Just One Gospel?

[Jerry Shugart]

Acts 13, Paul had already explained that Christ was their Savior, and that the testimony of the Baptist pointed to Christ.

Craig,

Yes,but that does not mean that they were preaching the "purpose" of His death.

Paul went on to say that their Savior died and rose again.

Again,that is not the same thing as preaching the "purpose" of the Cross.

Paul revealed to the Jews that all who "believe" that Christ died and rose again and that through Him sins are remitted are "justified" from all things from which you could not be justified by the law.

That is right,but the facts concerning His death and resurrection were in regard to proving that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.

Peter peached the same message on the Day of Pentecost,and he used the facts of the death and resurection to prove that it is He Who is the promised Messiah (Acts2:24-36).

There was never any mention at all that the Lord's death was the reason that the Lord is able to justify all those who believe.

I don't know how you can say that is not the ministry of "reconciliation"!

If they would have been preaching the "word of reconciliation" then we would expect to see them saying the word "reconciliation" at least once.And to preach the "word of reconciliation" it is necessary to preach the "purpose" of His death on the Cross.And they never mentioned the word "reconciliation" nor did they ever preach the "purpose" of the Cross.

I don't know how you can say it doesn't reveal the "purpose" of His death.

When I say preaching the "purpose" of His death I mean that the words concerning His death are used together with the words that speak of 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, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight"(Col.1:20-22).

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son"(Ro.5:10).

That message was not preached to the Jews during the Acts period.

Is it not more than just believing Jesus is the Christ?

Is it not more than Peter preached to the Jews?

As I said before,the preaching of the Lord's death and resurrection was the "proof" that Peter used to prove that it is Jesus Who is the "Christ,the Son of the Living God".

If the Jews believed that Jesus rose from the dead then they would also believe that He is indeed the Christ,the Son of the Living God.And once they believed that they were "born of God" and were forever saved.

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

 

[Apollos]

Yes - just ONE gospel...

Yes - just ONE gospel...

Jerry –

Thanks for your reply.

All of His word?Did you even bother to read Peter's words [1 Peter 1:23,25]?If you would have you would know that he was referring to the "gospel"…

Of course I “bothered” to read it all. The context of our conversation has been that of the “word of God” that saves us today. Why start some semantical argument here as to what the “word of God” is?

I believe, as I believe you do, that this is the “gospel” (glad tidings) – however, we disagree where that “gospel” begins and ends as you believe there is more than one “gospel” floating around - (but we will get to that problem later.)

Speaking of reading ALL of Peter’s passage above, did you ever read verse 22?
1 Peter 1:22 – “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth…”. Peter is certainly not hesitant to tell us that human agency has a part in one’s salvation – that being, man can DO something to effect his salvation.

If no one can be born again until they hear all of God's word then we would all be in trouble.

I agree – and I never suggested this. I will quote myself from my last post while I again solicit more careful reading from you…

Apollos said >> ‘When it comes to being “born again” we need to know everything that God has said about being “born again”.’

If a man's "born again" experience does not take place in a moment of time are we supposed to believe that this is a life-long birthing process?

Salvation does take place at a “point” in time. All I have said and illustrated is that none of the verses that you have presented to date teach or suggest “at the moment” birth at the point of belief (mental assent). I have also shown that no ONE verse tells us everything we need to know about being “born again”. This I patently proved by using your admission for REPENTANCE being required in the “born again” process. So let’s move on.

And are you not aware that after we believe that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the time when we will put on our new,immortal bodies?

Yes I am well aware – although we probably disagree on what it means to be “sealed” by the HS. Let’s save that discussion for a later time – if needed.

The reason some are unhappy by the teaching that "works" are required for salvation is because it is not Scriptual.

I believe I am showing that the idea of “works” being involved in one’s salvation IS scriptural. I am doing this by showing that most people never have taken the time to realize that in the NT different TYPES of works are talked about. Even you can not reject that the NT mentions –3- different TYPES of works. When this fact is realized, then it is but a matter of determining which “works” are acceptable to God and which are rejected in the course of being “born again”.

This says [Joshua 6] nothing about eternal salvation.

Eternal salvation was not the context of my remarks – the manner in which man receives the BLESSINGS of God was. This is by faithful obedience! I am sure you agree we are not “under” the OT today. But –3- things that the OT teaches for certain is:
1.) How God deals with man.
2.) That God has always provided for man.
3.) God always keeps His promises.

I used Joshua chapter 6 to show that when man faithfully complied with God’s requests, that it was then (by His grace) God kept His promise and gave His blessing to man. Eternal salvation today is obtained in the very same way. Do you require more OT & NT examples?

The verse you are referring to [Eph 2:8] says that man is saved by grace (unmerited favor) through faith and not by works:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast"(Eph.2:8,9).

No, this passage says by “boastful” works (or works of merit). But I was actually referring to Joshua 6 in contrast to the TYPES of works man can do, but Ephesians 2:8f bolsters my example and points that I made from Joshua 6 – it is the works of God, not works of merit, that appropriate God’s blessing.

One last thing.According to the Acts narrative [chapter 9:19f] it would be possible for him to go to Arabia after he got to Tarsus at Acts 9:30).

Hmmm – really? I guess Paul may have gone to Barcelona as well, but… other than your wanting to believe this is possible, do you have ANY reason to suggest this as a possibility? Don’t forget, you are going to have to work in a return to Damascus right after that trip to Arabia, because Paul tells us that when he returned from Arabia he went to Damascus – Galatians 1:17.

We are supposed to believe that sometime in this time period [Acts 9:19f] Paul went to Arabia?

Besides the fact that I listed a complete co-coordinated Acts 9/Galatians 1 TIME LINE that shows the WHEN and WHERE of Paul during these years, I gave other considerations. Some translations (Ex. ASV, RSV, NASV) indicate the change in thought Luke presents at this point and separate these 2 sentences by paragraph. Paul received food and was strengthened. THEN is an adverb… def. – next in order – of time. We do not know exactly how much time, working with Acts 9, Acts 26, and Galatians 1 & 2, this appears to be the only possible time.

If you are unhappy with this evidence, refute it and present something better that what you have said above when you said that Paul MAYBE went after he got to Tarsus. Give me something better to work with than a MAYBE.

And during this time he did not "confer" with any other men?Even though he was just saved and had the most amazing experience of his life and he was around other believers we are supposed to believe that he did not "confer" with anyone?

Pay attention to the context of Galatians 1 – Paul had specific reasons for using this exact word. He wanted the Galatians to know assuredly from what source that he had received the gospel. We have already been here.

The word "confer" at Gal.1:16 means "to take one into counsel"."Counsel" means "to give or receive advice or opinion."

We have also already been here. We have BOTH already agreed with Mr. Thayer and his definition. Galatians 1:16 tells us Paul did NOT “confer” with anyone. Our only possible disagreement may be that in Acts 9:20 Paul “proclaimed” the son of God, and that this is an entirely DIFFERENT word than the word used in Gal. 1:16 for “confer” – as our mutual source of word definitions Mr. Thayer points out. Do you “concur” ??? It seems as if you want to argue with yourself.

Your argument for –2- gospels based on Acts 9:20 and Galatians 1:16 is flawed and therefore incorrect, because it was based on the assumption &/or errant notion that Paul did the same thing in both passages – “confer” - as I showed your use of it from a previous post of yours. But such did not happen.

I also showed how Paul went to Arabia without “conferring”, and then returned to Damascus to “proclaim” the Son of God. Your argument fails because it is in error.
So let’s take up another. I will do that next post if possible...

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Apollos,

You said:

Speaking of reading ALL of Peter’s passage above, did you ever read verse 22?
1 Peter 1:22 – “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth…”. Peter is certainly not hesitant to tell us that human agency has a part in one’s salvation – that being, man can DO something to effect his salvation.

The Greek word translated “obedience” in this verse means “compliance,submission”(“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

The word “comply” means “to act in accordance with wishes,requests,commands,requirements,conditions”(“Thayers Greek English Lexicon”).

The way that we comply to the truth is to “believe” it.

I believe I am showing that the idea of “works” being involved in one’s salvation IS scriptural. I am doing this by showing that most people never have taken the time to realize that in the NT different TYPES of works are talked about.

You do not understand what Paul teaches or else you would not be attempting to prove that certain types of “works” are required for salvation.

If any kind of “work” is required for salvation,then once a person does that “work” the Lord is in debt to reward that person with eternal salvation.But Paul makes it plain that the Lord will not be in debt to anyone:

”Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt”(Ro.4:4).

The sinner is saved by “grace” and if that salvation is of “works” then it is not of “grace”(Ro.11:6).

And the following words of Paul make it as plain as possible that a man’s salvation is not dependent on “works” of any kind:

”But to him who worketh not,but believeth on Him Who justifieth the ungodly,his faith is counted for righteousness”(Ro.4:5).

According to you it is those who believe and do some kind of work who are saved,but according to Paul it is those who “worketh not but believe” who are saved.

The “gospel of grace” is described by Paul as being “the power of God unto salvation to everone who believeth”(Ro.1:16).IT is faith in this gospel that brings the sinner salvation.The same gospel is alsso described by Paul as being “the glorious gospel of Christ”,and he says that there are some who have been blinded to the truth of this gospel:

”In whom the god of this age hath blinded the minds who believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,Who is the image of God,should shine unto them”(2Cor.4:4).

Apollos,please allow me to speak frankly to you.You prove that you do not understand the “gospel of grace” by your remarks that some kinds of “works” are necessary for salvation.You have probably received this perversion of the Scriptures from some religious institution.And that is not surprising,since Paul reveals that the “god of this world”,who blinds the mind of those who will not believe the gospel of grace,works throgh religious institutions:

”For such are false apostles,deceitful workers,transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.And no marvel,for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.Therefore,it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness,whose end shall be according to their works”(2Cor.11:13-15).

