Just One Gospel?

[Jerry Shugart]

BK,

Earlier I quoted the following verse:

"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).

Here we can clearly see that the "presence of the Lord" is in reference to the "times of refrshing"--that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

But you say:

I do not agree that “times of refreshing is a reference to the return of Christ.”

Even though Peter himself says that the "times of refreshing" comes from the "presence of the Lord" you deny that the "times of refreshing" has anything at all to do with the return of Christ.

The word translated "presence" means "to have one present in person"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

Since the Lord Jesus was not there when Peter said those words then it is evident that if they were to enjoy the "times of refreshing" that comes from the "presence of the Lord" then the Lord Jesus must return.But you say that the "times of refreshing" has nothing to do with the return of Christ!

I guess that you must say something since Peter's words proves that your ideas are wrong,but I never thought that you would just flat out deny what the Scriptures so plainly say.Imagine that.The "presence" of the Lord has nothing to do with His returning.

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.

You are overlooking the obvious. :box:

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

I have directly addressed the verses in regard to Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28"19-20.There is absolutely no Scriptual evidence that this commission was ever carried out by the Twelve Apostles.

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

If you can prove from the Scriptures that this commision was actally carried out by the Twelve then you have a good point.But so far you have not provided a single shread of Scriptual evidence that this commision was carried out by the Twelve.

That alone should tell you that your ideas are based on nothing more than speculation and assumptions.

Earlier I asked you:

"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?"
To which you replied:

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.

So the reference to "kingdom" in these verses are in regard to two different kingdoms:

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God...When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"(Acts1:3,6).

Two different kingdoms.According to you the "kingdom of God" is not the same thing as the "restoration of the kingdom" to Israel:

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.

So according to you the "kingdom" that the Lord declared is at hand is not the same kingdom which was to be restored to Israel.But how do you explain the command of the Lord Jesus in regard to preaching that the kingdom is at hand?:

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand"(Mt.10:5-7).

In order to cling to your mistaken views you are forced to say that the Lord is speaking of two different kingdoms.However,the Jews would understand that the Lord was speaking of only one kingdom when He said that the "kingdom of God is at hand",and they would know that that kingdom of which He spoke was in reference to the following kingdom:

"Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them... will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:...And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever"(2Sam.7:10/16).

This is in regard to the kingdom that will be restored to Israel.And that is the Kingdom that the Lord Jesus was speaking of when He said that "the kingdom of God is at hand".And that is what the Jews would have understood when He said those words.

But in order to get around the difficulty that these verses you just simply say that the inauguration of the kingdom is not the same as the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel.

So to sum up we can see that your use of Matthew 28:19 is based on nothing more than speculation and assumptions which are in direct conflict with the Scriptures.We can also see that your attempt to make two different "kingdoms" does not help your argument in any way and that you still have not answered what point you are attempting to make when you quote Acts 1:7.And to top it off you say that you "do not agree that 'times of refreshing' is a reference to the return of Christ".

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

 

[Apollos]

Conversion of the Gentiles began in Acts 10 and continued...

Conversion of the Gentiles began in Acts 10 and continued...

Jerry –

As you should know, I cannot always promptly reply to your posts – this is due to my busy schedule. However, since it is a single issue, allow me to answer your reply to my post that was originally posted to B-C-K… the post that clearly showed how CONTEXT dictated that the “Greeks” in Acts 11:20 must be Gentiles.

Apollos: >> “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.”

Jerry queried:

"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.

The “door” of faith had already been opened to the Gentiles. In Acts 10, Peter by direct guidance of the HS went to the Gentiles and opened that “door” of conversion – and no second (hand) gospel was seen. Gentile conversion was rehearesed in Acts 11 before the Jews, for which the Jews replied…

Acts 11:18 – “And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.”

Do you assume for some reason Gentile conversion stopped right here for a few years and did not resume until Acts 13 when Paul leaves on his first tour? If so, why?

Luke’s remarks in Acts 11:19-20 continue in context (if you please) to this monumental event of the conversion of the Gentiles. Others that had been spread abroad from Jerusalem by the “persecution” (8:1) were also preaching to the Gentiles – the context is irrefutable.

Acts 13 opens with Paul & Barnabas set to leave on his first journey. Take a look at 13:1 – not all of these are Jews and not likely proselytes. And now to 14:26f and Paul’s return from his first tour. Paul rehearses the events of the tour and tells those at Antioch how he (Paul) opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. Others had already opened that “door” at Antioch before Paul. Paul had opened that door now abroad per service previously determined selection of the HS (13:2, cf. 9:15, 26:17).

But the Gentiles were already being converted from the time of Acts 11:19 and following. Would you think that the Gentiles at Antioch from where Paul had sailed were just left to fend for themselves?

(I will answer your other post as time allows...)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Others had already opened that “door” at Antioch before Paul. Paul had opened that door now abroad per service previously determined selection of the HS (13:2, cf. 9:15, 26:17).

Yes,Peter was the first to preach a gospel to the Gentiles.However,that is no proof that any others before Paul preached to the GEntiles.

However,as I said before,"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":

"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).

Besides,the question we are debating concerns the so-called "great commission" and whether or not the Twelve Apostles had acted upon that complete commission.The Eleven Apostles were specifically told by the Lord Jesus to go out intoi the whole world and preach the "gospel of the kingdom" to every creature:

"Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"(Mk.16:14,15).

But did that ever happen?

There is no Scriptual evidence that it ever happened.It was Paul (who did not receive the same commission) who took the gospel which he describes as "my gospel" into the whole world.In fact,after Paul had finished his first missionary journey (while the Apostles remained in Jerusalem) he met with the Twelve and they came to an agreement that he would be the one who would preach to the Gentiles and the Twelve would limit their ministry to the Jews:

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision"(Gal.2:9).

You say that the Jews were preaching to Gentiles at Acts 11:20,and even if you are correct that is not evidence that any of the Twelve did such a thing.

Even after Peter was sent to a household of Gentiles by the Lord we see that he ended back in Jerusalem instead of going to the whole world and preaching the gospel to every creature.

It is obvious to anyone with an open mind that the Apostles were not carring out the complete commision given to them at Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19-20 later during the Acts period.Why were they not out in the whole world preaching the gospel to every creature and why did they make an agreement with Paul that they would limit their ministry to the Jews?

The answer is obvious.The Twelve knew that before the gospel was to go to the whole world that first the nation of Israel must first repent and accept the fact that it is Jesus Who is their promised Messiah.And that explains the fact that none of the Twelve were going to every creature in the whole world.Before Peter would even go to a Gentile it was necessary for him to receive a speacial revelation from the Lord.And the reason why the Lord would do that is very clear.It was Peter who defended Paul's ministry to the Gentiles as recorded at Acts 15.

