SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
What logic
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
What logic
Dialogos
Well-known member
:nono:
But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
(Act 17:34-18:1 ESV)
(Act 17:34-18:1 ESV)
Jerry Shugart said:
I choose to argue from what the text says, not what you think Paul didn't say.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
There is nothing in that verse which even hints that anyone believed the gospel. Here is what they believed:
"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:31).
You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says when you interpret and twist to fit a preconceived idea.
It is hard to believe he actually said that.
heir
TOL Subscriber
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:up:
Better than being one of those who are "ever learning, but never able to come unto the knowledge of the truth".
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Where did Shasta go?
I always have said that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period. The Hebrew epistles were written after the end of the Acts period. Now a question for you. Do you think that those in the Jerusalem church were taught what Paul says here?:
If your answer is "yes" then tell me why the Jewish believers in Jerusalem remained "zealous of the law" and continued to partake of the ordinances of the Law of Moses?:
"And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest , brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law" (Acts 21:20).
I never said that the verses say that Paul was the first to preach that gospel message. But let us look at this verse:
In The Bible Knowledge Commentary written by the Dallas Seminary faculty we read Donald K. Campbell say that "there was one gospel though it was preached by different apostles to two distinct groups of people" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, 594).
However, on his commentary on Galatians 2:2 he turns around and says:
If the gospel Paul preached among the Gentiles was the same gospel which he preached among the Jews then why would he need to go to Jerusalem in order to consider its relationship to the gospel which he had preached earlier in the company of some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29)? Of course there would be no reason for him to do that if the gospel which he earlier preached with other apostles was the same one that he was preaching to the Gentiles.
Again, we have an uninterrupted sermon preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost beginning at Acts 2:14 and ending at Acts 2:36. In that sermon there is not a word about the purpose of the Lord Jesus' death on the Cross. Yet those who believed the gospel message which he preached that day were saved.
Do you deny that?
If your answer is "no" then we must believe that men were saved by hearing just a pert of the gospel. Is that what you believe, even though the Scriptures state that salvation comes as a result of believing the gospel and not just a part of the gospel.
Yes, their minds were opened to understand the REVEALED things in the OT Scriptures. But the gospel which Paul first preached was in regard to a "mystery" truth, or something kept secret and not revealed in the OT Scriptures:
I have answered many of your points in this post so please return the favor and answer my points.
I always have said that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period. The Hebrew epistles were written after the end of the Acts period. Now a question for you. Do you think that those in the Jerusalem church were taught what Paul says here?:
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal.3:24-25).
If your answer is "yes" then tell me why the Jewish believers in Jerusalem remained "zealous of the law" and continued to partake of the ordinances of the Law of Moses?:
"And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest , brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law" (Acts 21:20).
I never said that the verses say that Paul was the first to preach that gospel message. But let us look at this verse:
"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).
In The Bible Knowledge Commentary written by the Dallas Seminary faculty we read Donald K. Campbell say that "there was one gospel though it was preached by different apostles to two distinct groups of people" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, 594).
However, on his commentary on Galatians 2:2 he turns around and says:
"Paul seized this oppurtunity to consult with the other apostles 'privately' connerning the message he was preaching to the Gentiles. This does not mean that Paul sought their approval of its truth and accuracy, for he had received the gospel from God by revelation. Rather, he wanted them to consider its relationship to the gospel they were proclaiming" [emphasis added] (Ibid., 593).
If the gospel Paul preached among the Gentiles was the same gospel which he preached among the Jews then why would he need to go to Jerusalem in order to consider its relationship to the gospel which he had preached earlier in the company of some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29)? Of course there would be no reason for him to do that if the gospel which he earlier preached with other apostles was the same one that he was preaching to the Gentiles.
Again, we have an uninterrupted sermon preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost beginning at Acts 2:14 and ending at Acts 2:36. In that sermon there is not a word about the purpose of the Lord Jesus' death on the Cross. Yet those who believed the gospel message which he preached that day were saved.
Do you deny that?
