Just One Gospel?

[Ya'nar#1]

Moderator note: This thread was split from post #156 of Closed view [non-Calvinist] and OSAS - :turbo:




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

Your "either or" mentality is too limiting to God. Jesus may not have uttered the word "grace," but He certainly spoke about God's grace often enough.

As far as "...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" --What about John 3:16? "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Come on now!

As for being circumcised, the act of circumcision is one of allegiance to God. That's from the O.T. Do you believe Jesus believed one's allegiance to God pivoted on whether they had been circumcised or not? What about the Samaritans He visited and preached to. Don't you think He believed they were just as loved by His Father as were the Jews? You have only to go no further than the example of the Canaan woman who approached Jesus who was vexed with a devil (Matt. 15:22-28). At first Jesus rebuffed her pleas for help, saying, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." And why did He do this? Certainly not because this was how He felt! It was because of the prejudice of His disciples. In seeking to teach THEM their heavenly duties to His sheep, He sought to sweep away their own narrow prejudice so that they might one day be able to convert not only the Jewish people--but all people wherever they found them!

Jesus knew the hearts of His disciples; how they had been taught to disregard all but the Jews. He longed for them to love ALL people, everywhere--not just their own people. I have heard dispensationalist thinkers say that it was only because Jesus was soft-hearted that he gave in and granted the request of this woman. So does that sound right to you? Was it Jesus' practice to "give in" and grant requests when a principle of God was at stake? I don't think so. Something is wrong with this dispensational thinking on this matter.

It is my spiritual understanding from God that there is NO truth to the two-Gospel idea. In all likelihood this is just one more of a number of counterfeit beliefs that the enemy of souls has inspired among some today who believe they have discovered "some new thing" but in fact are being lead astray without their even being aware of it. Go to your knees in prayer. Ask God to lead you into His truth. He will certainly reveal His truth to you, that is, IF you truely want to know it.

May God Bless!

--Ya'nar rincess:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Apollos,

You said:

Now John, your buddy Jerry refused to answer any of this in his last post. He got busy trying to tell me what a “babe” I am – lol !

I have already answered the weak points that you made of which you are so proud.You think that by taking figurative language and making it to be understood "literally" that you can make the "gift" of eternal life something that one has to "work" for.

You think that you can ignore the plain teaching of Scripture and be baptized with "water" and somehow that water can save you.Here is the verse that you must take literally in order to make the free gift obtained by works:

"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).

Just a few moments later the Lord Jesus spoke of something else which you would consider a "work":

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you"(Jn.6:53).

Apollos,do you take His words here "literally"?

You remind me of the Pharisees who were so proud of their "works" but they would not believe the Lord Jesus when He said:

"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 condemnation; but is passed from death unto life"(Jn.5:24).

These people could not hear with their ears and could not see with their eyes and so since they were so proud of their "works" they crucified the Lord of Glory.They never believed God but instead they placed all their faith in the doctrines invented by men:

"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"(Mt.15:8,9).

You are just like them.You have placed all your faith in the doctrines invented by men and you prove that you will go to any lengths in order to cling to your idea that some "works" are necessary for salvation.But believeing the false doctrines invented by men saves no one.It is only those who "believe God" who are saved:

"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness"(Ro.4:3).

I have seen no evidence that you ever believe God.Instead,you believe the teaching of your denomination and in every single instance where that teaching conflicts with the Word of God you cling to the teaching of your church and deny what the Scriptures say.You attempt to establish your "own" righteousness while you remain ignorant of the "righteousness of God" that comes freely to all who "believe God":

"For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God"(Ro.10:2,3).

Apollos,since you must take the words of the Lord Jesus literally when He speaks of "faith" as a "work" then in order to be consistent then you must take his words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood literally also.

Have you eaten His flesh and drank His blood?

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Ya'nar #1

You said:

It is my spiritual understanding from God that there is NO truth to the two-Gospel idea.