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

 

[BChristianK]

Jerry you said:

The word translated "presence" means "to have one present in person"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

Ugh, are you misquoting Thayer again? This should start to get embarrassing for you. Yes, Thayer does say that prosopon means to have one present in person, but AGAIN!!!!, Thayer lists the verse we are talking about under a different nuance of the word.

The refreshing which comes from the bright and smiling countenance of God to ones seeking comfort, Acts iii. 20 (From Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, blueletterbible.com)

Jesus need not return “personally” in order for those who seek God’s comfort to receive it from His bright and smiling countenance.”

Consider the following verse:

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (2 Cor 4:6)

The word translated “face” is the same word (prosopon) that is used in Acts 3:20 that you translate “presence.

Does this verse mean that Jesus is physically and personally standing right in front of all of us who have the knowledge of the glory of God?

Since the Lord Jesus was not there when Peter said those words then it is evident that if they were to enjoy the "times of refreshing" that comes from the "presence of the Lord" then the Lord Jesus must return.

So, using the same logic, Christ must have already returned as God has made his light shine in our hearts to give us the knowledge of the glory of God in the face/presence (prosopon) of Christ.

So you see your arguments breaks down for two reasons, the implications you draw from prosopon in Acts 3:20 can’t be applied throughout the bible as is evidenced by 2 Corinthians 4:6 and Thayer lists the usage of the word in Acts 3:20 under a different nuanced meaning that you tried to cram it into.

Which, again, Jerry, should make you blush. Really, it is helpful to read the whole definition not just go to the lexical entry thinking, “hmmm, what can I find in here to support my argument, hmmmm…”



Now to the usage of eqnh in Matthew 28:19.
You say:

You are overlooking the obvious. :box:
I have directly addressed the verses in regard to Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28"19-20

Really, what did you say?

You told me that hellenistas meant greek speaking Jew?

SO?

Lets focus a bit Jerry. Matthew 28:19 uses the word eqnh. Which is the plural form of eqnos. Can the nation of Israel be a eqnos? OF COURSE!!!
But can the nation (singular) of Israel be considered eqnh?
NO!!!

It can’t. A singular nation can’t be plural. And that is why the NT NEVER refers to Israel as eqnh (the plural of eqnh).


But you disagree so I challenge you to find one place in the bible or any contemporary Greek literature where Israel is referred to as eqnh.

Just one Jerry.

There is absolutely no Scriptural evidence that this commission was ever carried out by the Twelve Apostles.

This is not true.
Phillip converted an Ethiopian
Peter went to the house of Cornelius (Acts 10).
Peter defended his doing so as saying that it was God’s choice that the gentiles would hear the word of God from his mouth (Acts 15:7)
Peter wrote to Gentiles in the region of Galatia (1 and 2 Peter)
And there were those in Corinth who followed Cephas (1 Cor 1:12).

If you can prove from the Scriptures that this commission was actually carried out by the Twelve then you have a good point.

There you go, scriptures above.

Additionally, there is historical evidence that Peter spent the latter portion of his life in Rome (a gentile city). Thomas most likely went as far as India. According to Origen, Andrew’s mission field was Scythia and there is some historical reason to suggest that his travels took him as far as as far as Cappadocia, Galatia, Bithynia and Byzantium, all gentiles regions.


If you want more, I’ll dig more up.

But this is all really unnecessary and a smokescreen you put up.

You say:

So to sum up we can see that your use of Matthew 28:19 is based on nothing more than speculation and assumptions which are in direct conflict with the Scriptures…

Your argument are based on nothing more than speculations, assumptions and arguments from silence.

I say, eqnh means nations (plural), and the new testament only refers to Israel as a nation in the singular. One would only hear the sound of chirping crickets were they to listen for your direct answer to this point.

So please either show me one example in the bible where Israel is referred to as a nation in the plural (eqnh) or admit that the commission Christ gave his disciples in Matthew 28:19 may have been inclusive of the nation of Israel but did not exclude the gentile nations.

Grace and Peace

 

[servent101]

So to sum up we can see that your use of Matthew 28:19 is based on nothing more than speculation and assumptions which are in direct conflict with the Scriptures…

Not really, for if we consider that the general overall majority of the people who would of read the Scriptures did not use your so called responsible exegesis - that is the people to whom the letters were written, that they were not bound to your so called responsible exegesis - that in fact what Jesus said had to do more with Who He is, how people percieved him - that the writers of the letters were writing to them - not some one like you two who look to the letter.

There is just no proof that you can show that says that the writers of the letters held or expected the people to understand the literal rendition of what was wrtitten, or in fact there is no proof that they themselves were trying to present a Good News to people today - the way the schollars present their cases, much as you do - that the people the Good News was written too - and possibly even the wrters - had no such capacity to write such writ as you percieve it as today.

With Christ's Love

Servetnt101

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry you said: Ugh, are you misquoting Thayer again? This should start to get embarrassing for you. Yes, Thayer does say that prosopon means to have one present in person, but AGAIN!!!!, Thayer lists the verse we are talking about under a different nuance of the word.

You yourself admit Thayer does in fact give the defintion of the word which I provided.So how can you say that I am misquoting Thayer?

He gives no reason why the construction of the Greek demand that "smiling countenance" is the correct rendering of the word at Acts3:19.In fact,he must ignore the words that follow in order to say that the meaning is not "presence--bodily presence".Here are the words which follow:

"And He shall send Jesus Christ,Who before was preached unto you"(Acts3:20).

If Thayer would have used his own definition of this verse instead of ignoring it he would not have said that the word translated "presence" only means the "smiling countenance" of the Lord.

Thayer gives the following meaning to the words translated "shall send"--"to order (one) to go to a place appointed"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

Even you understood the word "presence" to mean bodily presence when you quoted the NASB:

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.

If the words of Peter in regard to the "presence" of the Lord are not in regard to His "bodily presence" then why do the words that immediately follow say that "He might send Jesus" or that "He shall send Jesus"?

Which, again, Jerry, should make you blush. Really, it is helpful to read the whole definition not just go to the lexical entry thinking, “hmmm, what can I find in here to support my argument, hmmmm…”

Why should I blush?Because Thayer ingores the "context" in which the word is written and chooses a meaning that cannot be supported by the "context"?

If anyone should be blushing it is you.You understand that the meaning must be in regard to the Lord's "bodily presence" or else why would you quote a verse that can mean nothing else than a "bodily presence"--"that He may send Jesus".

Earlier I said:

"There is absolutely no Scriptural evidence that this commission was ever carried out by the Twelve Apostles."