If your answer is "no" then we must believe that men were saved by hearing just a pert of the gospel. Is that what you believe, even though the Scriptures state that salvation comes as a result of believing the gospel and not just a part of the gospel.
Yes, their minds were opened to understand the REVEALED things in the OT Scriptures. But the gospel which Paul first preached was in regard to a "mystery" truth, or something kept secret and not revealed in the OT Scriptures:
"Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past" (Ro.16:25).
I have answered many of your points in this post so please return the favor and answer my points.
Shasta
Well-known member
They would not have meant it to be understood that way because MAD would not exist for several hundred years. Even if they had conceived of MAD do you think the Anglican Church would have permitted them to slip it into the text. The idea of a dual gospel would have probably been deemed heretical and might very well have cost the translators their lives in those intolerant days when Church was controlled by State. Your attempt to make the text mean what you say it does subverts the intention of the translators and twists the meaning of your beloved KJV.
"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;KJV).
This requires some grammatical explanation so I will address it in a subsequent post.
The Greek word "good news" is evangellion which is a compound of "eu" (good) and "angelion" announcement, message proclamation or "news" because news was announced verbally. Altogether it is a compound noun and of course any noun can be either singular or plural.
Hebrews is apparently not your standard epistle. The author does not identify himself. Timothy is mentioned at the end. Does that mean that Paul wrote it. The style does not seem like Paul's to me. It is not addressed to the Jerusalem Church specifically so I don't know how you can conclude that. The typology is not entirely unheard of except for it Christological application.
Why some Jews continued to practice the Mosaic law even after the Fulfillment had come is also a matter of speculation (Col. 2:15-17). Perhaps like modern Messianic Christians they found the symbolism about Christ to be edifying. I can think of "Messianic Christians" today who keep many traditions but the ones I have known personally do it to tap into their rich heritage not as a requirement for salvation. It is certain that if they did it to be gain the acceptance of God then they had abandoned the faith. This would not be a Jewish gospel but a Judaizing gospel.
Are you citing this scripture as evidence of a "Jewish gospel?" Saying they had to keep all the law in order to be righteous before God contradicts the truth that no man can by his own efforts be good enough to satisfy the righteous standards of God. ( Ro. 3:20, Acts 15:10,Gal. 2:16, 5:4). Faith in what Christ did on the cross is the ONLY way for anyone, Jew or a Gentile, to be saved (1 Corinthians 1:18, Romans 1:16-17).
thanks for clearing that up
1. All of them did not hear everything Paul preached. Hearing someone preach and being able to sit down and question them at length are two different exercises. I have heard heretical beliefs preached and received by the congregation as true until I informed the Pastor what he was really saying. The reason I knew the spin the speaker was introducing into the message was because I knew him personally and had discussed his views with him in another venue
2. They needed to know that they were on the same page so they could work in partnership. Gossip had already gone around about what Paul had been teaching and this meeting would prevent any more of that. The "right hand of fellowship" had to do with harmony, unerstanding, agreement and partnership.
What I think is that you assume this text is the be all end all of what was said and taught. For one, the people already had a great deal of background even about what the Rabbis had seen in the scriptures about the paradox of of the Suffering Messiah "Son of Joseph" (the Patriarch) and the Triumphant Messiah "Son of David." Jesus was both. Peter, the Twelve knew the blood of Christ was the offering for the forgiveness of sin The disciples who had walked with Jesus on the road knew it also. Then too, the ministry became personal Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of (Acts 2:46). Finally the fact that they received the Spirit is evidence that they were cleansed by the blood.
[/QUOTE]If your answer is "no" then we must believe that men were saved by hearing just a pert of the gospel. Is that what you believe, even though the Scriptures state that salvation comes as a result of believing the gospel and not just a part of the gospel.[/QUOTE]
MAD engenders a sort of "logical positivistic" hermeneutic so that the lack of a sentence, phrase or word is taken prima facie as evidence that the concept was unknown by the speaker. Yet we know Peter had been given a crash course in all of scripture about the reasons Christ came and what was accomplished by His death.