You have been decived to such a point that the light of the “gospel of grace” has not shined on you.You have not believed the “gospel of grace” because you have been blinded to its meaning by those who pose as “ministers of righteousness”.Of course those people are sincere in their beliefs,but their “end shall be according to their works”.And the following is an example of those who think that they are doing the “works” of the Lord but instead they are doing the works of Satan:

”Many will say to me in that day,Lord,Lord,have we not prophesised in Thy Name?And in Thy Name have cast out demons?And in Thy Name done many wonderful works?

And then I will profess unto them,I never knew you,depart from Me,ye that work iniquity”(Mt.7:22,23).

Apollos,believing the teaching of man will result in nothing but condemnation.It is those who “believe God” who are saved:

”Abraham believed God,and it was counted unto him for righteousness.Now to him who worketh not,but believeth on Him Who justifieth the ungodly,his faith is counted for righteousness”(Ro.4:3,4).

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

 

[HopeofGlory]

My response is in bold.

Act 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
Act 13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Act 13:28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
Act 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
Act 13:30 But God raised him from the dead:

Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.


That is right,but the facts concerning His death and resurrection were in regard to proving that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.

Paul is revealing much more than Jesus is the Christ.


Peter peached the same message on the Day of Pentecost,and he used the facts of the death and resurection to prove that it is He Who is the promised Messiah (Acts2:24-36).

No Jerry he did not! Were did Peter at Pentecost say anything like "by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses"

There was never any mention at all that the Lord's death was the reason that the Lord is able to justify all those who believe.

Again Jerry, Christ revealed it to Peter when He said " For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt 26:28). Christ intended that this message be preached to the Jews first and they would minister it to the Gentiles. The Jews refused it and Paul then turned to the Gentiles.That is exactly what Paul is revealing by explaining that Jesus died, rose again, and by Him (His death and ressurrection) there is forgiveness of sins. This is much more than just believing Jesus is the Christ.

If they would have been preaching the "word of reconciliation" then we would expect to see them saying the word "reconciliation" at least once.And to preach the "word of reconciliation" it is necessary to preach the "purpose" of His death on the Cross.And they never mentioned the word "reconciliation" nor did they ever preach the "purpose" of the Cross.

Paul said they would be "justified" from all things if they believed. How can one be justified without being reconciled to God? Paul explained that through this act of dying and rising again there is forgiveness of sins which is the "purpose" of His death..

When I say preaching the "purpose" of His death I mean that the words concerning His death are used together with the words that speak of 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, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight"(Col.1:20-22).

Paul did that Jerry, instead of the words blood and reconcile he used the words slain, raised and justified.

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son"(Ro.5:10).

That message was not preached to the Jews during the Acts period.

That message was preached to the apostles by Christ in Matt 26:28. It was intended to be given to the Jews. Paul revealed it in Acts 13, they refused it, Paul then delivered that same word to the Gentiles.

"It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles".

As I said before,the preaching of the Lord's death and resurrection was the "proof" that Peter used to prove that it is Jesus Who is the "Christ,the Son of the Living God".

Paul revealed much more to the Jews than Peter did at Pentecost!

If the Jews believed that Jesus rose from the dead then they would also believe that He is indeed the Christ,the Son of the Living God.And once they believed that they were "born of God" and were forever saved.

One does not receive eternal life by just believing Jesus is Christ. Devils believe that much.

The gospel was revealed progressively not two different gospels and eternal life is by believing the fulfilled gospel.

Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Craig

 

[BChristianK]

Jerry,

You said:

If you will check the events described in the prophecies concerning the "great tribulation" and the events that follow you will see that there is absolutely no mention of the Church,which is His Body.It is as if that Body has disappeared off of the face of the earth before the "great tribulation".And that is exactly what is going to happen.

The reason is quite simple.We can see that the offer of the kingdom was "conditional" on whether or not the nation of Israel accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.At the end of the 69 weeks the Lord Jesus was "cut off",and then we see Peter offering the kingdom to Israel on the day of Pentecost:

Ok, lets deal with the reason first.

If the kingdom is conditional, what is it predicated on?
You quote a verse and comment.

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began"(Acts3:19).

The Jews would have understood that the reference to the "times of refreshing" and the "restitution of all things" was in regard to the blessings that were to come to the Israelites at the end of the 70 weeks.

Ah, so now please answer a clarifying question for me. Are you saying that if the people listening to Peter would have repented and turned to God that God would have immediately sent Jesus back to earth to establish the messianic age?

If not, then exactly what do you think this is teaching about the return of Christ?

Lets start there.

Grace and Peace

bk

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Act 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
Act 13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Saying that salvation is sent to the Jews is not the same thing as telling them:

” When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”(Ro.5:10).

Act 13:28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
Act 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
Act 13:30 But God raised him from the dead:

Again,saying that the Lord was resurrected is not the same thing as:

” When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”(Ro.5:10).

Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

I have already answered this.This verse says nothing about how it was possible the Lord could remit sins.And it is made plain in other verses that it was those who "believed in His Name" who would receive the remission of sins.And believing in His Name is in regard to believing the Jesus is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

This says nothing about reconciliation made possible by the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross.And there is nothing here that proves that the "word of God" which was spoken to the Jews was the same word of God that was preached in the churches that Paul founded.

Paul is revealing much more than Jesus is the Christ.

That is correct,but the things he revealed were revealed for the purpose of teaching that it is Jesus Who is the Christ,the Son of God:

"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"(Acts17:2,3).

Earlier I said:

"There was never any mention at all that the Lord's death was the reason that the Lord is able to justify all those who believe."

To which you reply:

Again Jerry, Christ revealed it to Peter when He said " For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt 26:28). Christ intended that this message be preached to the Jews first and they would minister it to the Gentiles.

First of all,we are not talking about what the Apostles might have known.Instead we are talking about the gospel which they preached to the Jews.If the Lord had intended them to preach that message then they would have done just that.But they did not!

The Acts recorded can be searched from the beginning to the end and there cannot be found even one instance where this was preached to the Jews.

Secondly,it is questionable as to what the Apostles understood about His words in regard to the blood of the New Testament.They knew that it would be by the means of the New Testament that was promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah whereby the Jews would receive the remission of sins (Jer.31:31,34).They also knew that the Old Testament was ratified by blood (Ex.24:8).

But there is no reason to suppose that they knew that the sinner was reconciled to the LOrd by the death of the Lord Jesus.Besides,at that point they did not even realize that the Lord Jesus would be resurrected physically (Jn.20:9).So their understanding at that point was limited.

Paul said they would be "justified" from all things if they believed. How can one be justified without being reconciled to God?

Again,Paul did not say that it was through the death of the Lord Jesus that the sinner might be justified.And yes,one cannot be justified without being reconciled.But Paul was not preaching the following:

” When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”(Ro.5:10).

Paul did that Jerry, instead of the words blood and reconcile he used the words slain, raised and justified.

Paul talked about the Lord's death and resurrection and he said that all who believe in Him shall be justified.But he did not tie His death unto the justification.He did not say:

” When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”(Ro.5:10).

One does not receive eternal life by just believing Jesus is Christ. Devils believe that much.

First of all,the "gospel" that was preached to the Jews during the Acts period was not for devils.

And the Jews who believed that it is Jesus Who is the Christ,the Son of God,were born of God and became children of God:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...For whosoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?'(1Jn.5:1,4,5).

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name"(Jn.20:31).

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Ah, so now please answer a clarifying question for me. Are you saying that if the people listening to Peter would have repented and turned to God that God would have immediately sent Jesus back to earth to establish the messianic age?

No,Peter did not use the word "immediately",and neither did I.

If not, then exactly what do you think this is teaching about the return of Christ?

First of all,the Apostles thought that the kingdom would be restored to Israel (Acts1:6)That means that they belierved that the kingdom would be an earthly kingdom.Do you think that they were wrong for expecting an earthly kingdom?

If your answer is "yes",then please tell me how they could be mistaken.They were with the Lord Jesus after His resurrection while He spoke "of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God'(Acts1:3).

While they were with Him He opened their understanding of the OT:

"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures"(Lk.24:45).

Of course the OT Scriptures contain numerous passages relating to the kingdom.So their understanding was opened to the meaning of those verses.And according to their understanding the kingdom would be restored to Israel.This can only mean that they believed that the kingdom would be set up on earth.

Before we go any further I will ask you.Do you think that the Apostles were wrong because they thought that the kingdom would be restored to Israel?

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

 

[BChristianK]

Jerry, you replied:

No,Peter did not use the word "immediately”, and neither did I.

Ok, then what precisely do you think would need to have occurred in addition to the repentance and calling upon God of the Jews for Christ to have been sent back to earth?

First of all,the Apostles thought that the kingdom would be restored to Israel (Acts1:6)That means that they believed that the kingdom would be an earthly kingdom.Do you think that they were wrong for expecting an earthly kingdom?

I think they were mistaken for expecting an immediate earthly kingdom, yes.
I think Christ’s response to their inquiry supports that.

He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:7)

I’ll answer your next follow up question but would like to ask you one concerning this verse.

Do you believe that the Father has set the time and date of the return of the Lord by His own authority?

Your follow up questions was...

If your answer is "yes", then please tell me how they could be mistaken. They were with the Lord Jesus after His resurrection while He spoke "of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God'(Acts1:3).

First, because they had not been given the understanding that accompanied the sending of the Holy Spirit…

"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:26)

But second, I am not sure that your interpretation of Luke 24:45 is valid…

You said:

While they were with Him He opened their understanding of the OT:

"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures"(Lk.24:45).