To which you replied:

This is not true.
Phillip converted an Ethiopian

Did Philip go unto the whole world here?Of course not.The Ethopian was leaving Jerusalem where he had come to worship.He was obviously a proselyte who had already converted to Judaism and he already possessed the Jewish Scriptures.Yes,a Gentile by birth but this incident is could not be said to fulfill the commandment to go "unto the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature".

Peter went to the house of Cornelius (Acts 10).
Peter defended his doing so as saying that it was God’s choice that the gentiles would hear the word of God from his mouth (Acts 15:7)

But it is clear that before he would go to a Gentile that he needed to receive a special revelation from the Lord.And even after Peter had explained why he had gone to a Gentile to other Jewish believers we read:

"Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life"(Acts11:18).

If Peter was acting on the so-called "great commission" of Mark 16:15 then he surely would have appealed to that commission to defend his actions,saying,Did not our Lord tell us to go to the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature?But Peter never once appealed to that commission to justify his actions.Not there nor at Acts 15.

Peter wrote to Gentiles in the region of Galatia (1 and 2 Peter)

These epistles of Peter are obviously written to the Jews:

"Having your behavior honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation"(1Pet.2:12).

And there were those in Corinth who followed Cephas (1 Cor 1:12).

This is no evidence that Peter was preaching to the Gentiles in this city as the church in that city was composed of both Jews and Gentiles.

We are suppose to believe that the little evidence that you provided demonsrates that the Twelve were following the Lord's words to go "into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature"(Lk.16:15).

And you still have not explained why the Jewish believers would agree to limit their ministry to the Jews:

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision"(Gal.1:9).

Paul makes it plain that it is the gospel of the circumcision that was committed to Peter:

"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).

Additionally, there is historical evidence that Peter spent the latter portion of his life in Rome (a gentile city).

Thomas most likely went as far as India. According to Origen, Andrew’s mission field was Scythia and there is some historical reason to suggest that his travels took him as far as as far as Cappadocia, Galatia, Bithynia and Byzantium, all gentiles regions.

If you believe the distortions of history invented by Rome in order to attempt to prove that Peter was the first bishop of the church at Rome then more power to you.But I will base my beliefs on the sure word of Scripture.

So please either show me one example in the bible where Israel is referred to as a nation in the plural (eqnh) or admit that the commission Christ gave his disciples in Matthew 28:19 may have been inclusive of the nation of Israel but did not exclude the gentile nations.

I have already said that the commission recorded at Matthew 28:19 is in regard to going to the whole world and preaching the gospel to every creature.But you have not answered my question in regard to that commission.The Lord Jesus said:

"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).

One of the things which the Lord commanded was to follow the law:

"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).

According to the Scriptures the "law" will indeed go out from Jerusalem to the world:

"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).

We never see any of the Twelve preaching this message to the Gentiles.Instead we see Paul (who did not receive the so-called "great commission") who was called to be the Apostle to the Gentiles preaching that we are no longer under the law.

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

 

[BChristianK]

Jerry,

You are a hoot my friend. You like Thayer’s definitions only to the extent that you can contort them to suite your own purposes.

Look, either you agree with Thayer’s definitions or you don’t. If you don’t, then please give us some other substantiation for your point because as much as I might like you if we were to sit down together over a cup of coffee to discuss these theological issues, your opinion alone is not enough to sway me, and I would bet that I am not alone.

So do you accept Thayer’s definition?

You say:

He gives no reason why the construction of the Greek demand that "smiling countenance" is the correct rendering of the word at Acts3:19.In fact,he must ignore the words that follow in order to say that the meaning is not "presence--bodily presence"…. If Thayer would have used his own definition of this verse instead of ignoring it he would not have said that the word translated "presence" only means the "smiling countenance" of the Lord.

No, you don’t. So You and Thayer clearly disagree with the definition of prosopon as it is applied in this verse. So what other sources can we rely on to see that you are correct?

None. You have provided us with none. And I am sorry, but your opinion isn't enough.

Now you said:

Here are the words which follow:

"And He shall send Jesus Christ,Who before was preached unto you"(Acts3:20).

Right, and here are the words that follow after that…

21He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

So even if the times of refreshing must come from the physical presence of the Lord, Jesus would still remain in heaven until the restoration of all things, and the the repentance of this crowd won't restore all things.

No immediate kingdom offer…

Now you said:

Did Philip go unto the whole world here?

He went to a gentile.

.The Ethopian was leaving Jerusalem where he had come to worship. He was obviously a proselyte who had already converted to Judaism and he already possessed the Jewish Scriptures.

Neither of which demands that he was a full proselyte. Which he could not have been.

Yes a Gentile by birth but this incident is could not be said to fulfill the commandment to go "unto the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature".

Only if he was a full proselyte could he be. He had not yet been baptized, which means, according to the custom of the time, he wasn’t considered a full proselyte and wasn’t included in the nation of Israel. Thus, he is a gentile.

About Peter:

But it is clear that before he would go to a Gentile that he needed to receive a special revelation from the Lord.

What makes you think this is a change? Could not God have reminded Peter of the charge to go to all nations in a dream? Especially since the words that Christ uttered in the Great Commission were before the coming of the Holy Spirit that was given to remind them of all He said.

If Peter was acting on the so-called "great commission" of Mark 16:15 then he surely would have appealed to that commission to defend his actions, saying, Did not our Lord tell us to go to the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature?

This is an argument from silence. Part of the reason he may not have appealed to the Great Commission is that many of the “circumcised believers” were converted during Pentecost or shortly thereafter and as such would not have heard the “Great Commission.” Why would Peter remind them of something they had not heard?

These epistles of Peter are obviously written to the Jews:

"Having your behavior honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation"(1Pet.2:12).

Aha. Ok, so clarify this for me then.

You are claiming that Peter wrote only to the Jews in Galatia and Paul wrote only to the gentiles, right?

Please respond to the question above.

We are suppose to believe that the little evidence that you provided demonstrates that the Twelve were following the Lord's words to go "into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature"(Lk.16:15).

It’s actually its Mark 16:15 and it is part of the long ending of mark which has some textual issues so I wouldn’t stand on that scripture.

But it doesn’t matter anyway, it only ends up supporting my point.
Which doesn’t leave you with much of a point. You seem to acknowledge that Jesus’ command to His disciples in Matthew 28 (and in Mark 16) included gentiles but in your opinion they just ignored him and stuck around in Jerusalem regardless.

I disagree..., but if that were true, that wouldn’t prove that a circumcision gospel was given only to the Jews anyway, it would only prove that a singular, gentile inclusive gospel was given by Jesus and the disciples weren’t obedient.

So is this your argument?, That Christ told them to go to all nations (Matthew 28) and all creation (Mark 16) but they just ignored Him? Is this your argument?

Please provide an answer for this question.