This is a double standard since Paul often left what might be regarded as "key" truths out of his sermons. If men in Athens were saved even though Acts does not mention that Paul preached the propitiatory death of Christ then I think it is safe to say it could happen with Peter. What was written of single sermons was not the sum of what they taught.
Your definition of what a "mystery" is - something kept secret and not revealed in the OT Scriptures - is idiosyncratic and has no basis in scripture. It is more true of prophecy than mere revelation though even prophecy is consistent with the word. Most NT mysteries can be found hidden in the OT. "The New is in the Old contained, the Old is in the New contained," the saying goes. These truths are mysteries in the sense that the fulfillment was unknown at the time it was written but exposed later when the event happens. For instance, after the Resurrection Jesus explained from OT verses all about what His death had accomplished. These had been so mysterious before that had "the rulers of this world known them, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory"
As for the mysteries Paul saw in the Third Heaven, he never actually says what they were. In fact he that he was not allowed to say what they were or that he could not articulate them(2 Co. 12:4). He did have many revelations to be sure, but they always seem to have a basis in OT scripture. Among these mysteries were: (1) that the Gentiles would come to know God just like the Jews had, (2) that they would be covenantally joined with the Jews, (2) that the life of Christ within would be the motive force of the reborn man, (3) that they would be translated to meet Christ in the air. All these were mysteries yet OT scriptures exist to support each one.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You are obviously misunderstanding what Paul wrote here:
"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).
Certainly when Paul communicated the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles the other Apostles understood what he had preached to the Gentiles. So what you said makes no sense.
If there was only one gospel and Paul had previously preached a gospel while he was with some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29) then why would Paul need to know if they were on the same page in regard to the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles?
You have not answered that.
The only thing that makes sense is the idea that the gospel which Paul preached to the Gentiles was not the same gospel which he earlier preached with some of the other Apostles. But because of your preconceived ideas you cannot see that.
If the fact that that the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins was openly revealed in the OT Scriptures then why did those closest to the Lord Jesus not even know that He was going to die (Lk.18:33-34)?
Since the Apostles did not even know that the Lord Jesus must die until shortly before the Cross then why should anyone believe that those whom Peter addressed on the day of Pentecost understood the "purpose" of the Lord Jesus' death?
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that they did!
They were given a crash course on the things openly revealed in the Scriptures. But the purpose of the Lord's death was a "mystery" truth, a truth which was not openly revealed in the OT:
"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 world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor.2:7-8).
If the princes of the world would have known the "purpose" of the Lord's death then they would not have crucified Him. Therefore, that purpose was kept secret and was not openly revealed, as you imagine.
Do you deny that the "wisdom" spoken of here and referred to as a "mystery" was something which was hidden?:
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory(1 Cor.2:7).
Do you deny that the word "mystery" as it is used here refers to things which were hidden and not openly revealled?:
"Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Col.1:26).
No one was saved in Athens because Paul left them after he was mocked.
Now let us look at what Peter said at the end of his sermon 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" (Acts 2:36).
Dr. Stanley D. Toussaint, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary (Acts 2), writes the following commentary on Acts 2:36:
"Here is the conclusion to Peter's sermon. The noun 'Lord', referring to 'Christ', probably is a reference to Yahweh. The same word 'kyrios' is used of 'God' in verses 21, 34, and 39 (cf. Phil. 2:9). This is a strong affirmation of Christ's deity" [emphasis added] (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck, [ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983], 359).
The Jews who believed that Jesus is Christ, God come in the flesh, were "born of God". Dr. Zane Hodges, past Chairman of the New Testament Department at Dallas Theological Seminary (Acts 2), writes the following in regard to Peter's words:
"Peter concludes his address with the assertion that 'God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ' (2:36). His hearers then reply, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' (2:37). But such a reaction presumes their acceptance of Peter's claim that they have crucified the one who is Lord and Christ. If this is what they now believe, then they were already regenerated on Johannine terms, since John wrote: 'Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1; cf. John 20:31) " [emphasis added] (Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 101).
Here are the verses to which Hodges makes reference: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1,5).