The gospel that was preached to the Jews during the time when the LOrd Jesus walked the earth 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

 

[elected4ever]

Ya'nar #1

You said:

The gospel that was preached to the Jews during the time when the LOrd Jesus walked the earth 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

Are you telling me that the Gospel of reconciliation is not for the Jews? Jesus is the good news. There are several aspects or messages within the Gospel of Jesus Christ that are good news within themselves but it is still the gospel of Jesus Christ. You are straining at a nat and swolling a camel. The parsing of the gospel of Jesus Christ into different messages that are off themselves good news is not changing the Gospel or a different gospel but different parts of the same massage. Get a life

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Are you telling me that the Gospel of reconciliation is not for the Jews?

elected4ever,

I never said such a thing.But that was not the message that was being preached to them during the Acts period.

Jesus is the good news. There are several aspects or messages within the Gospel of Jesus Christ that are good news within themselves but it is still the gospel of Jesus Christ. You are straining at a nat and swolling a camel.

You are ignoring the obvious in order to cling to your mistaken belief that only one gospel was preached during the Acts period.

That is why Paul spoke of a gospel which he was preaching among the Gentile,saying:

"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain"(Gal.2:2).

Paul went to Jerusalem to discuss the gospel which he was preaching to the Gentiles with the other Apostles.Here is the version of the same words according to the NLT:

"I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was there I talked privately with the leaders of the church. I wanted them to understand what I had been preaching to the Gentiles. I wanted to make sure they did not disagree, or my ministry would have been useless"(Gal.2:2,NLT).

Paul had previously been with the other Apostles while he preached a gospel to the Jews.If he was preaching the same gospel to the Gentiles that he had previously preached to the Jews then why would he speak of wanting the other Apostles to understand what he had been preaching to the Gentiles?

Get a life

It is you who needs to put aside the ideas that you have in regard to there was only one gospel being preached during the Acts period.The gospel that was preached to the Gentiles had been kept a "secret" (a mystery) until Paul revealed it.That is why we read the following distinction as to what was being preached to the Gentiles:

"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory"(Col.1:26).

It was only after the Acts period was over that the "mystery" truths began to be taught to the Jews:

"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ"(Eph.3:8,9).

Why would Paul single out the Gentiles as receiving a "secret" teaching if both the Jews and the Gentiles were receiving the same gospel?Why would Paul speak of going to Jerusalem in order that the other Apostles would understand the gospel that he was preaching among the Gentiles if that gospel was the same one that he preached to the Jews while he was previously with the other Apostles?

If you want to remain in darkness in regard to these things that is up to you.But your ignorance gives you no excuse to tell someone who understands these things to "get a life".

If you cannot distinguish a "gospel" that is centered on the "identity" of the Lord Jesus from a "gospel" that is centered on the "purpose" of the Lord's death upon the Cross then you are not going to understand the deeper things of God.

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

 

[elected4ever]

elected4ever,

I never said such a thing.But that was not the message that was being preached to them during the Acts period.

You are ignoring the obvious in order to cling to your mistaken belief that only one gospel was preached during the Acts period.

That is why Paul spoke of a gospel which he was preaching among the Gentile,saying:

"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain"(Gal.2:2).

Paul went to Jerusalem to discuss the gospel which he was preaching to the Gentiles with the other Apostles.Here is the version of the same words according to the NLT:

"I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was there I talked privately with the leaders of the church. I wanted them to understand what I had been preaching to the Gentiles. I wanted to make sure they did not disagree, or my ministry would have been useless"(Gal.2:2,NLT).

Paul had previously been with the other Apostles while he preached a gospel to the Jews.If he was preaching the same gospel to the Gentiles that he had previously preached to the Jews then why would he speak of wanting the other Apostles to understand what he had been preaching to the Gentiles?

It is you who needs to put aside the ideas that you have in regard to there was only one gospel being preached during the Acts period.The gospel that was preached to the Gentiles had been kept a "secret" (a mystery) until Paul revealed it.That is why we read the following distinction as to what was being preached to the Gentiles:

"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory"(Col.1:26).