And you still have not explained why the Jewish believers would agree to limit their ministry to the Jews:

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision"(Gal.1:9).

First, it doesn’t limit the Jewish believers to ministry to the Jews alone, it is an agreement for Peter and John to go unto the circumcision. That’s only 2 of the 11 disciples and that doesn't take into consideration the numerous converts at this point.

Second, as I have said, Peter probably ministered in Rome.
To which you say:

If you believe the distortions of history invented by Rome in order to attempt to prove that Peter was the first bishop of the church at Rome then more power to you. But I will base my beliefs on the sure word of Scripture.

Does the sure word of Scripture preclude that Peter ministered to Rome?

If so, where?

And aside, a historical reality that Peter ministered in Rome may be inappropriately used by the RCC to establish a papacy but that is not a reason to doubt the historical fact.

Now on to the real linchpin:

I have already said that the commission recorded at Matthew 28:19 is in regard to going to the whole world and preaching the gospel to every creature.

Well, no, Matthew 28:19 says go teach all the nations (eqnh).
But you have failed to address the implications of these clear words.

So let’s be very, very clear.

Concerning Matthew 28:19 you:
A) acknowledge that the use of the word eqnh requires us to include the gentiles in Christ’s commission to His disciples?
B) Don’t agree that eqnh must include the gentiles and can provide other examples where the plural form of eqnoV refers to the singular nation of Israel.

Which is it Jerry? Please tell us in your next post.

But you have not answered my question in regard to that commission. The Lord Jesus said:

"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).

One of the things which the Lord commanded was to follow the law:

"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).

First, if we must interpret Matthew 23:1-3 to be a pronouncement to obey the law of the Mosaic covenant, then we must conclude that Christ’s intent was for them to go among all nations and teach them to do just that.

But I would not consider those words in Matthew 23 as an admonition to follow the law but to submit to the authorities of the culture. Thus this is not a demand to the obedience of the Law on all future disciples. There would be no reason to submit to the obedience of the Law outside of Jerusalem as in the gentile provinces in the Roman Empire, no such compulsion would have been demanded of them, except in Jerusalem where the local authorities regulated local customs (see the Pax Romana).

But your asking this question doesn’t negate my previous point! It is nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate the issue by showing me consequences of the verse that you don't like and think I wouldn't like either.

But my opinion is that if, in order to be faithful to an accurate translation and understanding of Matthew 28:19-20, I must conclude that Jesus said both to make disciples of all nations including the gentiles and to go teach them all the law, then this is what I must conclude.

We can’t gerrymander the scriptures just because we don’t like the implications of them.

Fortunately, I don’t see Matthew 23:1-3 as a pronouncement binding all to the law as much as I see it as a pronouncement to submit to authority.

BTW, submission to earthly authority shows up in Paul’s writings as well.

But this tangential line of questioning doesn’t address the core question.

Does eqnh in Matthew 28:19 include Gentiles or not? If not then what explanation do you have for the fact that every other single time it is used in the NT it includes gentiles?????

I’m all ears on this one Jerry…..

Now you say:

We never see any of the Twelve preaching this message to the Gentiles.

The verdict is out on this one.

Clarify this for me. You think that Peter wrote to only the Jews in Galatia and Paul to the gentiles in Galatia, right or wrong?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

BChristianK,

You say:

So even if the times of refreshing must come from the physical presence of the Lord, Jesus would still remain in heaven until the restoration of all things, and the the repentance of this crowd won't restore all things.

Are you saying that if the Jews would have repented and been converted that the Jews would not have enjoyed the “times of refreshing” that comes from the presence of the Lord?I guess that I will have to repeat what I said previously to you.Let us again look at the verse:

" 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".

But despite the fact that you have already been given these facts you deny them by saying:

So even if the times of refreshing must come from the physical presence of the Lord, Jesus would still remain in heaven until the restoration of all things, and the the repentance of this crowd won't restore all things.

Peter says that they would and you say that they would not.Let me see.Who am I going to believe?I think that I will believe Peter.

So You and Thayer clearly disagree with the definition of  as it is applied in this verse. So what other sources can we rely on to see that you are correct?

None. You have provided us with none. And I am sorry, but your opinion isn't enough.

The Apostle Peter used that very same word just six verses earlier,and there can be no doubt that the meaning is in regard to a "bodily presence":

"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go"(Acts3:13).

Is it not at least plausible that Peter might have been using the same meaning of that word just six verses later?Especially when we consider the words in the "context" of his statement at Acts 3:19--you know,the part about "And He shall send Jesus"?

You also failed to respond to what I said previously.Here it is again:

Thayer gives no reason why the construction of the Greek demand that "smiling countenance" is the correct rendering of the word at Acts3:19.In fact,he must ignore the words that follow in order to say that the meaning is not "presence--bodily presence".Here are the words which follow:

"And He shall send Jesus Christ,Who before was preached unto you"(Acts3:20).

If Thayer would have used his own definition of this verse instead of ignoring it he would not have said that the word translated "presence" only means the "smiling countenance" of the Lord.

Thayer gives the following meaning to the words translated "shall send"—"to order (one) to go to a place appointed"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

Even you understood the word "presence" to mean bodily presence when you quoted the NASB.

But you did not respond to any of this,BK.I guess that you did not have an answer or you would have responed.It is getting to be that I have to repeat things to you several times.

Does eqnh in Matthew 28:19 include Gentiles or not? If not then what explanation do you have for the fact that every other single time it is used in the NT it includes gentiles?????

I’m all ears on this one Jerry…..

How many times do I have to say this.I have always maintained that the so-called “great commission” is in regard to Gentiles.If you are “all ears” why do you keep missing the fact that I say that that commission is in regard to going to the whole world to preach the gospel to every creature?

It is in regard to Gentiles.BK.Do you get it this time,and do you want to continue to bring up your straw man so that you can beat it to death?I guess you do:

Well, no, Matthew 28:19 says go teach all the nations ().
But you have failed to address the implications of these clear words.

OK,then you tell me where this commission to Gentile nations was ever fulfilled?:

” Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”(Mt.28:19).

Now if the Twelve carried out this commission surely there would be at least one place in the Acts narrative where we seeing them baptize the nations “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.

I await your reference where you can demonstrate that this ever happened.I’m all ears on this one,BK.

But my opinion is that if, in order to be faithful to an accurate translation and understanding of Matthew 28:19-20, I must conclude that Jesus said both to make disciples of all nations including the gentiles and to go teach them all the law, then this is what I must conclude.

I love the way you attempt to get around difficulties by making “subtle” changes to what the Scriptures actually say.The Lord Jesus did not tell the Apostyles just to “teach them all the law”,but instead He commanded them to “obey” those who sit in Moses’s seat.