What Peter taught in his sermon said absolutely nothing about the "purpose" of the Cross but yet those who believed what Peter preached were saved when they believed that jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
If there was only one gospel, as you imagine, then we must believe that those who were saved on the day of Pentecost were saved by believing only a part of the gospel.
Is that what you think?
Shasta
Well-known member
If I heard that you were preaching a certain message but had not heard it expounded upon at length I would want to ask you about it; especially if you message was being taught to a flock for which I felt responsible. I have been in the situation where an individual comes into a Church and preaches a message that seems to be true but under the surface there is a stream of false doctrine. Words are redefined and passages subtly misinterpreted. The Pastors, trusting souls some of them did not notice. I only knew because I had a background experience with the speaker and had discussed their beliefs with them.
I do not think it was enough that some Apostles had heard Paul preach a few times. Before welcoming anyone into ministerial partnership the Apostles would have needed to interview them personally. It would have been irresponsible of them to give Paul "the right hand of fellowship" until ALL of them had checked him out. I do not see any problem with this. It is exactly what they should have done. If Paul had some entirely different message than the one entrusted to them by Jesus - one concerning, say, an antinomian view of "grace" I know they would not have accepted it. Neither would Paul have let it go if the Twelve were telling people they had to keep the law. Neither lawlessness nor legalism is the gospel.
As for what population Paul would be working with that was a relatively new field and was certainly a matter of discussion. In a sense they were having a football huddle. A team does that so that everyone will knows what the others are doing. As many others around here have pointed out, their agreement was not absolute. It was flexible. At times Peter preached the Gentiles and Paul to the Jews. Both ministered to the Corinthians and rather than saying they ministered to separate fields Paul said they ministered to one.
Part of this I answered above but if ALL the Apostles did not hear it then ALL needed to, not secondhand either, but from Paul himself. A lot of rumors had been going around that needed to be cleared up. The Judaisers were saying Paul was teaching lawlessness. When it came down to it, though, the only thing that stuck was that Paul was not requiring Gentile converts to be circumcised. When Paul actually met with the Twelve he said they did not require Titus to be circumcised though he was not Jewish (Galatians 2:3) and in Acts 15 the Church council headed by James and Peter also refused to make circumcision a requirement.
Of course preconceived ideas usually carry the day but what you call the gospel seems to be based on antinomian liberarian "grace" that neither the Apostles nor the four generations that followed them taught or believed.
I do not mean it was clear to everyone. John the Baptist knew Jesus was the Lamb who would take away the sin of the world. It is in the scriptures, though, and now that it has been revealed, you and I can go back and read it. As I have been trying to get across to Nick, the disciples did not get it in Luke 18 but they did after the Resurrection when Jesus came and explained it to them. There was a difference of year or so between Luke 18 and Luke 24.
My argument is based on Luke 24 which states what Jesus explained to them:
25 Then he (Jesus) said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
The truths being revealed are about His suffering and resurrection. These were in the scripture but previously not understood. That would seem to qualify them as mysteries revealed. On the basis of this repentance for the forgiveness of sin could be offered.
You are proving the point. Jesus spoke about about his suffering on the cross explaining that it had to happen so that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be possible.
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory(1 Cor.2:7).
in a previous post you said this:
Isn't saying a person's mind is "opened" to understand a truth the SAME THING as saying the truth is revealed to them? If by "mystery truths" you mean extra-Biblical revelations then I think that is pretty dangerous doctrine. Since that doctrine is never explicitly stated I can only conclude it is fabricated. Even the Apocalypse has some grounding in the OT.
"Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Col.1:26).
Again, the mystery of the cross was revealed by Jesus after His resurrection. Now living the crucified life or walking in the cross was a Pauline concept.
This is not logical. At Ephesus Paul preached, was stoned, dragged outside the city and left for dead. Then immediately after waking up he heads right back in. However, in Athens Paul is mocked and slinks out of town not even bothering to tell them the crucial part of the gospel necessary for their salvation. What's wrong with this picture?
I can assure you neither Toussaint nor Hodges would be your willing accomplices in propagating the dual gospel doctrine. You are basing what you are saying entirely on what you see as a lacuna in a few sermons not upon what is explicitly stated.