Of course the OT Scriptures contain numerous passages relating to the kingdom. So their understanding was opened to the meaning of those verses .And according to their understanding the kingdom would be restored to Israel. This can only mean that they believed that the kingdom would be set up on earth.

Lets take a look at the verse in context.

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

Specifically, what was written in the Scriptures that Luke 24 says Christ open their mind to understand was that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

It says precisely nothing about the conditions for Christ's return or thier ability to influence it.

But it does say something quite damaging to your theological suppositions.

…and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations ([font=symbol ta eqnh[/font]). I am going to send you what my Father has promised;

When Jesus says that He is going to send what His Father has promised is He not referring to the Holy Spirit? What did Jesus say would happen at that time? Was it not that repentance and the forgiveness of sins would be preached to all nations? Now here is the big question Jerry, does not all nations include gentiles as well as Jews?

Before we go any further I will ask you .Do you think that the Apostles were wrong because they thought that the kingdom would be restored to Israel?

Yes, they were wrong in thinking that the Kingdom would be restored to Israel at that time. Christ's response was not, "I guess it all depends on whether or not the Jews repent." He said, “It is not for you to know the times or the dates the Father has set by His own authority.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I think they were mistaken for expecting an immediate earthly kingdom, yes.

BK,

Do you think that the Apostles were wrong for thinking that the kingdom would be an earthly kingdom?If you answer "yes" then please consider the following:

So you believe that even though the Apostles were with the Lord for many days while He spoke of things concerning the kingdom that they did not even understand the most basic thing concerning the kingdom.

If you are correct then we must believe that the Lord Jesus told them that the kingdom was not to be established on earth,but they just could not grasp this simple concept!Because they had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

"...being seen by them forty days,and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God"(Acts1:3).

These guys must have been really stupid if they could not even understand the basic makeup of the kingdom.And what does that say about the ability of the Lord Jesus to convey to others the meaning of the things pertaining to the kingdom?

I think they were mistaken for expecting an immediate earthly kingdom, yes.
I think Christ’s response to their inquiry supports that.

If they were mistaken about such an important aspect of the things pertaining to the kingdom then why would the Lord Jesus not say something like--"How many times do I have to tell you that the kingdom will not be an earthly kingdom?"

Instead of correcting the Apostles like He surely would have done if they were in error He merely told them that they were not to know the time when it would happen.So the response of the Lord in no way supports your idea that the Apostle were wrong for expecting the Lord to restore the kingdom to Israel.

And later Peter (after Peter receives the Holy Spirit) he still thinks that the kingdom will be an earthly one and the Lord Jesus will sit upon an earthly throne,the throne of David:

"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne"(Acts3:30).

To sit upon David's throne,the same throne from which Salomon ruled (1Ki.2:12).

And the "prophecy" that Peter referred to is speaking of David's throne:

"The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne"(Ps.132:11).

So even after receiving the Holy Spirit Peter still thought that the kingdom would be restored to Israel,but yet he did not know when.

Next in regard to Luke 24:45 you say:

Specifically, what was written in the Scriptures that Luke 24 says Christ open their mind to understand was that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.'/quote]
If you will read the verse in the context it is clear that one of the things that their understanding was opened to are the meanings of the prophecies"

"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'/b]. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures"(Lk.24:44,45).

Not just "some" of the things concerning Him,but instead "all" the things concerning Him,including the prophecies concerning Him.And after that Peter believed that the kingdom would be set up on earth.But you believe that he was mistaken.

Do you believe that the Father has set the time and date of the return of the Lord by His own authority?

That is not what the verse says.Instead,it says that the "knowledge" of the time when the kingdom will be set up is in the Father's authority.The following is an example of this:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only"(Mt.24:36).

It says precisely nothing about the conditions for Christ's return or thier ability to influence it.

Peter could not be much plainer.The "condition" of which Peter spoke is that the nation of Israel should be repentent and that she should turn to the Lord.They were to repent of their past way of living so that the nation would be prepared to serve the Lord Jesus (Lk.1:17,74,75)..Also,that nation must believe that it is Jesus Who is their promised Messiah.

But instead of believing and repenting the Apostles were thrown into prison.

But it does say something quite damaging to your theological suppositions.

"…and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations... I am going to send you what my Father has promised;"(Lk.24:47,49).

When Jesus says that He is going to send what His Father has promised is He not referring to the Holy Spirit? What did Jesus say would happen at that time? Was it not that repentance and the forgiveness of sins would be preached to all nations? Now here is the big question Jerry, does not all nations include gentiles as well as Jews?

The were to begin in Israel:

"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth"(Acts1:8).

When the disciples were scattered during the early persecution they went everywhere preaching the gospel "to none but unto the Jews only"(Acts11:19).

The disciples knew that according to prophecy it would be the nation of Israel who would bring salvation to the whole earth.The Lord Jesus said,"salvation is of the Jews"(Jn.4:22).

He told the nation that their destiny was to be "the light of the world"(Mt.5:14).

So the Apostles were expecting that the nation of Israel would be that light to the world and before they would go to the whole world they were waiting on Israel to repent and fulfill her destiny.But Israel remained obstinate.And that is why Peter was surprised when he was sent to a house of Gentiles.And that is why the other believing Jews said:

"And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them"(Acts11:23).

If Peter was simply following the Lord's command to preach the gospel to every creature,hy didn't he just say that he was following the so/called "great commission"?Instead,he answers,saying:

"Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?"(Acts11:17).

Why did he not just say that he was following the "great commission"?

Why would he need a dream before he would go to a Gentile?

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

 

[BChristianK]

Jerry said:

Do you think that the Apostles were wrong for thinking that the kingdom would be an earthly kingdom?

No. I have no problem with there being an earthly kingdom.

So you believe that even though the Apostles were with the Lord for many days while He spoke of things concerning the kingdom that they did not even understand the most basic thing concerning the kingdom.

No, this is not what I believe.

So even after receiving the Holy Spirit Peter still thought that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, but yet he did not know when.

Which is my point, and thus he could not be making a promise that if the Jews repent, Jesus will return. Rather, he was urging them to repent in light of Christ’s promised return.

Now in regards to Luke 24:45 you say:

If you will read the verse in the context it is clear that one of the things that their understanding was opened to are the meanings of the prophecies"

"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'/b]. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures"(Lk.24:44,45).

Not just "some" of the things concerning Him, but instead "all" the things concerning Him, including the prophecies concerning Him. And after that Peter believed that the kingdom would be set up on earth. But you believe that he was mistaken.

I have never said that Peter didn’t believe their would be an earthly kingdom, I have said that they were mistaken to have expected an immediate earthly kingdom.

Now on to Acts 1:7,

I claimed that the Father has set the date and time of the return of the Lord by his own authority to which you replied.

That is not what the verse says. Instead it says that the "knowledge" of the time when the kingdom will be set up is in the Father's authority. The following is an example of this:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only"(Mt.24:36).

First of all, the verse you quote, Matthew 24:36 does say that only the Father knows when the return of the Lord will be, but that is because Acts 1:7 is true.

"It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

The reason that only the Father knows the time and date is because the Father has set the time and date by his own authority.

Acts 1:7 does NOT say that the knowledge of the time is under the Father’s authority, though this is true, it says very, very, very clearly that the Father has set the time and date by His own authority.

Peter could not be much plainer.The "condition" of which Peter spoke is that the nation of Israel should be repentent and that she should turn to the Lord.They were to repent of their past way of living so that the nation would be prepared to serve the Lord Jesus (Lk.1:17,74,75)..Also,that nation must believe that it is Jesus Who is their promised Messiah.

Right, this could not be clearer, but what also could not be clearer is that this statement you have just made is not the same thing as Peter promising that if they repent, Christ will return.

This idea is simply not supported by scripture.

Jesus was clear that the return o the Lord will be at a time when no-one expects it (Mt 24:44, Luke 12:40, 1Th. 5:2)

If Christ would have returned as a result of their repentance then one could not say that He would return when no one expects it, in fact, Peter and everyone else for that matter, had every reason to rightly expect the return of Christ if you are correct and thier repentance would bring about the return of Christ.

So you see that the dimension of your theology that claims that Christ would return if the condition of the repentance of the Jews was met is just not supported by scripture, in fact it is very clearly refuted by it.

Now in regards to the multiple times that Jesus told His disciples that they were to go to panta eqnh (all nations.

You say:

The were to begin in Israel:

Not disputed.

When the disciples were scattered during the early persecution they went everywhere preaching the gospel "to none but unto the Jews only"(Acts11:19).

Right and here is what follows…

20Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

Were they wrong in doing so?

The disciples knew that according to prophecy it would be the nation of Israel who would bring salvation to the whole earth.The Lord Jesus said,"salvation is of the Jews"(Jn.4:22).

Not disputed.

He told the nation that their destiny was to be "the light of the world"(Mt.5:14).

Not disputed.

So the Apostles were expecting that the nation of Israel would be that light to the world and before they would go to the whole world they were waiting on Israel to repent and fulfill her destiny. But Israel remained obstinate. And that is why Peter was surprised when he was sent to a house of Gentiles. And that is why the other believing Jews said:

"And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them"(Acts11:23).

If Peter was simply following the Lord's command to preach the gospel to every creature, why didn't he just say that he was following the so/called "great commission"?Instead,he answers,saying:

"Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?"(Acts11:17).

Why did he not just say that he was following the "great commission"?

First of all, the “great commission” was not coined as a term at that time. Second, you seem to make a lot of the circumcised believers’ uncomfortably with Peter going into the home a gentile to eat with them. This will not be the first time that the circumcised believers object to the inclusion of the gentile nations. Their unwillingness to embrace the gentiles does not somehow invalidate what is plainly spelled out in Matthew 28:19.
What does it mean to you when Jesus says that his disciples were to make disciples of all nations. Do you think that a gospel for only the Jews making disciples of all nations?