It was only after the Acts period was over that the "mystery" truths began to be taught to the Jews:

"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ"(Eph.3:8,9).

Why would Paul single out the Gentiles as receiving a "secret" teaching if both the Jews and the Gentiles were receiving the same gospel?Why would Paul speak of going to Jerusalem in order that the other Apostles would understand the gospel that he was preaching among the Gentiles if that gospel was the same one that he preached to the Jews while he was previously with the other Apostles?

If you want to remain in darkness in regard to these things that is up to you.But your ignorance gives you no excuse to tell someone who understands these things to "get a life".

If you cannot distinguish a "gospel" that is centered on the "identity" of the Lord Jesus from a "gospel" that is centered on the "purpose" of the Lord's death upon the Cross then you are not going to understand the deeper things of God.

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

Like I said get a life. Your dispensationalism is meaningless and has no justification. It is just another ism.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Like I said get a life. Your dispensationalism is meaningless and has no justification. It is just another ism.

Who are you to be telling others to get a life?What you say means little to me,especially considering the fact that you had no answer to anything that I said.You prove that you have a very limited understanding of the things concerning "dispensations" and you really do not care to know.

Perhaps Paul should have gotten himself a life because he spoke of various dispensations.He said that the Lord has given to him the "dispensation of the grace of God"(Eph.3:2) but I am sure that you have no idea as to what he is speaking about and I am sure that you really do not care.

To people like you ignorance is bliss!

 

[Apollos]

Abide in the doctrine of Christ...

Abide in the doctrine of Christ...

Jerry –

Thank you for your reply. Your preconceived ideas in reading scripture are exceeded only by the condescending attitude they generate for you.

Now that you are back from your travel, it is time for me to catch up on correcting many of your errant dispy notions.

From Jerry- "Because of this,having left the discourse of the beginning of Christ,let us be borne on to full growth,not laying down again a foundation of repentance from dead works,and upon faith upon God,of (the) baptisms,of doctrine,and of laying on of hands"(Hebrews 6:1, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, "Literal Translation", Green). <End.>
(“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God…ASV)

Jerry’s spin on this passage is one that would conjure up the possibility of -2- gospels: that at one time there was a “doctrine” (ei. a gospel) for the Jews, but then the Jews were to forget all of that stuff (that “gospel”) and believe something else (another “gospel”). This is creative but errant. So we now consider…

Does the context have Paul telling the readers to forget/forsake the things mentioned by John the baptizer and Jesus at the “beginning” of their ministries as Jerry suggests?
-OR-
Is Paul telling the readers that they are to go on to perfection/maturity/full growth in the doctrine of Christ, growing past/going beyond (leaving behind) the first/basic principles of His doctrine which they should not be in a position of having to learn again?

The CONTEXT will answer for us what Paul is talking about.

“Because of this” in the first part of Hebrews 6:1 refers us back to what was said in Chapter 5. These words let us know that Paul makes a point at the start of Hb 6:1 based upon what he said in chapter 5.

In Chapter 5:11 Paul states that some things in reference to Christ would be hard to explain to them/things would be hard for them to understand, because they had become “dull of hearing”.

In Chapter 5:12f Paul tells us that some of his readers by that time should have been teachers of God’s word instead of having to review/relearn the basic principles (“milk”) of it again – these should have more readily understood what Paul wanted to tell them in reference to Christ. Paul says (verse 13) these were “unskillful” with the “word of righteousness” – these were “babes” (infant/child/childish).

Paul finishes his thought in verse 14 by telling us that “solid food” (which is a reference back to things about Christ that are “hard to explain” in 5:11) is for those who have used/“exercised” themselves in God’s word.

“Because of this”… The only logical conclusion based on the context is that the writer is speaking about the basic/primary teachings that are given/taught CONCERNING Christ at the onset of first learning God’s word. The writer is NOT speaking about the first/original words OF Christ when He began His ministry – there is NOTHING in the context to suggest this thought.