If you came to a Church services in an orthodox evangelical Church twice on one Sunday you might hear about Jesus deity and on the next about His sacrifice. One does not hold without the other. In order to be the Mediator He must necessarily be God and man and the sacrifice. In my last post I cited 1 John 1:7 to show how the efficacious blood of Christ and His divine Sonship are united in a single verse.
As a point of fact people are saved at times on the basis of very little truth. The Jews in Acts already had a lot of background, Jesus had died there in Jerusalem. Aside from that you assume that this one sermon is all that was said when it was not. Do you really think that the Jews could have come to salvation without the blood of Christ? "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." Also look at what Peter says elsewhere (1 Peter 1:19).
Last edited:
Dialogos
Well-known member
Don't truncate Paul's message in order to justify your failing theology.
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,
(Acts 17:30 ESV)
Paul preached repentance and repentance leads to salvation!
For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. 2 Cor 7:10.
Are you seriously going to argue that they could have believed in the gospel of repentance which Paul will later says leads to salvation and still be lost????
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The death of Christ was essential for everyone who has ever lived to be saved. But that is not the subject we are discussing. The subject we are discussing is whether or not a person can be saved by believing the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?:
"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1Jn.5:1-5).
Now please answer my question. Do you believe that a person can be saved by believing the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?
Next, I said:
But the purpose of the Lord's death was a "mystery" truth, a truth which was not openly revealed in the OT:
If the princes of the world would have known the "purpose" of the Lord's death then they would not have crucified Him. Therefore, that purpose was kept secret and was not openly revealed, as you imagine.
"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 world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor.2:7-8).
If the princes of the world would have known the "purpose" of the Lord's death then they would not have crucified Him. Therefore, that purpose was kept secret and was not openly revealed, as you imagine.
To this you said:
I take it that you were referring to the Lord Jesus' words here?:
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Mt.26:28).
There is no evidence that the Apostle understood the meaning of the Lord Jesus' words here on the eve of His crucifixion to be referring to the fact that "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor.6:21).
Instead, the Apostles would be aware of the Scriptures that promises to the house of Israel a "New Covenant," and according to that promise the Lord would "remember their sins no more" (Jer.31:34). Therefore when the Lord Jesus said that "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins," they would understand that His death was the "earnest" or "surety" of the New Covenant. Charles Spurgeon said that "the blood is the symbol, the token, the earnest, the surety, the seal of the covenant" (Spurgeon, Sermon delivered on September 4th, 1859,#273).
So what I said about the following passage stands:
But the purpose of the Lord's death was a "mystery" truth, a truth which was not openly revealed in the OT:
If the princes of the world would have known the "purpose" of the Lord's death then they would not have crucified Him. Therefore, that purpose was kept secret and was not openly revealed, as you imagine.
"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 world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor.2:7-8).
If the princes of the world would have known the "purpose" of the Lord's death then they would not have crucified Him. Therefore, that purpose was kept secret and was not openly revealed, as you imagine.
Earlier you said:
To this I said:
Do you deny that the "wisdom" spoken of here and referred to as a "mystery" was something which was hidden?:
Do you deny that the word "mystery" as it is used here refers to things which were hidden and not openly revealled?:
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory" (1 Cor.2:7).
Do you deny that the word "mystery" as it is used here refers to things which were hidden and not openly revealled?:
"Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Col.1:26).
You did not answer!
And no wonder! If the "purpose" of the Cross was hidden until it was revealed by Paul then it could not be said that it was revealed in the OT. But that is the argument which you continue to make.
How could the Lord show the Apostles the truth of the "purpose" of the Lord Jesus' death from the Scriptures if that purpose was kept secret and not to be found in the OT Scriptures?
This is how Paul describes the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles:
"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" (Eph.3:8).
The OT will be searched in vain for the truth for a revelation of the "purpose" of the Lord Jesus' death upon the Cross.