Why would he need a dream before he would go to a Gentile?

Perhaps it was to signal that the time of witnessing in Jerusalem had passed. Perhaps it was because Peter was caving in to the pressure put on him by the circumcised believers. Who knows why?
But what we don’t know should never overshadow what we do know.

What we do know plainly is that (1) God called them to be disciples of all nations, not just the nation of Israel, (2) that they were to be witnesses even unto the uttermost parts of the earth and (3) God revealed to Peter in the dream that He had (already) cleansed the gentiles.

A key question I will reiterate to you Jerry, did Jesus mean what He said when He told His disciples to make disciples of all nations?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Right, this could not be clearer, but what also could not be clearer is that this statement you have just made is not the same thing as Peter promising that if they repent, Christ will return.

This idea is simply not supported by scripture.

BK,

Does not Peter tell the nation of Israel that if they will repent and turn to the Lord then the Father would send back the Lord Jesus so that they could enjoy the “times of refreshing” from the presence of the Lord Jesus?:

” Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you”(Acts3:19).

The sending back of the Lord Jesus was “conditioned” on the nation’s repentance and turning to the Lord.Will you agree to that?

Jesus was clear that the return of the Lord will be at a time when no-one expects it (Mt 24:44, Luke 12:40, 1Th. 5:2)

If Christ would have returned as a result of their repentance then one could not say that He would return when no one expects it, in fact, Peter and everyone else for that matter, had every reason to rightly expect the return of Christ if you are correct and thier repentance would bring about the return of Christ.

The Apostles would know that before the Lord would return that the events which the Lord Jesus described in the Olivet Discourse (Mt.24:4-29) must first come to pass.Then sometimes after the signs in the heavens (Mt.24:29) the Lord would return.But there will be an interval of time after the signs in the heavens and His return.That is why the Lord tells them to be on constant guard for His return (Mt.25:13).

So Peter was not telling them exactly the day which the Lord Jesus would return,but instead was telling them that His return was dependent on the nation repenting and turning to the Lord.

The reason that only the Father knows the time and date is because the Father has set the time and date by his own authority.

Acts 1:7 does NOT say that the knowledge of the time is under the Father’s authority, though this is true, it says very, very, very clearly that the Father has set the time and date by His own authority.

Here is a literal interpreation of the Lord’s words:

”It is not yours to know times and seasons which the Father placed in His own authority”(Acts:1:7,”Literal Translation”,Green,”Interlinear Greek-English New Testament”).

The Greek word that is translated "authority" can mean "physical and mental power,the ability or strength which one is endued,which he either possesses or exercises"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

So it is the knowledge of the times and seasons which the Father has placed in His own knowledge.He has the "ability" to know the times of the seasons,and He is the only One that has a knowledge of the times to come (Mt.24:36).

It is the “knowledge” of the times and seasons which the Lord placed in His own authority.You seem to be saying that since the Lord’s appointed time for the Lord to return remains in the future then Peter had no business offering the return of Christ if the nation of Israel had repented and turned to the Lord.

Was Peter wrong when he told the nation that if they repented and turned to the Lord then the Father would send back the Lord Jesus?

Now in regards to the multiple times that Jesus told His disciples that they were to go to all nations…20Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

The word translated “Greeks” means ”employed in the N.T. of Jews born in foreign lands and speaking Greek [Grecian Jews]:Acts xi. 20”(“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

What does it mean to you when Jesus says that his disciples were to make disciples of all nations. Do you think that a gospel for only the Jews making disciples of all nations?

As I said,the Apostles knew that before they should go to the whole world that the nation of Israel must repent so that that nation would be the “light of the world”.And since that nation did not repent they did not go unto the whole world.Instead,the Lord converted Paul and made him the “apostle of the Gentiles”.He is the one who went into the world and preached the gospel which had been given to him directly by the Lord (Col.1:6).

If the Twelve Apostles were to obey the Lord’s so-called “great commission” then they should all have gone into the whole world preaching the “gospel of the kingdom”.But there is no Scriptual evidence that they ever did such a thing.It was not until Paul was converted that any gospel went unto the whole world,and the gospel which he preached was not the “gospel of the kingdom” but instead the “gospel of grace”.

What we do know plainly is that (1) God called them to be disciples of all nations, not just the nation of Israel, (2) that they were to be witnesses even unto the uttermost parts of the earth and (3) God revealed to Peter in the dream that He had (already) cleansed the gentiles.

If the so-called “great commision” was carried to every creature then when did the following happen?:

” Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world”(Mt.28:20).

Here is one of the things which the Lord commanded His Apostles:

” Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do”(Mt.23:1-3).

This commandment will indeed be a valid commandment at the time when the kingdom will be set up on the earth:

” And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem”(Isa.2:3).

But this commandment to follow the law was never preached in all the world.Instead,Paul preached to the Gentiles that believers are not under the law.

A key question I will reiterate to you Jerry, did Jesus mean what He said when He told His disciples to make disciples of all nations?

He also gave that commision to His Apostles.The key question for you is why they did not go unto the whole world.The Apostles knew that according to prophecy that it would be the nation of Israel who would be the “light of the world” and that “salvation is of the Jews”.So when they saw that Israel was not repenting no one went to the Gentiles until Peter was given a special revelation.And then shortly after Paul was converted and made the “apostle to the Gentiles”.

Alfred Edersheim,who was not a dispensationalist,recognized that the blessings promised were indeed "conditional" on reveiving the testimony of John the Baptist.He says that " 'the spirit and power' of Elijiah of the New Testament (the Baptist),which was to accomplish the inward restoration through penitent reception of the Kingdom of God in its reality,could only accomplish that object IF 'they received it'---if 'they knew him'.And as in his own view,and looking around and forward,so also in fact the Baptist,though Divinely such,was not really Elijiah to Israel--and this was the meaning of the words of Jesus: 'And if ye will receive it,this is Elias,which was to come.' "

He also wrote:

"Between the Elijiah of Ahab's reign,and him of Messianic times,lay the wide cleft of quite another dispensation"(Edersheim,"The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah",Book 1,p.341).

There was a dispensation that was not revealed in the OT,and Paul referes to this dispensation as the "dispensation of the mystery":

"...and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things"(Eph.3:9,ASV).

Today the believer is given a stewardship that was kept secret since the beginning of time.Although a "dispensation" is not in itself a period of time,it does in fact cover a period of time.And it will not be until the pesent dispensation comes to a close that the things that are prophesised will come to pass.

Today the Christian is to preach the "gospel of grace",the "word of reconciliation",and that is the stewardship that was kept secret.And the end of the present dispensation will come to an end when all those who are "in Christ" meet the Lord Jesus in the air.

Then sometimes after that the word that will be preached will be the "gospel of the kingdom"(Mt.24:14) and when that gospel goes into the whole world then the prophecies concerning the "end of the age" will began to be fulfilled.

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

 

[HopeofGlory]

I have already answered this.This verse says nothing about how it was possible the Lord could remit sins.And it is made plain in other verses that it was those who "believed in His Name" who would receive the remission of sins.And believing in His Name is in regard to believing the Jesus is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.

Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Paul said “be it known unto you therefore”. How was it known unto them that their sins could be remitted? It was because Paul had already explained that Jesus was their Savior and it was proven by the fact that He died and rose again. Paul said “through this man”, the one that died and rose again, is remission of sins. Paul did not say remission was possible by repentance and baptism or just believing Jesus was Christ but by believing their Savior died and rose again.

Jerry, Why are you so possessed with the idea that they only had to believe Jesus was Christ to receive remission of sins and the gift of eternal life. Peter at Pentecost said they had to repent and be baptize for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Jesus said they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood to receive eternal life (Joh 6:54). Did they not have to do these things? What about the disciples that turned back (Joh 6:66) right after Jesus gave them the message of eternal life. Will you say they did not believe He was Christ even after He manifested Himself to them with miraculous signs. Maybe you should consider that if they did not continue to believe His words then they did not really believe in Him thus not really believing in His name.

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

This says nothing about reconciliation made possible by the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross.And there is nothing here that proves that the "word of God" which was spoken to the Jews was the same word of God that was preached in the churches that Paul founded.

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Paul said they would be justified if they believed their Savior that died and rose again could remit sins and you admitted that one could not be justified without being reconciled. What that means Jerry is that Paul did preach a message of reconciliation to the Jews. And there is nothing here that proves that message of reconciliation is not the same as Paul preached to all churches.

Quote:
Paul is revealing much more than Jesus is the Christ.

That is correct,but the things he revealed were revealed for the purpose of teaching that it is Jesus Who is the Christ,the Son of God:

"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"(Acts17:2,3).

Jerry, many times when Paul entered the synagogues or preached to the Jews he was not able to finish his message because they were jealous of the law. The most basic understanding one needs is that Jesus is Christ, Paul would have taught this foremost and would have built on this foundation. Without this foundation there would have been no reason to build. His preaching the gospel was based on their progressive understanding and acceptance of it.

Earlier I said:

"There was never any mention at all that the Lord's death was the reason that the Lord is able to justify all those who believe."

To which you reply:

Again Jerry, Christ revealed it to Peter when He said " For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt 26:28). Christ intended that this message be preached to the Jews first and they would minister it to the Gentiles.

First of all,we are not talking about what the Apostles might have known.Instead we are talking about the gospel which they preached to the Jews.If the Lord had intended them to preach that message then they would have done just that.But they did not!