And the gospel that Paul preached declares that believers are no longer under the law.

Fortunately, I don’t see Matthew 23:1-3 as a pronouncement binding all to the law as much as I see it as a pronouncement to submit to authority.

BTW, submission to earthly authority shows up in Paul’s writings as well.

So we are supposed to throw our reason to the wind and imagine that when the Lord speaks of those who sit in Moses’ seat that He is just talking about submitting to authority?

” 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).

I can see that it is an easy thing for you to somehow imagine that the Lord Jesus did not really mean what He said.We are supposed to believe that when He spoke of those who sit in Moses’ seat he only meant those in authority.By using your method of interpretation we can make the Scriptures say anything that we want them to say.

Whether or not you believe it,the Lord Jesus meant exactly what He said.And no matter how much you might protest that “Moses’ seat” is only in regard to an “authority” that is not what those who heard Him would have thought.

Earlier I said:

Paul makes it plain that it is the gospel of the circumcision that was committed to Peter:

"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).

Why do you think that Peter was going to the Gentiles since he had said that he would limit his ministry to the Jews:

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision"(Gal.1:9).

To which you replied:

First, it doesn’t limit the Jewish believers to ministry to the Jews alone, it is an agreement for Peter and John to go unto the circumcision. That’s only 2 of the 11 disciples and that doesn't take into consideration the numerous converts at this point.

If Peter and John were following the words of the Lord to go unto the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature then why would they agree to limit their ministry to the Jews?

You think that Peter wrote to only the Jews in Galatia and Paul to the gentiles in Galatia, right or wrong?

I quoted words from Peter’s epistle where the conclusion is clear that that epistle was written to the Jews.And after the Acts period was over (at the time when the Jews were no longer “keeping the law”—Acts 21:17-26) then I believe that the Jews also received Paul’s epistles.

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

 

[servent101]

Again - no one back then talked like you two are now, and being in the top five per-cent in my English reading and comprehension, I can understand what you are saying - but it is useless, cause no one back then took this type of attitude towards what is written - no one at all understood the Written Word like you two are trying to comprehend it - none of your insights are at all useful to the people to whom the letters were written too, and I would surmise that even the writers of the Good News, would object to such dissections of their Words.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Again - no one back then talked like you two are now, and being in the top five per-cent in my English reading and comprehension, I can understand what you are saying

servent101,

I am wondering,what does your handle mean--"servent101"?

What is a "servent"?

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

 

[servent101]

Jerry

I am wondering, what does your handle mean--"servent101"?

What is a "servent"?

As most classes in university start with 101 - I wanted to suggest in my handle that I was trying to learn how to serve - I though spelt servant wrong - and some people here suggest that I actually spelt serpent wrong - at any rate, I hate to be put in a box - so I just left it as it was.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Apollos]

Jerry –

Thank you for your reply.

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).

1 Peter 1:22 – “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth…”. What Peter says (“obedience to the truth”) is what purifies the soul, not what you say (believing the truth). Verse 23 did not help you at all and only shows that you are trying to be saved while the “seed” is still in the barn.

Funny,but you are attempting to argue that righteousness comes to him who worketh and believeth.

I realize that this thought does not fit into the dichotomy of belief your have established for yourself. I thought anyone such as yourself that believes that one must hear, believe, and repent would understand that just “believing” is insufficient – I certainly pointed this out in our earlier discussions. Perhaps you will yet explain how you have come to retain this dichotomy of belief for yourself.

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).

I disagree with your application of 1 Cor. 3:15, but this is not what I care to discuss with you at this point.

These verses [Romans 6:17-18] say nothing at all about the idea that being servants of righteousness is what brings the sinner eternal life.

Let’s see… “…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.” It says those who were obedient from the heart are the ones that were made free from sin.

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.

How is it possible to “receive” a “gift” without doing something? If your best friend gave you necktie as a gift, you would have to physically reach out and take hold of the gift. This reaching out to receive the gift doesn’t mean you deserve it or that you earned it. “Believing” you had the gift without the effort to receive it would be futile.

Last time in regards to comments about being in “debt” to God I said – ”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? You replied:

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 believing IS a work – it is a work of God – John 6:29. Why did you forget that? But I am glad to see that you recognized here that Paul uses the word “work” in the context as a work to create a debt – ei. a work that would EARN or MERIT something. Of course these types of works are worthless to appropriate God blessings and always have been. Look back at what I have taught you about Naaman and the walls of Jericho.

Last post I mentioned that 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. About the TYPES of works you said:

First of all,the Scriptures do not make any such distinctions.

The distinctions are clearly made in scripture. You affirmed in your last post that Romans 4 speak of works that can create a debt to be owed which are works of merit. Certainly you do not place hearing, believing, or repentance toward God in that category of works, so they must be something else – like works of God?

The -3- types of works mentioned in the NT clearly seen in scripture are:
1.) Works of God – John 6:29.
2.) Works of merit – Romans 4 or Ephesians 2:9.
3.) Works of the Old Law – Gal. 2:16, 3:2.

When we know what TYPE of work Paul is speaking of in any passage where he mentions “works”, then we will know how to apply that passage in regards to the appropriation of God’s grace.
<<<*>>>
Last post in reference to Naaman the leper I remarked:

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!! You replied:

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

As the walls of Jericho do, Naaman also shows us how the GRACE of God is appropriated. The blessings may be of different type, but God’s grace toward man is the same.
<<<<*>>>>

However,as I said before,"Why would Paul need to tell those in the church at Antioch [Acts 14:27] that the gospel had gone to the Gentiles…

Paul did not have a “need” to do this – the church at Antioch knew what Paul (and Barnabas) were separated by the HS to do – Acts 13:2-3, (cf. 26:17). Upon his return Paul rehearsed with the church what he had been sent to do – Paul had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles with Paul as the instrument. The emphasis here would be on Paul opening a door of faith, not that a door was opened, as it wasn’t the first time a door had opened and it wasn’t the first door opened to the Gentiles. Conversion of the Gentiles had begun 2-3 years earlier. I would presume that you assume that Paul left Antioch with lost Gentiles left behind waving from the shore? Paul traveled hundreds of miles to preach to Gentiles… but no word to those at Antioch ?!

But did that ever happen [the great commission]?
There is no Scriptual evidence that it ever happened.

If this is what you believe, then everything else you could say about this would not “be of faith” – so why bother? If you don’t know, you don’t know! Why do you speculate? Why do you conjecture? Will you teach outside of scripture ? How much of your theology will you build upon presumption ?
<<<<<*>>>>>

In my last post I began analyzing your second argument about there were -2-gospels. I presented your quote:

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.

I presented the following syllogism to illustrate your inductive logic:

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.