Here is what Sir Robert Anderson says about the Baptist's words there:
"This is not translation merely, it savours of exegesis. 'Who beareth the sin of the world' is what the Baptist said. His words were not a prophecy of what Christ would accomplish by His death, but a statement of what He was in His life. Mark the present tense, 'Who is bearing'. And while the word used in 1 Peter 2:24, and in kindred passages, is a sacrificial term, we have here an ordinary word for lifting and carrying burdens. When the Lord sighed in healing the deaf mute by the Sea of Galilee Mark 7:34, and when He groaned and wept at the grave of Lazarus, He took upon Himself, as it were, the infirmities and sorrows which He relieved, and made them His own" (Anderson, Types in Hebrews [Kregel Publications, 1978], 52).
Noted Bible expositor Alfred Edersheim writes:
"That the view here given is that of the N.T...appears from a comparison of the application of the passage in St. Matt. viii. 17 with that in St. John i. 29 and 1 Pet. ii. 24. The words, as given by St. Matthew, are most truly a N.T. 'Targum' of the original. The LXX. renders, 'This man carries our sins and is pained for us;' Symmachus, 'Surely He took up our sins, and endured our labors;' the Targum Jon., 'Thus for our sins He will pray, and our iniquities will for His sake be forgiven.' (Comp. Driver and Neubauer, The Jewish Interpreters on Isaiah liii., vol. ii.) Lastly, it is with reference to this passage that the Messiah bears in the Talmud the designation, 'The Leprous One,' and 'the Sick One' (Sanh. 98 b]" (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971], Book 3, Chapter XIV, p.488).
Many of the leaders of the Acts 2 community understood that Paul was the first to preach the 'gospel of grace." So if Paul was the first to prezch it then it is obvious that it wasn't preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost. In a Bible tract entitled Paul's Gospel Acts 2 dispensationalist William R. Newell wrote:
"The twelve Apostles (Matthias by Divine appointment taking the place of Judas) were to be the 'witnesses' (Acts 1:22) of Christ's resurrection--that is, of the fact of it. They were not to unfold fully the doctrine of it, as Paul was...But unto none of these twelve Apostles did God reveal 'the great body of doctrine for this age'...The great doctrines that Paul reveals may be outlined as follows...The fact and the Scripturalness of righteousness on the free gift principle--that is, of Divine righteousness, separate from all man's doings, conferred upon man as a free gift from God" (Newell, Paul's Gospel).
After reading this Bible tract Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founding President of Dallas Theological Seminary, said:
"This is a great tract, a clear treatise on the truth of God for this age. The author was one of America's greatest Bible expositors. It glorifies the Savior as the author desired it to do. It should be distributed by hundreds of thousands" (Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1994, Volume 7:12).
Today Dallas Theological Seminary is considered the leading Acts 2 dispensational seminary in the world, and the founding President of that seminary recognized the fact that the "gospel of grace" was not preached by anyone before Paul. Therefore that gospel was not preached on the Day of Pentecost.
The second President of Dallas Theological Seminary, John F. Walvoord, wrote that "The gospel of Grace was given to Paul as a 'new' revelation" (Walvoord, "The Preincarnate Son of God", Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct.-Dec. 1947, Vol. 104, # 416, p.422).
Shasta
Well-known member
1. If "the death of Christ was essential for everyone who has ever lived to be saved" then it was also necessary for the salvation of the Jews in the First Century. In this light, how can you postulate the existence of a SAVING gospel that is bloodless?
2. You have insisted that the "message of the cross (which has the power to save all who believe) [/I]was totally unknown to the Twelve, hidden so completely that it had to be revealed supernaturally many years later to the Apostle Paul . Now why would such a long delay be necessary? Why deprive all those multitudes of coverts of the glorious truths of Christ death? The gospel is not complex and esoteric like the teachings of the Gnostics. Although it is sublime it is simple. It is mystical in some ways yet it is logically consistent and coherent. Any sincere seeker can find the pearl if he knew where to look.
3. The disciples were shocked by the torture Jesus had to endure and by his death. This is why Jesus immediately addressed the reasons for His suffering. He did not put them off by saying something like "I can't tell you about that yet. It is a mystery. You will have to wait until I reveal it to another man years from now." This in a time when the secretive language of parables had been exchanged for plain speech.