No Jerry, we are taking your idea that God intended two gospels, one to the circumcision and the other to Gentiles. Christ gave the message of reconciliation by His shed blood to the Apostles therefore He did intend for them to preach it to Jews or do you think He just like to hear Himself speak. If Christ intended for this gospel to be given to the Jews then Paul would have carried out that ministry of reconciliation to Jews.

Peter did many things that the Lord did not intend for him to do. The Apostles were not puppets on strings.

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The Acts recorded can be searched from the beginning to the end and there cannot be found even one instance where this was preached to the Jews.

Well Jerry, it was preach to Jews before Pentecost. If Paul had been allowed to freely speak in the synagogues and the Jews would have believed that Jesus was Christ then Paul may have been able to feed them with meat. As I said before, Paul revealed the gospel of Christ to Jews in Acts 13:23-39. It was a message of reconciliation, the Savoir died and rose again and by this act remission of sins is yours if you believe. Paul said nothing at all about a baptism of repentance as did Peter in Acts 2:38.

Secondly,it is questionable as to what the Apostles understood about His words in regard to the blood of the New Testament.They knew that it would be by the means of the New Testament that was promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah whereby the Jews would receive the remission of sins (Jer.31:31,34).They also knew that the Old Testament was ratified by blood (Ex.24:8).

The Apostles weren’t that stupid and the message was not veiled or in parable. A new testament by His shed blood for remission, they did not understand these words or is it they just did not believe them? If they did not understand do you think it would have been wise for them have to asked for clarification? You are declaring God’s intention based on what the apostles preached at Pentecost not on the words of Christ. Therefore you assume God intended two different gospels but God never said there would be two gospels.

If you say to a lost sinner that Christ died for your sins, believe it and save yourself and your household. These are words that are easy to understand yet many will not believe them therefore they do not deliver them to their household. I believe God will not allow this household to perish without having the opportunity to hear the gospel and will send another messenger but if they will not hear that messenger the gospel is not revealed to them.

Mar 6:10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.
Mar 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.

But there is no reason to suppose that they knew that the sinner was reconciled to the LOrd by the death of the Lord Jesus.Besides,at that point they did not even realize that the Lord Jesus would be resurrected physically (Jn.20:9).So their understanding at that point was limited.

They weren’t using the terminology “reconciled” but “remission of sins”. If you believe Christ did not want the Apostles to preach this new testament message of His shed blood for remission to Jews at Pentecost then I want you to explain why He even spoke the words to them.

Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Joh 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

Again,Paul did not say that it was through the death of the Lord Jesus that the sinner might be justified.And yes,one cannot be justified without being reconciled.But Paul was not preaching the following:

” When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”(Ro.5:10).

At the lest, accept the fact that Paul was exercising a “ministry of reconciliation” to the Jews during the Acts period.


Craig

 

[Jerry Shugart]

How was it known unto them that their sins could be remitted? It was because Paul had already explained that Jesus was their Savior and it was proven by the fact that He died and rose again. Paul said “through this man”, the one that died and rose again, is remission of sins. Paul did not say remission was possible by repentance and baptism or just believing Jesus was Christ but by believing their Savior died and rose again.

Craig,

To tell someone that their sins are forgiven because they believe in Him and that He rose from the dead is not the same thing as telling them the purpose of His death--that He died for or sins.

You attempt to add words to the gospel that was preached to the Jews.

Jerry, Why are you so possessed with the idea that they only had to believe Jesus was Christ to receive remission of sins and the gift of eternal life. Peter at Pentecost said they had to repent and be baptize for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Why did you just ignore the verses which I provided that prove what I said?

Here they are again:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...For whosoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?'(1Jn.5:1,4,5).

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name"(Jn.20:31).

How much more eveidence do you need before you will believe?

Here is another one that says that the Jews who "believed on HIs Name" were "born of God":

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"(Jn.1:12,13).

Those who believed on HIs name were born of God the moment that they believed.

Jesus said they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood to receive eternal life (Joh 6:54).

The Lord was obviously using figurative language,and He made plain itt plain that He was speaking figuratively just a short time later when HE said:

"It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life"(Jn.6:63).

His words that came in the power of the Holy Spirit was what gave eternal life.Those who heard Him and believed what He said received eternal life apart from works.

Did they not have to do these things? What about the disciples that turned back (Joh 6:66) right after Jesus gave them the message of eternal life. Will you say they did not believe He was Christ even after He manifested Himself to them with miraculous signs.

There were some who believed in HIm just because of the miracles He did,but He would have nothing to do with those whose faith was based on nothing more than miracles:

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men"(Jn.2:23,34).

Theirs was a political faith in a Saviour that would deliver them from the Roman yoke.They were not born of God by the Word of God.

Paul said they would be justified if they believed their Savior that died and rose again could remit sins and you admitted that one could not be justified without being reconciled.

I never said such a thing.Instead I said that telling them that their sins were forgiven and that Christ died and rose from the dead is not the same thing as telling them the "purpose" of His death.

Why can't you understand this distinction?

Jerry, many times when Paul entered the synagogues or preached to the Jews he was not able to finish his message because they were jealous of the law. The most basic understanding one needs is that Jesus is Christ, Paul would have taught this foremost and would have built on this foundation. Without this foundation there would have been no reason to build. His preaching the gospel was based on their progressive understanding and acceptance of it.

An examination of the Acts record reveals that there was not a single instance where the "purpose" of His death was preached to the Jews.Over and over the Scriptures tell us exactly what He was preaching,and that gospel is the truth that it is Jesus who is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.

Your ideas are based on a denial of those verses.

No Jerry, we are taking your idea that God intended two gospels, one to the circumcision and the other to Gentiles.

Where would I get such an idea?:

"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).

If there was only one gospel why would Paul say the following:

"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).

If there was jst one gospel then why would Paul specify that he went up to communicate with the Apostles the facts concerning the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles?

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Yes,and one of the things that the Apostles preached to the Jews was the commandment to obey the law (Mt.23:1/3).

And even twenty five years after the Cross the Jewish believers continued to keep themselves under the law (Acts21:20).But the message that Paul preached to the churches that he founded was the fact that they are no longer under the law (Gal.3:25).

Well Jerry, it was preach to Jews before Pentecost. If Paul had been allowed to freely speak in the synagogues and the Jews would have believed that Jesus was Christ then Paul may have been able to feed them with meat. As I said before, Paul revealed the gospel of Christ to Jews in Acts 13:23-39. It was a message of reconciliation, the Savoir died and rose again and by this act remission of sins is yours if you believe. Paul said nothing at all about a baptism of repentance as did Peter in Acts 2:38.

You say that Paul preached that the Savior died and rose again and by this act remission of sins is yours if you believe.

Paul never preached that to the Jews during the Acts period.I challenge you to provide one Scriptual reference where he ever said that to the Jews.

The Apostles weren’t that stupid and the message was not veiled or in parable. A new testament by His shed blood for remission, they did not understand these words or is it they just did not believe them?

I have already explained to you that their knowledge was limited at that point of time.They did not even know on the eve of the Cross that the Lord Jesus was to be resurrected physically.

Therefore you assume God intended two different gospels but God never said there would be two gospels.

Paul named two different gospels.

They weren’t using the terminology “reconciled” but “remission of sins”. If you believe Christ did not want the Apostles to preach this new testament message of His shed blood for remission to Jews at Pentecost then I want you to explain why He even spoke the words to them.

The fact is that they never preached that message to the Jews during the Acts period.And no matter how much you attempt to place words in their mouth that they never said the facts remain.And there is not one instance in the Acts record that reveals that that was being preached.Here is what was being preached to the Jews during the Acts period:

"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).

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

That is what Paul taught to the Jews when he was first saved:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ"(Acts9:20,22).

And later Paul preached the same message:

"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"(Acts17:2,3).

In order to cling to your mistaken idea you must somehow imagine that Paul and the Twelve Apostles were preaching the "purpose" of His death despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of that.Over and over the Scriptures reveal that the gospel that was preached to the Jews is the fact that it is Jesus Who is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.

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

 

[BChristianK]

Response to Jerry

Response to Jerry

Jerry, you’ve provided quite a lot in your last post so I am going to drill down a bit and get specific. It is no use chucking bible passages at each other like grenades unless we are both very sure that we have translated, exegeted and appropriated these verse correctly, do you agree?

I am open to being shown that I am wrong, if you are right, I want to know it. I’m not dedicated to any particular theology or theologian. To borrow from Paul, I was not baptized in the name of covenantalism or dispensationalism but in Christ’s name.

So let us examine a few passages and honestly see what they say and construct a theology around them. Both sides end up stuffing square pegs into round holes far to often in order to defend an incomplete and imperfect theology.

I admit mine is not perfect, I admit there may be an aspect that is incorrect. That being said, I am going to deal with three specific issues in this post. You have presented quite a bit of stuff in your last post, and I will try to get to all of it, but I think these three are the most important to discuss.

you said:

Does not Peter tell the nation of Israel that if they will repent and turn to the Lord then the Father would send back the Lord Jesus so that they could enjoy the “times of refreshing” from the presence of the Lord Jesus?

No.

Peter says this,

” Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you”(Acts3:19).

Now the question is whether or not the clause that follows the secondkai should included in the consequence of the repent and be converted. I don’t believe it is, and really, I don’t think you believe this either. You believe that Jesus will return after a 7 year tribulation period. If every single Jew repented tomorrow, you still believe that the Lord would not return, rather, you believe that the man of lawlessness would need be revealed, and then the rapture would occur, and then the tribulation of 7 years would follow and then the Lord would return, isn’t this true?

The big question is, do you believe that Peter was telling the Jews that they could avoid the tribulation if they repented and were converted? Do you claim there would be no man of lawlessness if the Jews repented?

