Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Why don't you provide some examples. In fact, just make it one.
Of course you can show he died for sin in the OT. It was kept secret until revealed to Paul. You have shown the verses yourself. The other part is that gentiles came to God through Israel. During the dispensation of grace, we are saved through their fall instead through blessing them.
heir
TOL Subscriber
:up: I submit it was some men's sins; Israels and those associated with Israel (blessers) that was a mystery yet "according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV), but not so with Gentiles like the Ephesians (people like you and me); that was a mystery hid in God. It was unsearchable.
Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Ephesians 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Ephesians 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Ephesians 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
Ephesians 3:8 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;
The first group are those to whom Paul was sent in his Acts ministry; the second all men including the likes of the Ephesians to whom he wrote the letter who in time past had no hope and were without God in the world, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise. Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV
Why don't you provide some examples. In fact, just make it one.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look at the Baptist’s words:
“The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away (present tense) the sin of the world” (1 Jn.1:29).
Since the words “taketh away” are in the present tense then it is obvious that John was not referring to the Cross. If he was referring to the cross he would have used the “future” tense. But that means nothing to you! Instead, by your arguments I can only conclude that you think that the Baptist was in error for using the present tense.
Despite the fact that you cannot quote even one verse where the TWELVE say anything about the “purpose” of the Cross as revealed in the gospel of grace before Paul was converted all you can do is ask us to imagine that they did. And while you are trying to make an argument from silence you refuse to answer these simple 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 do you believe that "everyone" who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is born of God and saved?
Please answer those two simple question first when you respond to this post of mine.
Please tell me where in the OT that you have found the truth about the imputed righteousness of God which comes to all believers and the fact that believers are are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus:
"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).
The OT will be searched in vain for that truth because Paul makes it plain that the truth of the righteousness of God apart the law was not revealed until his day:
"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).
That is why Paul calls the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles the "UNSEARCHABLE riches of Christ":
"Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 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 dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" (Eph.3:7-9).
The OT will be searched in vain for the truths concerning the gospel of grace because that truth has been hidden in God from the beginning of the world. But you quote several verses from the OT which speak nothing about believers being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Are you saying that by that verse others would understand that believers are being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus? We can see that the purpose of the Cross revealed in the “gospel of grace” was not to be found 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).
The "purpose" of the Cross found in the gospel of grace was kept secret in the OT and that was for a reason. If the princes of the world knew that "purpose" of the Cross as revealed in the "gospel of grace" 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.
Even though Philip preached from Isaiah 53 there is no reason to believe that either knew the fact that believers are "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” In fact, after being told by Philip that one must believe before being baptized with water the eunuch said exactly what he believed:
"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:36-37).
If it was necessary for the eunuch to know that believers are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus then why would he baptize the eunuch? The answer is obvious. The eunuch believe the gospel message that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And believing that alone was sufficient for him to be saved (Jn.20:30-31; 1 Jn.5:1-5).
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 and the present dispensation did not begin on that day.
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).
Now that I have answered your points please make it your top priority to answer these two simple 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 do you believe that "everyone" who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is born of God and saved?
Pauline teaching is seen as church teaching. Non-Pauline writers, including the red letters of Jesus, are limited mostly to your false circ group or Israel. Even Paul quoting Jesus about Lord's Supper is rationalized away as well as the Great Commission, etc. You guys rightly say things in Leviticus are true, but not applicable always to the Church, but you go too far to say Johannine writings, words of Jesus, James, Hebrews, Petrine writing, etc. is not for the Church (cf. Leviticus). This is nonsensical error and practically, in some cases, in principle, elevating Paul above all others (despite the common inspiration of the NT by the Spirit for Jew/Gentile, one in Christ).
MAD smells of something Satan would like to promote to negate inspired truth for the Church, not rightly dividing the Word (your buzz word out of context) with the Spirit of Truth.
A Christocentric view is the way to go. This does not take away from Paul, of course.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Since you are so sure that MAD smells of something Satan would like to promote then I am sure that you would be happy to answer these two simple 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 do you believe that "everyone" who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is born of God and saved?
The Jews had Messianic expectations, so an emphasis on Jesus as Messiah, Son of God was a foundational truth. Who He is (God/Christ) is basic if we are to be reconciled to God. It applies equally to Jew, Gentile, American, African, Chinese.
I believe the words of John, Peter, Paul, Jesus. The same John who talked about the who also talked about the what. Just because John does not start with birth narratives does not mean he does not believe them. John records the death and resurrection of Christ. He was not an idiot.