In 6:1b and 2 the writer lists repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment as basic principles of the doctrine of Christ. Almost all today recognize these topics as the basic core of information for a Christian today. Yet Jerry would have us believe these are things that Paul was telling the Jews to “leave” (ei. forsake) altogether! We “leave” these topics only after they have been adequately learned and we should then press on to “full growth”.

Jerry tried hard to apply the “leaving” only to “baptisms” and the “laying on of hands”. But what is to be applied to ONE of these topics is true of all SIX topics. Can anyone believe that the Hebrew writer was telling the Jews to forget about “faith toward God” and “eternal judgment”. Such thinking just doesn’t pass the “smell test” and shows how foolish “theologies” can make one think foolish things !

To conclude this segment, allow me to use the words of Mr. Thayer in reference to this passage, both at chapter 5:12 and at 6:1, in reference to the “first principles” mentioned here.

THAYER – “… the instruction concerning Christ such as it was at the very onset.” This is about the instruction the Jews had been given about Christ – it was not the instruction of (given by) Christ at the beginning of His ministry!

There is only ONE gospel from which we are to learn the “basic principles”, and to then proceed to “full growth”. (And all of this out of the mouth of a “babe”…)
<<<*>>>

Previously, Apollos said –

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how 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."(1Cor.15:3,4).

This passage says the DBR of Christ was “according to the scriptures”… and that -
Christ died for our sins “according to the scriptures”. <End Apollos>
(To his credit, Jerry at least did not try again to say that these “scriptures” were ones written by Paul.) Jerry did say:

Yes,these things were revealed in "types".There is no Scriptual evidence that anyone living in the OT times understood the meaning of those types.

We had been discussing whether or not “Paul’s gospel” (as you believe it to be) had been prophesied about in OT scripture – NOT whether anyone understood the prophecies or the types. If the gospel Paul was preaching was prophecied about in the OT, then the gospel Paul preached was the SAME gospel everyone else was preaching!!!

Why? Because only ONE gospel is prophecied about in the OT ! Romans 16:25-26 and 1 Peter 1:10-12 tie this altogether to show that your "bi-gospelism" is wrong. Now it is time for you to accept the truth !

It was my understanding that YOU did not believe it had been prophesied about. It appears my exegesis on Romans 16:25-26 and 1 Peter 1:10-12 changed your mind.

I had several questions in my last post about “scripture” as mentioned in Romans 16:25-26 that you, how shall we say, did not get to. Perhaps you will yet answer them…
<<<*>>>

I care not to debate the attributes of Chirst’s kingdom in this thread – I came to discuss the thought of “Just one gospel”. But I must remark, as you did, to one passage – John 18:36 –

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

Jerry replied – “This is fairly typical of those who deny an earthly kingdom:”… placing his emphasis on the “but now” in the latter part of the passage.

To focus on the latter part of the passage allowed Jerry to sweep past what Jesus specifically said about the kingdom = “My kingdom is not of this world…” IF it were, His servants would be fighting to save Him. The second part of the passage must agree with the former part – His kingdom is NOT of this world.

To make a short word study shorter, consult the NASB that renders this passage correctly – “as it is…” and compare this to what Mr. Thayer says about the Greek word nun which can be found under part 2. of his definition for John 18:36.
“Now” you know His kingdom is not of this world.

Second, I will ask why “earthly kingdom” promoters never deal with Mark 9:1 –

“ And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand [by], who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.” ?

This is very typical of physical kingdom promoters.

And as I told John W., those that say this kingdom that was “AT HAND” did not come are those who make Jesus out to be a liar and the Holy Spirit a buffoon – whose words cannot be trusted - ever !
You have de-throned the Christ and He is King of… NOTHING !!!

ALL the passages about His “kingdom” must harmonize ! Jerry, you cannot do this !
<<<*>>>

I will have a few more comments in my next post about miscellaneous remarks, and then I hope to return to thoughts about the ONE true gospel that God has always had in mind for all men.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Your preconceived ideas in reading scripture are exceeded only by the condescending attitude they generate for you.

You prove over and over that you will not believe the Scriptures but instead place your trust in the teaching of your denomination.To you Paul's words that the reward come to him "who worketh not but believeth" means to him "who worketh and believeth".

