those, like Jerry Shugart, that disavow the distinctions such as OSAS for one dispensation, and conditional security for another. Honestly, I have come away from conversations with them wondering what the big difference really is for Jerry Shugart type dispensationalists.

But for the more Hill and Enyart type of mid-acts dispensationalists there is a compelling reason to hear their arguments out.

That being said, I have come down on the side of a non-mid acts dispensationalist and a non-dispensationalist at that.

There are essentially 3 reasons why I have done so...
BCK, I didn't see anything in your response that addressed the questions raised in post #11 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=700605&#post700605), which I think get right to the heart of this topic. Would you please answer them?