Divorcing who vs what is MAD, not Bible. It is both/and vs either/or. There is no gospel with a false god/christ (who) and no gospel without the work of Christ (the person AND work of Christ=gospel...this is self-evident in Paul, but not exclusively with him).
You have a sound byte in your head and cannot see forest for trees. Not all truth is in one verse. Just because John and Peter did not quote I Cor. 15:1-4 verbatim (nor did Jesus) does not mean they did not preach/teach these truths.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You failed to answer either of my questions. Here they are again and perhaps this time you will actually stand up to the plate like a man and answer them:
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 do you believe that "everyone" who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is born of God and saved?
Shasta
Well-known member
The miracles and signs were performed so that people would believe Jesus is the Son of God. They were evidences of that fact. Paul acknowledged that "the Jews look for signs" but he emphasized that he offered to both Jews and Greeks Christ crucified. He must not have thought proofs of Jesus' divinity was sufficient to save them.
"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).
Those who do not believe Jesus is the Christ are not true believers, of course but that is not the whole story. You have neglected the very important truth of how people can have their sins forgiven and cleansed (1 John 1:7). Does the fact that this verse is not juxtaposed to 1 John 5:1-5 make it any less a part of John's teaching?
It seems you expect every verse to be a complete statement of faith even when they present only parts of what constitute basic necessary beliefs. A person has to search the scriptures to find the whole counsel of God and rightly divide the truth by comparing scripture with scripture.
If Jesus were divine but did not die for us then how could we trust Him to grant us forgiveness? True, He would be a God-man, superior, perfect even, but not a condescending savior capable of reaching down and delivering us from sin.
As John begins his book he writes an overview of things to come. "He came to his own and his own received him not" is a summary of His whole life. Though the verse appear at the beginning of the Gospel chronologically no one would actually be born again until atonement had been made. This is why, though Jesus spoke of the new birth He never actually tried to lead anyone into it. This verse is not saying all people from then on need only believe Jesus is the Son to be saved. As light increases so does responsibility. This truth is not alone, though. In the rest of John's gospel and his letters we find that he also taught about the "blood" of Christ,that is, about the work of Jesus on the cross.
To believe in His name is to believe he is the "savior" since that is what the name "Jesus" means and what does He save us FROM? The Bible says "She (Mary) will give birth to a son, and you (Joseph) are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
How does a "Son of God" even the promised Messiah save people from their sins? Jesus can because He was the sacrifice for that sin for, "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin."
His name is also "The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). The peace we have is not the kind the world gives. It received in the spirit by the Holy Spirit and is based on the peace with have with God through the cross the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5) All these scriptures work in harmony to produce the message that generations past have called THE gospel. By this tearing the one gospel into two you undermine the harmonious unity of inter-dependent truths.
If you do not believe Jesus is born of God you are not a Christian...so why do you say Jews must believe Jesus is the Son of God but not the Gentiles? Is that not item of faith required of both?
You have presented verses as if it were the totality of a statement of faith is misleading for John IN THIS VERY BOOK speaks of the absolute necessity of the cleansing of the blood of Jesus. The blood is an direct reference to Christ's work on the cross.
This idea that "a person cannot be unborn" is not an argument it is a false metaphor. It is a logical fallacy because it assumes that if a metaphor is comparable to a real thing in some respects it is identical in all respects. Making a more proper use of the metaphor I can say that while a person cannot go back in time and undo the beginning of their spiritual life (a' la' Nicodemus going back into his mother's womb) they can be responsible for the death of the new life they had with God through neglect, rebellion or apostasy. There are warnings everywhere in the Bible about this. Even Luther and Augustine (though I am no fan of theirs) believed in apostasy.
The faith we have can overcome the world provided we continue in it and do not turn aside into unbelief. Faith is not a deposit of divine essence it is "trust in, confidence in, belief in, reliance upon" God.
"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).
The Church originally formulated creeds to serve as complete statements of the basic beliefs of Christianity. They did so because the complete balance of truth is seldom contained in any single verse. You tend to treat proximal verses as if they were complete creeds - either a creeds of the Jewish gospel or a creed of the Gentile gospel, ignoring counter-balancing teaching from other parts of scripture. This is nothing more than proof-texting.
This is what eventually happened but here in the preamble of his gospel the Apostle is giving an overview of the whole life and work of Christ. It is not set in a chronological sequence for no one could be born again except by the Holy Spirit which would not occur until after the atonement. Just as in the OT the Spirit did not fill the tabernacle until it had first been sprinkled with blood so the human soul would not receive life until only after it was sprinkled with the blood of Christ.