You deny the basic doctrine of Christianity.

Does the context have Paul telling the readers to forget/forsake the things mentioned by John the baptizer and Jesus at the “beginning” of their ministries as Jerry suggests?

Of course it does.He says to cease from laying the foundations in regard to the two baptisms that were in regard to the discourse at the beginning of Christ.He says to leave behind the discourse in regard to the repentance from dead works.Therefore,the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins is not for today.Today there is but "one" baptism,and that is the baptism performed by the Holy Spirit when the believer is baptized into the Body of Christ (1Cor.12:13,27).

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all"(Eph.4:4-6).

Of course I do not expect you to believe that there is just "one" baptism for today.Anyone who is in the habit if twisting the Scriptures in order to make them fit the teaching invented by men will not believe what is so plainly revealed in the Scriptures.To you "one" means two or three.

To you the teaching that the reward comes to him "who worketh not but believeth" means to him "who worketh and believeth".

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God"(1Cor.2:12).

Those of us who have received the Spirit of God know that eternal life has been "freely" given to us who believe,but those who place their trust in the teachings invented by men have only received the "spirit of the world" and argue that we must "work" for the things that are free.

So it is not surprising that you do not believe that there is only "one" baptism for today.

Jerry’s spin on this passage is one that would conjure up the possibility of -2- gospels: that at one time there was a “doctrine” (ei. a gospel) for the Jews, but then the Jews were to forget all of that stuff (that “gospel”) and believe something else (another “gospel”). This is creative but errant.

Again,anyone who will believe the Scriptures can see for themselves that there were two gospels being preached during the Acts period.The gospel that was preached to the Jews while the Lord Jesus walked the earth and throughout the Acts period concerned the fact that it is the Lord Jesus who is the promised Messiah of Israel.On the day of Pentecost the Apostle Peter used the facts of the death,burial and resuurection of the Lord Jesus in order to prove that He is the Messiah (Acts2:24),and then he sums up his argument by saying:

"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).

After Paul was converted,the first thing that he did was to preach this same gospel in the synagogues of the Jews:

"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 was the same gospel which Paul continued to preach to the Jews:

"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 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).

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.

But of course you will reject this because your little denominational handbook says that there was only one gospel.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[elected4ever]

You prove over and over that you will not believe the Scriptures but instead place your trust in the teaching of your denomination.To you Paul's words that the reward come to him "who worketh not but believeth" means to him "who worketh and believeth".

You deny the basic doctrine of Christianity.

Of course it does.He says to cease from laying the foundations in regard to the two baptisms that were in regard to the discourse at the beginning of Christ.He says to leave behind the discourse in regard to the repentance from dead works.Therefore,the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins is not for today.Today there is but "one" baptism,and that is the baptism performed by the Holy Spirit when the believer is baptized into the Body of Christ (1Cor.12:13,27).

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all"(Eph.4:4-6).

Of course I do not expect you to believe that there is just "one" baptism for today.Anyone who is in the habit if twisting the Scriptures in order to make them fit the teaching invented by men will not believe what is so plainly revealed in the Scriptures.To you "one" means two or three.

To you the teaching that the reward comes to him "who worketh not but believeth" means to him "who worketh and believeth".

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God"(1Cor.2:12).

Those of us who have received the Spirit of God know that eternal life has been "freely" given to us who believe,but those who place their trust in the teachings invented by men have only received the "spirit of the world" and argue that we must "work" for the things that are free.

So it is not surprising that you do not believe that there is only "one" baptism for today.

Again,anyone who will believe the Scriptures can see for themselves that there were two gospels being preached during the Acts period.The gospel that was preached to the Jews while the Lord Jesus walked the earth and throughout the Acts period concerned the fact that it is the Lord Jesus who is the promised Messiah of Israel.On the day of Pentecost the Apostle Peter used the facts of the death,burial and resuurection of the Lord Jesus in order to prove that He is the Messiah (Acts2:24),and then he sums up his argument by saying:

"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).