4. However evidence in Luke (and Mark) shows that Jesus did not leave the mysteries of His passion hidden. Instead, He, the Master Teacher undertook to instruct them from the scriptures concerning him in all the Bible. I think is is as capable a teacher as Paul. What do you think? In fact. I will venture to say He is better.
5. What he chiefly explained is why he "ought to have suffered or WHY He had to suffer. What does His SUFFERING refer to if not to his scourging and ultimately his being nailed to a cross?
6. Christ HAD to suffer for the reasons given in the Law, prophets and psalms. This sounds like revelation. Inasmuch as they were unknown before they were also mysteries...until He made them known. Jesus revealed hidden things to the disciples just as He would to men like Paul. You are denying the plain meaning of these verses for the sole reason that they do not fit into the MAD paradigm.
In addition to that we read verses in the Synoptic Gospels speaking about the sacrifice Christ would make, how through giving up of his body and blood on the cross He would make eternal life available to us. John 6:55-59. Jesus said when He would be lifted up from the earth (on the cross) He would draw all peoples to Himself. It would not be the attractiveness of the beatitudes that would ultimately bring God and man together but what a disfigured Christ would accomplish on the cross (John 12:31-33)
You are playing pick and match, selecting particular verses out of John that correspond to MADs definition of the "Jewish gospel" while ignoring other remarks by the author that are inconsistent with the model. In addition to what John said here he also spoke of the blood sacrifice of Christ that would bring forgiveness of sin (1 John 1:7). Peter did too. Not including these scriptures gives a false impression of what they believed.
Sometimes people seem to be saved with only a minimal amount of truth: however, I think it is the exception rather than the rule hence Paul's injunction to preach in every place. When people are brought in with "minimal truth" I wonder if they continue in the faith. It is very hard for people without an adequate foundation to be stable.
In the narrative of MAD the Jews in the first part of Acts have to somehow get saved without their knowing about the doctrine of the atonement. This presents a dilemma since many scriptures say you must believe Christ died for us. A simple way to get the complete truth of Christ would be for God to have told the Twelve about the cross. Why would he not? 2000 years of experience with animal sacrifice should have given the Jews an even better basis for understanding the cross than the Gentiles. Still, from MAD position of doctrinal logical positivism the Twelve did not know Christ died for them. Why? because Peter did not explicitly say anything about it in a few relatively short sermons. Taking ALL scriptures into account I see more than adequate justification for saying that the Twelve did know that Christ died for their sin. From that I conclude that they must have been teaching about it. Your hypothesis is based on a surmise of what was NOT said.
Now here are several questions for you.
1. If I were to tell you "I am a Jewish believer in Jesus. I believe He is the Messiah the Son of God. I also believe He died and rose again. Still, all that about His being a sacrifice of sin is too much. I cannot think anyone can fulfill that role. His death and resurrection was just a sign to prove His Messiahship. That is all" Would I be saved?
2. Conversely, if I said "I am not Jewish but I have come to believe Jesus was sacrificed for my sins so that I can receive forgiveness from God. Still...all that about being the Son of God and the King of Israel...that is a little too much to claim for anyone." Would I be saved?
3. Practically speaking how would the ancients have determined WHICH "gospel" to share with a person of mixed Jewish-Gentile ancestry like a Samaritan? Would they use genealogies in conjunction with Rabbinical law? In the end, would it matter?
4. Practically speaking how do you imagine apostles like Apollos, Paul and Barnabas kept their respective audiences and messages separate as they came and left such churches as Corinth? I see no evidence of them trying to distinguish their messages or to clarify to the audience which should receive their various messages. On the contrary Paul puts down any attempt to form factions based upon him, Peter and Apollos and he insists in a singularity of message which he calls THE WORD (logos) of the Cross. "The word (or message)" is a singular noun (1 Corinthian 1:18)
This was the significance of the Eucharist, yes. It had to be a surety at that point because the actual sacrifice had not yet been made yet. Also it was definitely within the context of Jer. 31:34 though Jesus does not quote it chapter and verse. In addition, since one of Jesus chief aims AFTER the Resurrection was to explain from the OT why He had to suffer (on the cross) I imagine He would have spent some time on Jer. 31:34 as well.