The sending back of the Lord Jesus was “conditioned” on the nation’s repentance and turning to the Lord. Will you agree to that?

I am afraid I don’t.

I don’t think that Peter was positing a condition. In my opinion the NASB translates the verse the best here.

and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,

It is not that God will send Jesus is it that God may send Jesus.
There are two ways to see the sentence in the Greek one is a conditional sentence, but that is complicated by the fact that there are none of the tell tale signs of first class, second class or third class conditions in the Greek. Rather the fact that apostolos is in the subjunctive probably signifies a purpose clause.
The purpose behind their repentance and conversion was out of a desire for the return of the Messiah. But that falls far short of meaning any kingdom was being “offered.” So at best, the verse is ambiguous and as such we should not draw conclusions from it alone, at worst you can’t draw an offering of a kingdom in this verse.

Now to Acts 1:7,

Here is a literal interpretation of the Lord’s words:

”It is not yours to know times and seasons which the Father placed in His own authority”(Acts:1:7,”Literal Translation”,Green,”Interlinear Greek-English New Testament”).

I agree with this translation but it doesn’t invalidate my point in the least.

However, you say:

It is the “knowledge” of the times and seasons which the Lord placed in His own authority. You seem to be saying that since the Lord’s appointed time for the Lord to return remains in the future then Peter had no business offering the return of Christ if the nation of Israel had repented and turned to the Lord.

I am saying that Peter was not offering the return of the Lord since the date and time of His return is not determined by the repentance of Israel or lack thereof, but is appointed by the authority of the Father as Acts 1:7 clearly tells us.

Jerry, I am sorry, but here you are just incorrect. The concept that it was the “knowledge” that was placed under Father’s authority is a very, very, very big stretch for the Greek. First, “knowledge” or the Greek word epignosis doesn’t occur in this sentence whatsoever. Furthermore, ouV is a relative pronoun. Now I am not a Greek scholar by any stretch of the imagination but I do know that relative pronouns agree in gender and number to their antecedents, ouV agrees quite well with both cronouV and kairouV ouV is a masculine plural accusative relative pronoun and both cronouV and kairouV are masculine plural accusative nouns. But ouV doesn’t agree at all with gnwmai because gnwmai is an infinitive and infinitives don’t have person nor do they have number or gender (as they aren’t a declinable noun).
Consequently, one would need to stretch the rules of Greek grammar quite far to claim that a pronoun, such as ouV has an infinitive as an antecedent. In fact, I can’t think of one biblical example, or any example for that matter, where a pronoun has an infinitive as its antecedent. Can you?

But there are many, many, many examples of relative pronouns having antecedents with which they agree in number and gender, as ouV does with both cronouV and kairouV.

What this means to us in this discussion is that the grammatical construction is clear.
What has been fixed by the Father’s own authority are the times and dates.

Do you see this now?

Finally, lets look at the word eqnh together.

You say:

The word translated “Greeks” means ”employed in the N.T. of Jews born in foreign lands and speaking Greek [Grecian Jews]:Acts xi. 20”(“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

And lets look at how Matthew uses the word in the rest of his work.
Matthew 6:32. For the eqnh eagerly seek all these things…
You are now telling us all that what Jesus was saying was, “For the Jews born in foreign lands who speak Greek” eagerly seek all these things..?

Or how about this one.

Matthew 12:21, And in His Name the eqnh will hope.
To you this means, and in His name the Jews born in foreign lands who speak Greek will hope.

How about this one.

Matthew 25:32: All the eqnh (Jews born in foreign lands who speak Greek) will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another…

Is this what you are saying the proper translation of this verse is?

No?

Then what is the proper translation?

Does eqnh include gentiles in this verse?

Can you give me one example other than the one in question, Matthew 28:19 where Matthew uses eqnh to mean Jews born in a foreign land who speak Greek?

So please respond to three things in your next response:

1. A Greek grammatical substantiation of why you think Peter was including the return of the Lord in a conditional clause not a purpose clause in Acts 3:20. Or an acknowledgement that you cannot prove this conclusively.
2. Please cite for me some lexical reason why you think the infinitive is the antecedent for the relative pronoun in Acts 1:7. Or acknowledge that the Father has set the times and dates by His own authority.
3. Please give me an example where Matthew uses the word eqnh to describe Greek speaking Jews born in a foreign land other than the one in question (Matthew 28:19). Or acknowledge that eqnh includes gentiles in Matthew 28:19.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Please give me an example where Matthew uses the word eqnh to describe Greek speaking Jews born in a foreign land other than the one in question (Matthew 28:19). Or acknowledge that eqnh includes gentiles in Matthew 28:19.

The Greek word translated "Grecians" at Acts 11:20 is "hellenistes".It is used three times in the New Testament (Acts 6:1 and Acts 9:29 and Acts 11:20),and in ever case it means Greek speaking Jews.The definition I gave previously.

The Greek word in the verses that you quoted is "ethnos".It can indeed mean Gentiles.But that is not the word used at Acts 11:20.

The following site gives the meaning of the Greek word at Acts 11:20 and shows all the times that it is used in the New Testament:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1115228364-5601.html

Please cite for me some lexical reason why you think the infinitive is the antecedent for the relative pronoun in Acts 1:7. Or acknowledge that the Father has set the times and dates by His own authority.

Here is the "literal" translation which you say that you can agree with:

"It is not yours to know times and seasons which the Father placed in His own authority”(Acts:1:7,”Literal Translation”,Green,”Interlinear Greek-English New Testament”).

The Greek word that is translated "authority" can mean "physical and mental power,the ability or strength which one is endued,which he either possesses or exercises"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

So if we use the meaning "mental power" the verse reads:

"It is not yours to know times and seasons which the Father placed in His mental power".

However,I am not a Greek expert by any stretch of the imagination.What is the purpose of you using this verse?

Are you saying that the kingdom could not have possibly come at that time because the Father had decided that the kingdom would not come until thousands of years later?

If that is what you think,then how do you explain the fact that the Lord Jesus announced that "the kingdom of God is at hand"(Mk.1:15)?

A Greek grammatical substantiation of why you think Peter was including the return of the Lord in a conditional clause not a purpose clause in Acts 3:20. Or an acknowledgement that you cannot prove this conclusively.

Let us look at Acts 3:19:

" Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."(Acts3:19).

The word "that" in "bold" is translated from the Greek word "hopos",and the primary meaning of that word is "it denotes the purpose or end,in order that"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

So the meaning is clear that in order for the times of refreshing (that comes from the presence of the Lord) to come the nation of Israel must repent and turn to the Lord.In other words,the nation must repent and turn to the Lord,and the "purpose" of this act is to bring about the "presence of the Lord".

With that said,the next verse could not be any plainer--"and He shall send Jesus Christ".

The nation was to repent and turn to Lord "in order that" the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

This is very clearly a "conditional" statement,the nation must do something "in order that" the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

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

 

[Apollos]

God chose His works as the means to appropriate His grace...

God chose His works as the means to appropriate His grace...

Jerry –

Thank you for your reply.

In my last post I stated – 1 Peter 1:22 – “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth…”. Peter is certainly not hesitant to tell us that human agency has a part in one’s salvation – that being, man can DO something to effect his salvation. You replied -

The Greek word translated “obedience” in this verse means “compliance,submission”(“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

The word “comply” means “to act in accordance with wishes,requests,commands,requirements,conditions”(“Thayers Greek English Lexicon”).

The way that we comply to the truth is to “believe” it.

Would this be to “believe” ALL of the truth or just part of it? Can we totally “comply” if we do not “believe” ALL of the truth – whichever topic of truth that may be? And of course this must include ALL parts of the truth that say we must DO something to appropriate the salvation God offers through His grace.

You do not understand what Paul teaches or else you would not be
attempting to prove that certain types of “works” are required for salvation.

I feel I have proven that the “works of God” are essential to salvation. 1 Peter 1:22
above points this out. Romans 6:17-18 is another that points this out –
“But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered 18 and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.”
Even Paul recognizes that human agency is involved in becoming a servant of righteousness.

If any kind of “work” is required for salvation,then once a person does that “work” the Lord is in debt to reward that person with eternal salvation.

Let me put this into your words – So if someone “truly believes” then God is in debt at that point to reward that person with eternal salvation – right?

”Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt”(Ro.4:4).

Of the –3- types of works mentioned in the NT, Paul is speaking of meritorious works here. IF the “works” are done in the attempt to EARN or MERIT the reward I would agree. But if one “works” by faith in the promise of God to give His blessing, then it is by GRACE.

The sinner is saved by “grace” and if that salvation is of “works” then it is not of “grace”(Ro.11:6).

Paul is speaking of OT works in this passage. No one will obtain God’s grace or be saved by doing these works.

According to you it is those who believe and do some kind of work who are saved,but according to Paul it is those who “worketh not but believe” who are saved.

What Paul basically says several times in the book of Romans is that it is those that act by faith seeking God’s grace by faithful obedience (works of God), and not through works of MERIT or by works of the Old Law, that will obtain the righteousness of God.

Naaman the leper (2 Kings 5) refused at first to wash in the Jordan seven times as directed by the messenger of Elisha. Naaman was wroth because he had envisioned greater deeds or better waters being employed in his cleansing.

When Naaman, in faithful obedience to the COMMAND of God through the prophet, dipped seven times in the Jordan, his skin was clean !

Naaman was cleansed because he OBEYED! This was not a boastful work (as he desired) or a work of the OT law. He arose and dipped to wash away his leprosy.

How then did Naaman come clean?

Was this God’s plan? Yes!
Do I believe the WATER cleansed Naaman? - NO!
Do I believe he would have returned clean had he refused to dip seven times in the water? - NO!
Was the cleansing accomplished by a work of merit or of the law? - No!
Do I believe obedience to the command of God appropriated God’s blessing of healing? – Yes !