After Paul was converted,the first thing that he did was to preach this same gospel in the synagogues of the Jews:

"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 was the same gospel which Paul continued to preach to the Jews:

"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 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).

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.

But of course you will reject this because your little denominational handbook says that there was only one gospel.

In His grace,--Jerry

Jerry, get a life

 

[Jerry Shugart]

elected4ever,

Get a brain!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The gospel that was preached to the Jews while the Lord Jesus walked the earth and throughout the Acts period concerned the fact that it is the Lord Jesus who is the promised Messiah of Israel.On the day of Pentecost the Apostle Peter used the facts of the death,burial and resuurection of the Lord Jesus in order to prove that He is the Messiah (Acts2:24),and then he sums up his argument by saying:

"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).

After Paul was converted,the first thing that he did was to preach this same gospel in the synagogues of the Jews:

"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 was the same gospel which Paul continued to preach to the Jews:

"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 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).

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

 

[elected4ever]

The gospel that was preached to the Jews while the Lord Jesus walked the earth and throughout the Acts period concerned the fact that it is the Lord Jesus who is the promised Messiah of Israel.On the day of Pentecost the Apostle Peter used the facts of the death,burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus in order to prove that He is the Messiah (Acts2:24),and then he sums up his argument by saying:

"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).

After Paul was converted,the first thing that he did was to preach this same gospel in the synagogues of the Jews:

"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 was the same gospel which Paul continued to preach to the Jews:

"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 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).

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

I have a brain and so do you. I just hope that someday you will start using it. It is true that the gospel was extended to the gentiles but it is the same gospel that the Jews rejected. There are not two gospels

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I have a brain and so do you. I just hope that someday you will start using it. It is true that the gospel was extended to the gentiles but it is the same gospel that the Jews rejected. There are not two gospels

elected4ever,

I have demonstrated by using Scripture to prove that there were two different gospels preached during the Acts period.All you offer is your "opinion"!

Today we have been given the "ministry of reconciliation" to preach the "word of recociliation"(2Cor5:18,19).

That "word" was not preached during the Acts period to the Jews.There are many instances in the Acts record where the message that was being preached to the Jews is spelled out,and that record will be searched in vain for any mention of the "word of reconciliation".That message cannot be preached apart from the "purpose" of the Lord's death upon the Cross--that He died for our sins.

The message that was preached to the Jews during the Acts period was centered on the "identity" of the Lord Jesus--that He is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.

If you cannot tell the difference between these two separate and distinct messages then you are not using your brain.You either need to get a brain or you need to start using it if you already have one.

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

 

[elected4ever]

elected4ever,

I have demonstrated by using Scripture to prove that there were two different gospels preached during the Acts period.All you offer is your "opinion"!

Today we have been given the "ministry of reconciliation" to preach the "word of recociliation"(2Cor5:18,19).

That "word" was not preached during the Acts period to the Jews.There are many instances in the Acts record where the message that was being preached to the Jews is spelled out,and that record will be searched in vain for any mention of the "word of reconciliation".That message cannot be preached apart from the "purpose" of the Lord's death upon the Cross--that He died for our sins.

The message that was preached to the Jews during the Acts period was centered on the "identity" of the Lord Jesus--that He is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.

If you cannot tell the difference between these two separate and distinct messages then you are not using your brain.You either need to get a brain or you need to start using it if you already have one.

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

You have demonstrated no such thing. The whole Bible is about God reconciling men to Himself. It is just that God used different means at different times but all ways the same message. Now if you are saying that the different means of dealing with men constitute a new dispensation then I can agree but to say the message has changed I will not agree.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The whole Bible is about God reconciling men to Himself. It is just that God used different means at different times but all ways the same message.

Always the same message?

There you go again throwing your reason to the wind.The "word of reconciliation" cannot be preached apart from the "purpose" of His death upon the Cross:

"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).

When the Lord's disciples were preaching the "gospel of the kingdom" before Pentecost they did not even know that He was going to die (Compare Lk.9:6 and Matthew 10:1-15 with Lk.18:31-34).