In brief, this is the summation of your argument based on Acts 26:22-23 and 1 Corinthians 2:7-8. Let’s take a closer look at that first verse - the second we will look at in my next post.

Acts 26:20-23 – “…but declared both to them of Damascus first and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. 21 For this cause the Jews seized me in the temple, and assayed to kill me. 22 Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come; 23 how that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.”

1.) There is nothing here to indicate that what Paul declared was declared only “among the Jews” – you introduced a thought outside of the context of this passage. The context and specifically verse 20 indicate Paul was preaching to Jew and Gentile alike.

2.) In sync with the Time Line I presented earlier in this thread, Paul affirms he declared his gospel at Damascus, then later at Jerusalem, then later throughout Judea, “and also to the Gentiles”. What Paul preached at Jerusalem he preached to the Gentiles – repent and turn to God, do “works” worthy of repentance ! Paul never changed what he preached!

3.) What Paul preached was what the prophets and Moses said – the Christ must suffer (crucifixion/death) and being the first to be resurrected (by virtue of this fact) should proclaim “light” (salvation) to Jew and Gentile.

The death and resurrection of Christ was prophesied by Moses and the prophets, although no one understood all the details of God’s plan of salvation before God made them known – 1 Peter 1:10-12. These things happened to make it possible for Jew and Gentile to have salvation. There is no need of another gospel.

The discussion of 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 in my next post will illustrate how your reasoning was inductive as to arriving at any conclusion of there being two gospels based on what you claim was and was not prophesied.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

1 Peter 1:22 – “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth…”. What Peter says (“obedience to the truth”) is what purifies the soul, not what you say (believing the truth). Verse 23 did not help you at all and only shows that you are trying to be saved while the “seed” is still in the barn.

I realize that this thought does not fit into the dichotomy of belief your have established for yourself.

My thought is based on what the Scriptures say.Peter said:

"And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith"(Acts15:8,9).

I thought anyone such as yourself that believes that one must hear, believe, and repent would understand that just “believing” is insufficient – I certainly pointed this out in our earlier discussions. Perhaps you will yet explain how you have come to retain this dichotomy of belief for yourself.

When the Philippian jailer asked what he must do to be saved,he received the following answer:

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"(Acts16:31).

What is it that you do not understand about these words,Apollos?I suspect that you understand what is said but you just cannot believe it.

How is it possible to “receive” a “gift” without doing something?

Who ever said that one doesn't do something in order to receive the free gift of eternal life?A person must "believe" the gospel in order to receive the gift.

But believing IS a work – it is a work of God – John 6:29. Why did you forget that?

I said that the Lord was using that term in a "figurative" way.Why would believing something that is true that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit be considered a "work"?There is no merit in believing something is true.

But I am glad to see that you recognized here that Paul uses the word “work” in the context as a work to create a debt – ei. a work that would EARN or MERIT something. Of course these types of works are worthless to appropriate God blessings and always have been.

You say that some types of works are required for salvation despite the fact that Paul says that the reward comes "to him who worketh not,but believeth"(Ro.4:5).

The question we are debating concerns the so-called "great commission" and whether or not the Twelve Apostles had acted upon that complete commission.The Eleven Apostles were specifically told by the Lord Jesus to go out intoi the whole world and preach the "gospel of the kingdom" to every creature:

"Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"(Mk.16:14,15).

But did that ever happen?

There is no Scriptual evidence that it ever happened.It was Paul (who did not receive the same commission) who took the gospel which he describes as "my gospel" into the whole world.In fact,after Paul had finished his first missionary journey (while the Apostles remained in Jerusalem) he met with the Twelve and they came to an agreement that he would be the one who would preach to the Gentiles and the Twelve would limit their ministry to the Jews:

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision"(Gal.2:9).

You say that the Jews were preaching to Gentiles at Acts 11:20,and even if you are correct that is not evidence that any of the Twelve did such a thing.

Even after Peter was sent to a household of Gentiles by the Lord we see that he ended back in Jerusalem instead of going to the whole world and preaching the gospel to every creature.

It is obvious to anyone with an open mind that the Apostles were not carring out the complete commision given to them at Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19-20 later during the Acts period.Why were they not out in the whole world preaching the gospel to every creature and why did they make an agreement with Paul that they would limit their ministry to the Jews?

The answer is obvious.The Twelve knew that before the gospel was to go to the whole world that first the nation of Israel must first repent and accept the fact that it is Jesus Who is their promised Messiah.And that explains the fact that none of the Twelve were going to every creature in the whole world.Before Peter would even go to a Gentile it was necessary for him to receive a speacial revelation from the Lord.And the reason why the Lord would do that is very clear.It was Peter who defended Paul's ministry to the Gentiles as recorded at Acts 15.

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

 

[BChristianK]

BChristianK,

Are you saying that if the Jews would have repented and been converted that the Jews would not have enjoyed the “times of refreshing” that comes from the presence of the Lord?

No, that’s not what I am saying, not even close…

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".

Right, I’m not denying that, I’m merely siding with Thayer (whom you have quoted ad naseum) that the “presence of the Lord” need not be His physical presence as I have shown you, you are just repeating yourself.

Now you say:

Is it not at least plausible that Peter might have been using the same meaning of that word just six verses later?

Yes, its plausible, I’ve not said that it isn’t, the meaning is driven by the context of the passage...
But you address that…

Especially when we consider the words in the "context" of his statement at Acts 3:19--you know, the part about "And He shall send Jesus"?

Yea, except that shall isn’t the only nor the best translation, may is the one the NASB uses, and, by the way, the one the NKJV uses, and there is a good reason why, aposteilh is in the subjunctive not the indicative, which makes shall a very poor translation. Indicatives say what is or has or will happen, subjunctives say what could or might or may happen.
Were that not enough, Peter qualifies his statements by saying..

Whom heaven must receive until the times of the restoration of all things…

And I have argued that their repentance does not restore all things, but you seem to disagree.

Since you do, perhaps you can explain how it is that Jesus said the following:

Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[a]' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.
26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

But apparently you think that Peter is telling the crowd that they can skip all that. No need to worry about wars or rumors of wars, or persecutions or false prophets or abominations or the destruction of the temple (which by the way still stood very tall and sturdy at the time of Peter’s utterance). Peter told the crown, in your interpretation, that they repent and Jesus shows up.

Jerry, Jesus said these would occur before He returned, so Peter could not have been offering the return of the Lord because the Lord wouldn’t return until these things happened and until they happened all things would not be restored!

You said:

You also failed to respond to what I said previously. Here it is again:

Thayer gives no reason why the construction of the Greek demand that "smiling countenance" is the correct rendering of the word at Acts3:19.In fact, he must ignore the words that follow in order to say that the meaning is not "presence--bodily presence". Here are the words which follow:

"And He shall send Jesus Christ, Who before was preached unto you"(Acts3:20).