Was the blessing of healing by God’s GRACE? You bet it was !

The “gospel of grace” is described by Paul as being “the power of God unto salvation to everone who believeth”(Ro.1:16).IT is faith in this gospel that brings the sinner salvation.

The gospel in this specific passage is referred to the “gospel of God”, and yes it is God’s power, ALL of it is His power to save man today.
Titus 2:11 – “For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men 12 instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world…”.
Once again we see that human agency plays a part in salvation, as we are “instructed” by grace to live “godly” and deny the lusts therein.

Apollos,please allow me to speak frankly to you.You prove that you do not understand the “gospel of grace” by your remarks that some kinds of “works” are necessary for salvation.

Jerry, we are being cordial, and I appreciate that. Just before this remark you infer that I am blinded to the truth, and afterward you stated my thoughts in reference to grace & works are perversion, and that I have been deceived. You then went further to place me in the grouping of false prophets. I expect such remarks from those who have difficulty trying to answer the truth and can not, as the truth I have presented to you. If you can not answer my arguments, then you are only left with attacking me.

And while we are being candid, allow me to remind you of some of these truths I have placed in your lap:
-I have shown where “faith” or “belief” is more than just mental assent or acknowledgement of fact.
-I have shown that it takes more than ONE verse to know God’s truth about salvation – that it takes ALL God says about salvation.
-I have shown that none of the verses you presented in your first 3-4 posts with me taught “at the moment” salvation – and did not teach “mental assent” salvation.
-I have shown that YOU require the WORKS (learning, believing, and repentance) BEFORE salvation –and- that YOU still claim no works are needed in spite of yourself.

Now I come talking about grace&works, showing how man must, through “faithful obedience” in God’s promise of salvation, do the works of God – not works of merit or of the Old Law – to appropriate salvation according to God’s planning.
So when you claim that it is –I- that am blinded to the truth, well…

I beg your pardon, but just to bring up only one of these points above, you appear to have a huge dichotomy of REPENTANCE/works versus “no works” hanging around your neck that you are unable to shed. Is this self-conflict I see, or are you in denial???

Now, moving on…
<<<<*>>>>

Returning to an earlier post (# 225), I now want to discuss the second “argument” presented there for a supposed second gospel…

So the gospel that was preached to the Jews had been prophesised in the OT Scriptures, and the gospel that was preached to the Gentiles had not been prophesised but instead had been kept secret until Paul made it known.

In brief, this is the summation of your argument based on Acts 26:22-23 and 1 Corinthians 2:7-8. While I have several specific problems with inaccurate information presented by you within the body of the post itself, I rush to the conclusion of that “argument” to show the error in the logic.

What I would have expected to see (with some proof presented) was this:
1.)The gospel preached to the JEWS was prophesied.
2.)The gospel preached to the GENTILES was not prophesied.
3.) Therefore, the gospel preached to the Gentiles was a different gospel.

Instead, what was presented in the 2 scriptures used and the points you think they made turned out to be an exercise of inductive reasoning as follows:
1.) The gospel preached to the JEWS was prophesied.
2.) The “purpose” of the death of the Lord was not revealed in prophesy.
3.) Therefore, the gospel preached to the GENTILES was different.

Reducing an argument down to its major and minor premise, and then giving the conclusion illustrates the logic (if any) presented in an argument. If you, as I do, think this does not make any sense, you are correct - this makes no sense.

The gospel was spoken of in prophecy (1 Peter 1:10-12) although no one understood these things until after the fact. That the PURPOSE of Christ’s death on the cross was “hidden” or if even untold in prophesy does not necessitate that a second gospel of some type need be employed to herald the glad tidings of salvation come to man.

The root of error in your “argument” comes from assumptions made in regards to both scriptures that you used above - which errors shall be taken up in my next post.

 

[Apollos]

The "Greeks" in Acts 11:20 are GENTILES...

The "Greeks" in Acts 11:20 are GENTILES...

Hey B-C-K...

Here one for you.

Acts 11:20 - “But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus."

Take note of how Luke says – BUT there were some of them (of the “scattering”), WHEN (at a later time than those before) they were come to Antioch, spoke unto the Greeks ALSO - preaching the Lord Jesus (“bringing good tidings of”). In this verse Luke does two things:
1.) He brings us to the present time, back from 8:1 up to Acts 11:19 (the time of those "scattered abroad") –and-
2.) Makes a contrast between who these that are mentioned in 11:20 are teaching (now) as opposed to the who that received teaching by those who came earlier in 8:1-5 (then) – 6 to 8 years ago.

“…the GREEKS…”- Gentile or Jew? There is a manuscript variation at this passage. Some of the more recent manuscripts (followed by the KJV) read hellenistas, which is translated “Grecians” or “Hellenists” and refers to the Jews. Some of the older manuscripts (followed by the ASV and NASB) read hellenas which is translated “Greeks” and refers to the Gentiles. This is one place where the context helps decide between variant readings, and the context in this passage requires “Greeks” or Gentiles. as the proper translation.

Acts 11:21 - “And a great number that believed turned unto the Lord.” Now a great number of Gentiles have been “added to” the body of the saved (the church) just as so many before them had – beginning in Acts 2.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry –In my last post I stated – 1 Peter 1:22 – “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth…”. Peter is certainly not hesitant to tell us that human agency has a part in one’s salvation – that being, man can DO something to effect his salvation.

Apollos,

The "obedience to the truth" is in regard to "believing" the truth of the gospel.Here are the words that immediately follow the verse you quoted:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever"(v.23).

Holy living results from the new brth.And I never said that human agency has no part in one's salvation.Here is the verse that I quoted before:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"(Ro.4:5).

A person's part in salvation is "faith"--to him that believeth.

And to him that worketh not.

Funny,but you are attempting to argue that righteousness comes to him who worketh and believeth.But that is not what the Scriptures say.And you seem to think that a person purified their heart by "works" despite the fact that the Scriptures reveal that a person's heart is purified by "faith"(Acts15:9).

I feel I have proven that the “works of God” are essential to salvation. 1 Peter 1:22
above points this out.

In regard to purifing one's soul,we are told to keep ourselves "holy" because that is a part of our "service":

"1I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service"(Ro.12:1).

We are to keep ourselves holy (purify one's soul) so that we might "serve" him.This is in regard to the Christian's "work" for the Lord.But if our "service" or "work" comes up short we will still be saved (1Cor.3:15).

So your idea that purifying one's soul is in regard to salvation is in error.

Romans 6:17-18 is another that points this out –
“But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered 18 and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.”
Even Paul recognizes that human agency is involved in becoming a servant of righteousness.

These verses say nothing at all about the idea that being servants of righteousness is what brings the sinner eternal life.If "works" are necessary for salvation then it is obvious that that salvation could not considered to be a gift.A person does not have to work in order to receive a gift.And just five verses following the verses that you quoted we read:

"...the gift of God is eternal life"(Ro.6:23).

Remamber,"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"(Ro.4:5).

You continue to insist that a person must do works in order to be saved and to receive a gift.

Let me put this into your words – So if someone “truly believes” then God is in debt at that point to reward that person with eternal salvation – right?

Paul is using the word "debt" in regard to what someone owes somei=one else for "works" done."Believing" is not a "work" so the analogy does not apply to "faith".

But there is nothing meritious in believing something that is true,especially something like the gospel that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit.Where is there any merit in believing something that is true?

Of the –3- types of works mentioned in the NT, Paul is speaking of meritorious works here. IF the “works” are done in the attempt to EARN or MERIT the reward I would agree. But if one “works” by faith in the promise of God to give His blessing, then it is by GRACE.

First of all,the Scriptures do not make any such distinctions.Your ideas are nothing but the doctrines of men.

Paul says that imputed righteousness comes to him who worketh not,but believeth.

Earlier I said:

"The sinner is saved by 'grace' and if that salvation is of “works” then it is not of “grace”(Ro.11:6)."

To which you replied:

Paul is speaking of OT works in this passage. No one will obtain God’s grace or be saved by doing these works.

Why should we believe your distinction?

When Paul speaks of the "reward" being of grace (to him that worketh not but believeth) he includes Abraham (who lived before the Old Covenant) and David,a believer who lived under the law.And he says that God imputed righteousness to them apart from works:

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness apart from works"(Ro.4:6).

"Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"(Ro.4:3-5).

Here Paul makes no distinction between the "work" in reference to Abraham and the "work" in reference to David.Therefore,the word "work" is not just in regard to the works of the Old Covenant.

You attempt to make viod the word of God by your man-made distinctions of the word "works".In order for you to cling to the doctrines invented by man you must somehow get around the plain words of Paul--If it is of grace then it is not of works.Otherwise grace is no more grace.

But you say that if it is of grace then it is not of OT works,but works are required.Despite Paul's clear words that the reward comes to him that worketh not...the man whom God imputeth righteousness apart from works.

Was the cleansing accomplished by a work of merit or of the law? - No!
Do I believe obedience to the command of God appropriated God’s blessing of healing? – Yes !

Was the blessing of healing by God’s GRACE? You bet it was !

This verses in regard to Naaman are speaking of "temporal" blessings.They are not in regard to eternal salvation.

Jerry, we are being cordial, and I appreciate that. Just before this remark you infer that I am blinded to the truth, and afterward you stated my thoughts in reference to grace & works are perversion, and that I have been deceived.

I have pointed out that the reward comes to him who worketh not but believeth but you will not believe that.You put your doctrines invented by men over what the Scriptures actually say.According to you one must work for a gift,and being justified "freely" means that it is not "free" at all.