Here is a chance to prove that you actually use your brain,elected4ever.How could they be preaching the "word of reconciliation" if they did not even know that He was to die on the Cross?

Now if you are saying that the different means of dealing with men constitute a new dispensation then I can agree but to say the message has changed I will not agree.

If the message did not change why did the Jews never receive a gospel during the Acts period that mentioned the "purpose" of His death upon the Cross?

I challenge you to give even one instance out of all the times that a gospel was preached to them during the Acts period where they were ever told that Christ dies for their sins or that they were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.

There are numerous places in the Acts where a message was preached to the Jews so it should be no trouble at all to find at least on place where they are told the "purpose" of the death of the Lord of Glory.If you are correct that the message never changed then you should be able to provide Scriptual refeences where the Jews were told during the Acts period that Christ died for your sins or that while you were enemies you were reconciled to God by the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here is your chance to prove that you do actually "think" about these things.

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

 

[elected4ever]

Always the same message?

There you go again throwing your reason to the wind.The "word of reconciliation" cannot be preached apart from the "purpose" of His death upon the Cross:

"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).

When the Lord's disciples were preaching the "gospel of the kingdom" before Pentecost they did not even know that He was going to die (Compare Lk.9:6 and Matthew 10:1-15 with Lk.18:31-34).

Here is a chance to prove that you actually use your brain,elected4ever.How could they be preaching the "word of reconciliation" if they did not even know that He was to die on the Cross?

If the message did not change why did the Jews never receive a gospel during the Acts period that mentioned the "purpose" of His death upon the Cross?

I challenge you to give even one instance out of all the times that a gospel was preached to them during the Acts period where they were ever told that Christ dies for their sins or that they were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.

There are numerous places in the Acts where a message was preached to the Jews so it should be no trouble at all to find at least on place where they are told the "purpose" of the death of the Lord of Glory.If you are correct that the message never changed then you should be able to provide Scriptual refeences where the Jews were told during the Acts period that Christ died for your sins or that while you were enemies you were reconciled to God by the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here is your chance to prove that you do actually "think" about these things.

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

Are you saying that God's plan from the beginning was not to reconcile man to Himself?

 

[drbrumley]

Are you saying that God's plan from the beginning was not to reconcile man to Himself?

Of course it was. The gentiles were to be saved thru Jesus Christ thru the Jewish nation. This is what is taught in the gospels. Unfortunately, the Jews didn't like the idea. God gave Isreal up and we live in the after effects of thier decision. Luckily for us, whereby we have no law, the Jews did and Jesus commanded they be followed. Thats pretty clear in scripture.

 

[elected4ever]

Of course it was. The gentiles were to be saved thru Jesus Christ thru the Jewish nation. This is what is taught in the gospels. Unfortunately, the Jews didn't like the idea. God gave Isreal up and we live in the after effects of thier decision. Luckily for us, whereby we have no law, the Jews did and Jesus commanded they be followed. Thats pretty clear in scripture.

Just because the Jews didn't like it and refused the ministry of reconciliation does not change the ministry of reconciliation. We were told the ministry of reconciliation that the Jews were to perform but rejected. The law never saved the first Jew or gentile. It only brought there death.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Are you saying that God's plan from the beginning was not to reconcile man to Himself?

I said this was your opportunity to prove that you can actually "think"--but you blew it!

The subject we are discussing is the message that was preached to the Jews during the Acts period.

But since you are intent of proving that you cannot "think" in a rational manner you have changed the subject we are discussing from which message was being preached to the Jews into "God's plan from the beginning".

You completely miss the point that if the Apostles were preaching the "word of reconciliation" then they would have had to know that He must die.But they did not know!

But this means nothing to you since you are able to subject your mind to the delusion that the Apostles were preaching that the sinner is reconciled to God by the death of the Lord Jesus but at the same time they did not even know that He was to die.

You prove that you will cling to the doctrines invented by men even though you are shown clear Scriptual evidence that those doctrines are in error.

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