Again, though, John did not ONLY believe Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God. He also believed this:
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
The NET Bible translated the verse this way: and he himself is the atoning sacrifice (propitiation) for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world 1 John 2:2
Strongs Concordance defines "propitiation" this way:
2434 hilasmós (ἱλασμός) – properly, propitiation; an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party.
I do not fault you for this inventive explanation since I asked for it. I agree that had the Jewish believers been given enough time the Holy Spirit would have "guided them into all truth" about the cross. As it so happened, however, Jesus stepped in and sped up the process by taking them through all the scriptures that dealt with the passion (Luke 24).
This statement that Paul reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead sounds curiously like that of Luke writing about Jesus' encounter with the two disciples on the Road to Emmaus.
They began by expressing their profound disappointment at what had happened to Jesus (Luke 24:20-21) Next they gave the women's account of Jesus' missing body, the angelic appearance at the tomb and finally their eyewitness testimony that Christ was alive (Luke 24:22-24). Jesus answered to them was as follows
“O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26“Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”
First, He says the prophets had spoken of his suffering (on the cross) beforehand. We can expect to find evidence for the cross in the OT writings.
Second, He says that it was necessary that Christ should suffer in this manner. The question was WHY it was necessary? What had His death accomplished that was so important as to be deemed necessary. Is this not talking about the purpose of the cross which you claim was a hidden mystery until Paul came along years later? In fact though Jesus did not brush all their questions aside by saying it was a mystery. Neither did he leave it for them to figure out. He Jesus explained it to them in ALL the scriptures just as he later did with the Twelve.
27Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in ALL the Scriptures (Luke 24:27).
It might have taken years to learn these truths through study. In the meantime many souls were awaiting the good news of salvation (especially at that time in history). Jesus would not be around long. He had every reason to tell them the message before Pentecost so the multitudes of seekers would know the way of salvation. I think the Lord wanted them to understand the message of the cross as soon as possible since, as Paul said, THE message of the cross (singular) is THE power of God unto salvation. Only one message had THE power to save both Jew and Gentile [/B](Romans 1:16)[/B]
Traditional Dispensationalists do not believe in two gospels only that, over time, the 12 Apostles came to a fuller understanding of the ONE gospel with which they had been entrusted. I am not saying I advocate their position but, in no way do they support MAD. D.T.S. is very strict about doctrine and from what I know of them I sincerely doubt a proponent of MAD would be allowed to graduate from there. Here is a statement from their website about their belief about "dispensationalism."
We believe that different administrative responsibilities of this character are manifest in the biblical record, that they span the entire history of mankind, and that each ends in the failure of man under the respective test and in an ensuing judgment from God. We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive
http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/
What do you mean when you say"The Gospel of Grace?" Grace as opposed to what? Also if you think someone can be saved by believing Jesus died for us (and is not the Son of God) OR by believing is the Son yet not the sacrifice does one have to use the term "grace" to preach the essence of what saving grace means? If not then you cannot use it as a defining term differentiating "gospels"
So when Jesus explained why He had suffered referring to every relevant OT scripture and then opened the Apostle's minds to understand the scriptures they STILL did not comprehend. Instead it took them years of study and contemplation and ultimately the arrival of the Apostle Paul to catch up to what Jesus said. All I can say is if this is the prevailing view of MAD then proponents must consider Jesus to be a very ineffective teacher.
Also, assuming this is true, Philip would have had no idea what Isaiah 53 meant except PERHAPS that the lamb meant Jesus, and that He was totally good and innocent but was killed unjustly. This presents an inspirational figure, worthy of emulation, a hero like one of the martyred prophets one as powerful as Elijah who also escaped death but one whose death cannot make any difference to an individual's relationship to God. Philip stumbled through the benefits of His death - the removal of sin the aquisition of peace though he was utterly unable to explain what it meant. Even so, the Ethiopian Eunuch without understanding hardly any of he read was somehow saved.
MAD does not take into account collateral scriptural evidence. What few sermons that are recorded are taken to be verbally exhaustive statements of the Apostle's beliefs (particularly Peter's since we do not know what all the others were teaching). There is little commitment to harmonizing scripture. Rather there is a tendency to micro-focus on individual proof texts which has the effect of splitting the message apart - which is apparently the purpose since the belief is that two incomplete "gospels" co-existed.