I show you how a man is "born again" by the gospel that is described as the "power of God unto salvation to everyone who believeth"(Ro.1:16),and all you can say is:

The gospel in this specific passage is referred to the “gospel of God”, and yes it is God’s power, ALL of it is His power to save man today.

It is the power to save everyone who believeth!

Not the power to save everone who believeth and does works.

You then went further to place me in the grouping of false prophets. I expect such remarks from those who have difficulty trying to answer the truth and can not, as the truth I have presented to you. If you can not answer my arguments, then you are only left with attacking me.

I am having no difficulty at all in answering anything that you say.I am not attacking you but instead I am trying to get you to believe the "gospel of grace".You prove that you do not understand it,so it is obvious that you cannot believe it.

And the only so-called "truths" which you have presented me are based on a denial of all the verses that prove that imputed righteousness comes to him who worketh not,but believeth.

The Apostle Paul says that the believer is “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”(Ro.3:21).

The Greek word translated “freely” means ”without cause”.

The same word is used in the following verse in regard to the Jew’s treatment of the Lord Jesus:

”They hated Me without a cause”(Jn.15:25).

The believer is justified before God “without a cause”.If “works” were required for salvation,then the Lord would indeed have a “cause” for justifying a sinner.But Paul makes it plain that the believer is justified “without cause”.

That is why he says that the reward comes ”to him that worketh not,but believeth”(Ro.4:5).

Paul also says that only those who have received the Spirit of God can understand this:

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

Those who only have the spirit of the world think that they know the way to salvation,and that is by doing “works”,but that way can only lead to death:

”There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,but the end thereof are the ways of death”(Prov.14:12).

That is the “broad” way that leads to destruction:

”Enter in at the narrow gate;for wide is the gate,and broad is the way,that leadeth to destruction,and many there be who go in that way.Because strait is the gate,and narrow is the way,which leadeth unto life,and few there be that find it”(Mt.7:13,14).

It is the false “religions” of the world that teach that “works” are necessary for salvation,and that is the “wide” way.It is Satan who deceives men and is in contol of those “religions”:

”For Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.Therefore,it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness,whose end shall be according to their works”(2Cor.11:14,15).

Satan uses the false religons of the world to blind men so that they cannot understand the “gospel of grace”,that “glorious gospel of Christ”:

”In whom the god of this age hath blinded the minds of them who believe not,lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,Who is the image of God,should shine unto them”(2Cor.4:4).

The “narrow” way which leads to life is that glorious gospel of Christ which declares that the believer is ”justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”(Ro.3:24).

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This is one place where the context helps decide between variant readings, and the context in this passage requires “Greeks” or Gentiles. as the proper translation.

Are we supposed to believe that Gentiles at Antioch received the gospel at Acts 11:20 but yet several years later Paul told those in the church at Antioch the following:

"And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they reviewed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles"(Acts14:26,27).

Why would Paul need to tell those in the church at Antioch that the gospel had gone to the Gentiles if that church had already had Gentile believers in it for several years?That would make no sense.

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

 

[BChristianK]

Jerry,

I am going to attempt to focus our conversation on the two issues that we seem to be missing each other the most/
eqnh in Matthew 28:19 and an accurate translation and interpretation of Acts 1:7

Now, in regards to our discussion on Matthew 29:19 you say:

The Greek word translated "Grecians" at Acts 11:20 is "hellenistes".It is used three times in the New Testament (Acts 6:1 and Acts 9:29 and Acts 11:20),and in ever case it means Greek speaking Jews.The definition I gave previously.

The Greek word in the verses that you quoted is "ethnos".It can indeed mean Gentiles. But that is not the word used at Acts 11:20.

The following site gives the meaning of the Greek word at Acts 11:20 and shows all the times that it is used in the New Testament:

Jerry, we are missing each other here. The translation of ellhnisteV is of no relevance to Matthew 28:19 whatsoever.

My argument is that the fact that Jesus used the word eqnh in Matthew 28:19 necessarily means that the gentiles were included in Christ’s instructions to his disciples to go make disciples.

This fact alone nearly single handedly refutes the acts 9 dispensational position.

Concerning Acts 1:7 you reply:

Here is the "literal" translation which you say that you can agree with:

"It is not yours to know times and seasons which the Father placed in His own authority”(Acts:1:7,”Literal Translation”,Green,”Interlinear Greek-English New Testament”).

The Greek word that is translated "authority" can mean "physical and mental power,the ability or strength which one is endued,which he either possesses or exercises"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

So if we use the meaning "mental power" the verse reads:

"It is not yours to know times and seasons which the Father placed in His mental power".

Have you ever seen someone tie a balloon animal Jerry? They stretch and contort and manipulate it into whatever they want the balloon to look like. That is what I feel like you are trying to do to this verse. Wrangle it and stretch it so that it conforms to the image of your theology rather than read it and conform your theology to the verse.

“Mental power” is offered up by Thayer as a definition of the word exousia but it is not offered up absent the idea that what one has the “mental power” to conceive will not be exercised.
Now, I am sorry to have to do this, you will read this and feel a bit like the rug has been pulled out from underneath you. But you evidently didn’t read Thayer’s definition very carefully as is evident by your comments.

There are two things I find interesting.
One is that BDAG, a Lexicon that is superior to Thayer’s in my view, doesn’t include the “mental power” definition for exousia.

But second, and this is particularly interesting. is that Acts 1:7 isn’t listed by Thayer as an example of this usage of the word, in fact, Thayer, you know, the guy who authored the definition you are relying upon, included Acts 1:7 under a different usage!!!!

1. power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases[/b]; leave or permission: 1 Cor. 9:12, 18; e;cein evxousi,an, 2 Thess. 3:9; with an infinitive added indicating the thing to be done, John 10:18; 1 Cor. 9:4f; Heb. 13:10 (WH brackets evxousi,a); followed by an infinitive with tou/, 1 Cor. 9:6 (L T Tr WH omit tou/); with a genitive of the thing or the person with regard to which one has the power to decide: Rom. 9:21 (where an explanatory infinitive is added (Buttmann, 260 (224))); 1 Cor. 9:12; evpi, to, xu,lon th/j zwh/j, permission to use the tree of life, Rev. 22:14 (see evpi,, C. I. 2 e.); evxousi,an e;cein peri, tou/ ivdi,ou qelh,matoj (opposed to avna,gkhn e;cein (cf. Winer's Grammar, sec. 30, 3 N. 5)), 1 Cor. 7:37; evn th/| ivdi,a| evxousi,a (appointed, see ti,qhmi, 1 a. sub at the end) according to his own choice, Acts 1:7; evn th/| sh/| evxousi,a u`ph/rcen, i. e. at thy free disposal, Acts 5:4; used of liberty under the gospel, as opposed to the yoke of the Mosaic law, 1 Cor. 8:9.

In your apparent attempt to corral the scriptures back into the theological box you have been accustomed to working within you overlooked the fact that Thayer wouldn’t support the contrived translation you tried to serve up.

So NO!

"It is not yours to know times and seasons which the Father placed in His mental power".

Can’t be derived from Thayer or from anyone else for that matter. If you are going to employ Thayer's definition and application on the verse, it must read:
"It is not yours to know the times and seasons which the Father has placed within His power to choose."

But even this translation would not go undisputed. En is just as legitimately translated "by."
But even if I were to grant you the maximum latitude allowed by the Greek in translation, the consequent is still unfavorable to mid-acts theology. God has still placed the times and epochs within His power to choose.

I understand how it feels to have the theological rug pulled out from beneath you, but honestly Jerry, that display of contorting definitions is among the worst attempts at stretching the scripture to meet one’s theology I have seen in a long time.

Jerry, you seem to be a reasonable fellow, just admit that this verse does damage to your acts 9 position.

You continue:

Are you saying that the kingdom could not have possibly come at that time because the Father had decided that the kingdom would not come until thousands of years later?

Almost, I am saying that the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel could not have possibly come at that time because the Father had decided that it would not come until thousands of years later.

If that is what you think, then how do you explain the fact that the Lord Jesus announced that "the kingdom of God is at hand"(Mk.1:15)?

A good question. I must conclude that the restoration of the kingdom to Israel and the inauguration of the kingdom of God are not the same thing. Not totally unrelated mind you, but not the same.

Finally, regarding Acts 3:19 you said:

The word "that" in "bold" is translated from the Greek word "hopos",and the primary meaning of that word is "it denotes the purpose or end,in order that"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

So the meaning is clear that in order for the times of refreshing (that comes from the presence of the Lord) to come the nation of Israel must repent and turn to the Lord.In other words,the nation must repent and turn to the Lord,and the "purpose" of this act is to bring about the "presence of the Lord".

I agree with all but the very last part. I do not agree that “times of refreshing is a reference to the return of Christ.”

With that said,the next verse could not be any plainer--"and He shall send Jesus Christ".

And I have countered with the fruits of the good scholars at Lockman Foundation who translate it as: “And He may send Jesus Christ.”

This is very clearly a "conditional" statement, the nation must do something "in order that" the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

I agree that there was an implied condition that repentance brought about “times of refreshing” but I don’t include the return of the Lord as part of the apadosis of that conditional element. Largely because of the qualifying clause that follows Peter’s reference to the return of the Lord.

Acts 3:20-21 And that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

The repentance of the Jews would not have “restored all things.”

To summarize then, please directly address the word eqnh in Matthew 28:19. This verse flat out refutes mid-acts dispensationalism.

Also, it is time to save whatever face is left available regarding the Thayer debacle and Acts 1:7, please don’t refuse to see what is plainly laid out for you, that is, that the times and seasons of the return of the kingdom to Israel has been fixed by the Father’s own authority.

Finally, show me why the NASB has it wrong, a lot hangs on this verse for your theology.