First, Thayer sees something you refuse to, the context. Second, the linchpin of your argument is based on a inferior translation that you are clinging to like the rock of Gibraltar. Shall send is not the best translation,may send is the more likely translation as the NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, Young’s Literal, Darby and the Holman Christian Standard all reflect.

If Thayer would have used his own definition of this verse instead of ignoring it he would not have said that the word translated "presence" only means the "smiling countenance" of the Lord

You mean if Thayer would have used your definition. Here’s the deal Jerry, I like you, but Thayer is much more qualified to discern the nuances of the word usage than you are.

Even you understood the word "presence" to mean bodily presence when you quoted the NASB

No, actually the NASB’s translation demands no such conclusion.

Now regarding Matthew 28:19 you say:

How many times do I have to say this. I have always maintained that the so-called “great commission” is in regard to Gentiles. If you are “all ears” why do you keep missing the fact that I say that that commission is in regard to going to the whole world to preach the gospel to every creature?

Great, so there you go, the gospel that Jesus sent the 12 out with was one that incorporated the Gentiles, so much for there being 2 gospels.

Your argument is that though Jesus told them to include the gentiles, the disciples, in disobedience, refused…

Now if the Twelve carried out this commission surely there would be at least one place in the Acts narrative where we seeing them baptize the nations “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.

I’ve given you many, Cornelius is one, the Ethiopian eunich is another.

You keep asking questions as if those questions somehow invalidate was is plainly ascertained from Matthew 28:19, that is, that the gospel Jesus sent His disciples with was not a gospel to the circumcisions only.

I love the way you attempt to get around difficulties by making “subtle” changes to what the Scriptures actually say.The Lord Jesus did not tell the Apostyles just to “teach them all the law”,but instead He commanded them to “obey” those who sit in Moses’s seat.

Ah, so in your opinion those who sat in moses seat at the time of Jesus taught the law perfectly?

So much for Jesus statement:

And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!

Jerry, Just because they were to obey those who sit in Moses seat does not mean that those who sit in Moses seat taught the law flawlessly does it? But Jesus told them to obey anyway.

It’s a command to obey authority.

And the gospel that Paul preached declares that believers are no longer under the law.

Right. But they are still under authority. And if you live in Jerusalem and in Jerusalem the ruling authority says you obey the Mosaic commands, you obey the Mosaic commands.

So we are supposed to throw our reason to the wind and imagine that when the Lord speaks of those who sit in Moses’ seat that He is just talking about submitting to authority?

Read the verses yo quote Jerry.



” 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).

Who or what does Jesus tell them to obey, the law, or those who sit in Moses seat? Because I have news for you, those who sat in Moses seat didn’t teach an unadulterated form of the Law, read the gospels Jerry, that is abundantly clear.

I can see that it is an easy thing for you to somehow imagine that the Lord Jesus did not really mean what He said. We are supposed to believe that when He spoke of those who sit in Moses’ seat he only meant those in authority.

No, those in authority that sit in Moses seat, which is not the same thing as obeying the Law, read the verse Jerry.

By using your method of interpretation we can make the Scriptures say anything that we want them to say.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your interpretation. Seat is word that is often used for authority. The Sanhedrin sat in Moses’ seat, meaning that they stood in the authority of Moses, which is not the same thing as accurately teaching the Law, interpreting the law or applying the law as we see time and time again in scripture. Jesus says obey them anyway, but that the righteousness of the crowd should surpass the righteousness of the corruption of those that sat in Moses seat.

Those who sat in Moses seat weren’t the Law, they thought they were, but they weren’t.

Now regarding the claim that Peter only taught to Jews in Galatia and Paul only taught to gentiles you said:

I quoted words from Peter’s epistle where the conclusion is clear that that epistle was written to the Jews. And after the Acts period was over (at the time when the Jews were no longer “keeping the law”—Acts 21:17-26) then I believe that the Jews also received Paul’s epistles.

Ok, so Peter’s epistles were written to a group of Jews that weren’t law keeping jews right?

Please confirm.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

BChristianK,

Can you not keep up with what as already been said?Is something distracting you from being able to concetrate on what has been said?

Previously I said that Peter would know that before the Lord could return that the events described in the Olivet Discourse must first come to pass.But here you go setting up a straw man so that you can beat it to death.

Next,let us consider the way that you think that Acts 3:19 and 20 should be translated:

” Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the smiling countenance of the Lord. And he may send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you”(Acts3:19,20).

Now if the nation of Israel’s repentance was necessary for them to receive the “smiling countenance” of the Lord why would Peter say anything at all in regard to the fact that the Lord Jesus “may be sent back”?

I’m merely siding with Thayer (whom you have quoted ad naseum) that the “presence of the Lord” need not be His physical presence as I have shown you, you are just repeating yourself.

Why do you side with Thayer in regard to the word translated “presence” but then deny his defintion of the words “shall send” in regard to:

”And He shall send Jesus”(v.20).

Thayer gives the following meaning to the words translated "shall send"—"to order (one) to go to a place appointed"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

Can you give me any Greek expert who says that the word translated “shall send” means “what could or might or may happen”.Thayer does not give that definition,and you have failed to give any defintion put forth by a recognized Greek expert that supports what you say.

Even though the word “may” can be in regard to “a possibility” it also means ”contingency,esp. in clauses expressing concession,purpose,result,etc.”(”The American College Dictionary”).

And since the verses we are discussing are in regard to “result” then the meaning is in regard to “contingency” and not in regard to merely a “possibility” that the Lord Jesus will be sent back.In other words,the sending back of the Son is contingent on Israel’s repentance.

So try as you may to make Peter’s words mean just a mere possibility of the Lord Jesus being sent back you have not quoted any Greek expert who says that the word can mean what you say that it means.

Yea, except that shall isn’t the only nor the best translation, may is the one the NASB uses, and, by the way, the one the NKJV uses, and there is a good reason why,  is in the subjunctive not the indicative, which makes shall a very poor translation. Indicatives say what is or has or will happen, subjunctives say what could or might or may happen.

The reason that the “subjunctive” is used is because the sending back of the Lord Jesus is contingent on Israel’s repentance.Yes,subjunctives say that it may or may not happen based on the circumstances or conditions,and in this case the condition is that Israel must first repent.

Whom heaven must receive until the times of the restoration of all things… And I have argued that their repentance does not restore all things, but you seem to disagree.

I never said that the repentance was directly responsible for the “restoration of all things”.It is the Lord Jesus Who will restore all things,and His returning to do that was contingent on Israel’s repentance.