If the princes of the world would have known the "purpose" of the Lord's death then they would not have crucified Him. Therefore, that purpose was kept secret and was not openly revealed, as you imagine.[/INDENT]
Last edited:
They did not...
So then Paul did not go to the Jews? Since Galatians 2 is about who is going to whom, not what they are delivering.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Amen!
heir
TOL Subscriber
The most you can get out of Acts 17 is the gospel of God; Who Jesus Christ is and that God raised Him from the dead (Acts 17:31 KJV).
They weren't saved. If they were to hear the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV), the only gospel that establishes one into the Body of Christ (Romans 1:11 KJV, 16:25-27), they would need to:
Acts 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
That would have been in the synagogue of the Jews...
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
That did not answer my question about these two verses:
"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1Jn.5:1-5).
Again, Do you believe that a person can be saved by believing the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?
Of course a person is born of God when they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And that is exactly what is spoken of here:
"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: Which 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).
Believing in His name is not speaking of the Lord Jesus' work on the Cross but instead His identity---that He is the Christ, the Son of God. You do not show any sign of actually believing what is written here because if you actually believed it you would admit that anyone who believes the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is saved:
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1Jn.5:1-5).
So do you think that a person can become unborn of God? Besides, the faith of those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is described as being a faith that overcomes the world:
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1Jn.5:1-5).
"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: Which 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).
Because God knew that those who were given the gospel of uncircumcision would search the Scriptures in order to come to the truth:
"Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of 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. And some of them believed... And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:1-4, 10-11).
As I said, the purpose of the death of the Lord Jesus was hidden in the OT so for those who had the OT the most effective way to bring them unto faith was to preach the things which the OT revealed.
Not just MAD. Even the top teachers within the Acts 2 community understood that no one before Paul preached the gospel of grace.
The Scriptures will be searched in vain where anyone preached the "purpose" of the Lord's death upon the Cross to the Jews during the Acts period. Your entire argument is based on the idea that it was preached to the Jews despite the fact that there is no evidence to support your claim.
Your conclusion is not based on any Scriptures passages but instead nothing more than you say that it is true. That, my friend, is an argument from silence.
I have already shown you that those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, are born of God so common sense dictates that believing that "good news" is sufficient for salvation. Now a question for you:
Do you think that "ëveryone" who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, are born of God and therefore saved?:
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1Jn.5:1-5).
Because enough was revealed to the Jews so that they could indeed become born of God. So no one was deprived of anything which was necessary for salvation.
Do you believe that those who are dead spiritually can receive life by believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:
"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).
If you answer is "no" then explain why not.
Where did He tell them that believers are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Me?
"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Lk.24:25-27).
As I said earlier, the "purpose" of the Cross was not found in the OT. And for good reason:
"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 world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor.2:7-8).
the "purpose" of the Cross was kept secret in the OT and that was for a reason. If the princes of the world knew that "purpose" then they would not have crucified the Lord Jesus.
If that is not what these verses are saying then they must have another meaning. Please give me your interpretation of their meaning.
"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven" (1 Pet.1:10-1).
Here Peter is saying that the prophets searched diligently in an effort to determine what the prophecies concerning Christ's suffering did signify but it was not revealed unto them. Even the Twelve Apostles, those closest to the Lord Jesus, did not realize that He was going to die (Lk.18:31-34) or be resurrected (Jn.20:9). They certainly did not know the "purpose" of the Cross, that "Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Pet.3:18).
I will answer the rest of your questions after that. But please answer my following two questions:
Do you believe that it was "good news" or gospel when it was revealed to the children of Israel that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?
And do you believe that "everyone" who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is born of God and saved?
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. (*Luke *24:*46-48 KJV)
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: (*1 Corinthians *15:*3-4 KJV)
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: (*1 Corinthians *15:*3-4 KJV)