On one hand we have the Gentiles who are not taught about Christ's divine nature while they are taught about His vicarious death. The Jews on the other hand were taught His divine origin and nature but NOT that he was the Lamb who died for them. This does not make sense. Even with their corrupt understanding the Gentiles were familiar with the general idea of a deity becoming incarnate and the Jews surely new something about the significance of the Lamb and the suffering Messiah.
Shasta
Well-known member
Yes I live in the area. I am not sure all that they do though. You will have to call them.
Shasta
Well-known member
I think you need to study Luke 24. You are stuck in Luke 18. Also see how Philip the Evangelist uses Messianic prophecy about the crucifixion of Jesus to bring the Ethiopian to salvation and the forgiveness of sin. THE gospel possesses the power to save. Paul had some revelations but the cross was not a truth shown first or exclusively to him.
I answered your question. If John talks about Jesus as the Son of God in one verse it does not mean his letters and audience were not aware of His death and resurrection also.
You wrongly divorce the person and work of Christ to retain false MAD.
A Muslim denies the Deity, death, and resurrection of Christ (they will say He is a Messiah, prophet, teacher). They reject the Christian, Pauline gospel.
The Christian, Pauline, NT gospel (one, not two since there is one Christ and cross, the only basis for a post-cross faith) affirms the Deity, death, resurrection of Christ. Dividing the person and work of Christ is pulling a wing off the gospel bird.
If you cannot see this, I cannot help you and you are wasting our time with a basic rejection of NT theology.
I emailed them. I think they think I am a terrorist from Canada because I was asking if I could walk around campus or would this be a security threat. They forwarded my email to campus security:hammer: but it sounds like I am welcome to wander:dog::ha::zoomin:
This is sound, biblical thinking. MAD relies on specious arguments and proof texts out of context.
Thx for your patient contribution. They won't listen to me without consigning me to H E two sticks....
Uh, no. Follow closely.
Acts 1
1 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
And what do they ask him?
4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No you didn't. All you did was evade them. Here they are again and we will see how many times you will run and hide from them:
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 do you believe that "everyone" who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is born of God and saved?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Here we see exactly what Paul preached to the Jews not long after his conversion on the Damascus road:
"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).
There is nothing that even hints that at that time Paul preached the same gospel which he later preached to the Gentiles. In fact, here we read what Paul said about the events surrounding his receiving of the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles:
“But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus” (Gal.1:15-17).
When he received the gospel from the Lord Jesus on the Damascus road he immediately went to Damascus (Acts 9:6-8).. But when he received the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. That can only mean that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.
Earlier I said the following to you:
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?:
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).
Here is what you said:
What about Peter’s response here in answer to the Lord Jesus’ question?:
“He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Mt.16:15-17).
At the time when Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, he did not even know that the Lord Jesus was to die. According to you we must believe that Peter had a cultic concept of the Lord Jesus and He really did not know who the Lord Jesus really was!
That is ridiculous and it shows how far you will go in order to deny that those who believe the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, are born again and are saved the moment when they believe that truth.
In regard to being born again you said:
According to the Lord Jesus no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of God (Jn.3:5-7). But what about Abraham, who died before the atonement? Of course he was born again because he will enter the kingdom:
“There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out” (Lk.13:28).
You also said:
Do you deny the fact He did that before the Cross, as witnessed by His words to the woman who washed His feet:
“And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace” (Lk.7:48-50).
Since the Lord Jesus was able to forgive sins and declare that someone is saved before the Cross there is no reason not to believe that Peter received the same blessings before the Cross. Do you deny that Peter was born of God and saved as a result of believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?
What about the Jews who believed what Paul preached here?:
"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).
Do you deny that they received spiritual life when they were born of God by believing those truths?
Of course they did. The Apostle John makes it plain that they did at John 20:30-31 and 1 John 5:1-5.
You obviously do not believe what is said at John 20:30-31 nor at 1 John 5:1-5. You will never come to the truth in regard to the fact that two gospels were preached during the Acts period as long as you continue to deny the obvious.
As the saying goes, You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I have shown you the truth that men are born again and saved when they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, but you refuse to believe it.
You have provided no evidence from the Scriptures that there was only one gospel preached during the Acts period. Your whole argument is based on the idea that a gospel was preached during the Acts period to the Jews which states that believers are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” That is your argument but you are unable to give any evidence from the Scriptures to support your assertion.
Your argument is based soley on speculation and there is nothing from the Bible to support your assertions.
No and no.