Earlier I said:

If Thayer would have used his own definition of this verse instead of ignoring it he would not have said that the word translated "presence" only means the "smiling countenance" of the Lord

I was referring to the defintion that Thayer gave for the word translated “shall send” at Acts3:20.That defintion is "to order (one) to go to a place appointed".

In other words,if Thayer would have used his own definition of the word then the following verse woyuld read—”and He will order the Lord Jesus to go back”.And with that meaning the only possible meaning of the following words would be:

”…that the times of refreshing shall come from the bodily presence of the Lord,and He shall order the Lord Jesus to return…”(Acts19:19,20).

You said:

You mean if Thayer would have used your definition. Here’s the deal Jerry, I like you, but Thayer is much more qualified to discern the nuances of the word usage than you are. ‘/quote]
I like you too,BK,but Thayer is more qualified to give the meaning of the Greek word translated “shall send” than you are.And even Thayer does not give the meaning that you are attempting to place on that word,and you have yet to quote any Greek expert who agrees with you.

I said:

Now if the Twelve carried out this commission surely there would be at least one place in the Acts narrative where we seeing them baptize the nations “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.

To which you say:

I’ve given you many, Cornelius is one, the Ethiopian eunich is another.

You are mistaken.The words “in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Spirit” are not said even once.The command to baptize in that name was in regard to baptizing the “nations” and not individuals.This is in regard to national submission to divine sovereignty openly declared and enforced on earth.And the prophecies do in fact record “national submission”:

” And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles…the family of Egypt”(Zech.14:16,18).

I said:

I love the way you attempt to get around difficulties by making “subtle” changes to what the Scriptures actually say.The Lord Jesus did not tell the Apostyles just to “teach them all the law”,but instead He commanded them to “obey” those who sit in Moses’s seat.

Since you obviously know that the Lord was nott just saying to “teach them all the law” but instead was telling them to obey those who sit in Moses’ seat you attempt to change the subject.You say:

Ah, so in your opinion those who sat in moses seat at the time of Jesus taught the law perfectly?

Do you deny that the Lord Jesus told His disciples to obey what those who sit in Moses’s seat said?

This is not a matter of whether or not they taught the law perfectly,but instead what did the Lord command.And you understand this:

But Jesus told them to obey anyway.It’s a command to obey authority.

The Apostles would not have thought to themselves that the Lord was just saying to “obey authority”.They would have understood what He said,and that is in regard to obeying those who sit in Moses’s seat.

Seat is word that is often used for authority. The Sanhedrin sat in Moses’ seat, meaning that they stood in the authority of Moses, which is not the same thing as accurately teaching the Law, interpreting the law or applying the law as we see time and time again in scripture. Jesus says obey them anyway, but that the righteousness of the crowd should surpass the righteousness of the corruption of those that sat in Moses seat.

By your own admission the Lord Jesus told them to obey those who sit in Moses’s seat.And the Lord told His Apostles:

” 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).

If the Apostles were carrying out the so/called “great commission” then we would expect to see them teaching the Gentiles to follow those who sit in Moses’ seat.But that never happened.

Ok, so Peter’s epistles were written to a group of Jews that weren’t law keeping jews right?

Please confirm.

The Jews who received Peter’s epistles were “free” from the law (1Pet.2:16,compare with Gal.5:13 and Gal.5:1).

I await your defintion of the Greek word translated “shall send” from a Greek expert.

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

 

[Apollos]

No argument remains for more than ONE gospel...

No argument remains for more than ONE gospel...

Jerry –
Thank you for your reply.

I had presented 1 Peter 1:22 – “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth…”. Were you offering a counter argument by presenting Acts 15:9 – “ …cleansing their hearts by faith” ? You did not present this verse last time – you must have just found it. (For accuracy we are once again we are talking about -2- different words – heart & soul.) But “faith” certainly entails ALL that one must believe to be “cleansed” – however dictated or directed by God’s word. We have already covered that “mental assent” is inadequate.

This brings us once again to what I mentioned last time – “I thought anyone such as yourself that believes that one must hear, believe, and repent would understand that just “believing” is insufficient – I certainly pointed this out in our earlier discussions. Perhaps you will yet explain how you have come to retain this dichotomy of belief for yourself.” Your reply was:

When the Philippian jailer asked what he must do to be saved,he received the following answer:

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"(Acts16:31).

What is it that you do not understand about these words,Apollos?I suspect that you understand what is said but you just cannot believe it.

Why do you limit your information and therefore limit your knowledge of this ocassion? Let’s read the next -2- verses…
Acts 16:32-33 – “ And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately.”

The Jailor was “spoken to” – there were things he need to know and the next verse shows there were things he needed to DO.

The expression in verse 31 – “believe on” – as I have pointed out and I quote from my first post to you - “is an expression that lends itself to the idea of recognizing & appealing to His authority.” All of His authority – not just the parts you want to pick out of it. This isn’t easy believe-ism – there’s more to it than that, as the next -2- verses showed.

Who ever said that one doesn't do something in order to receive the free gift of eternal life?A person must "believe" the gospel in order to receive the gift.

This response appears to be disingenuous. Where is REPENTANCE – you seem to keep leaving that out of your responses for some reason. Why is that?

Last time I remarked: “But believing IS a work – it is a work of God – John 6:29. Why did you forget that?” You said…

I said that the Lord was using that term in a "figurative" way.Why would believing something that is true that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit be considered a "work"?There is no merit in believing something is true.

I know what you said and this is what I said in response to that several posts ago – “What “figure” would that be? Jesus clearly meant that this is something man must do here – that is to believe! John 6:29 says believing IS a work and I agree with John.”

There is nothing figurative about the statement.
Second, it is considered a “work” because Jesus said it was. You only recognize works of merit and no other type.
Third, I agree with you that there is no merit in this type of “work” in John 6:29, it is a “work of God”.

You say that some types of works are required for salvation despite the fact that Paul says that the reward comes "to him who worketh not,but believeth"(Ro.4:5).

The fact is Paul’s context here in this verse are “works” of MERIT. The type of works needed in appropriating salvation are the works selected by God, ei. “works of God” – see above. You recognized this type of work (merit) in Romans 4:5 as I pointed out last post – distinguishable from the other 2 types of “works” seen mentioned in the NT – which I also illustrated for you last post.
<<<*>>>

The question we are debating concerns the so-called "great commission" and whether or not the Twelve Apostles had acted upon that complete commission.

Oh, I know that. You decided to go beyond the word of God on this topic to build your theology – this is what is “obvious”.
<<<*>>>

I will conclude the analysis this post in reference to your second argument for another gospel, which is not another, but you would trouble some to believe that.

Last time I in reference to Acts 26:20-23 –
1.) Paul was preaching to Jew and Gentile
2.) What Paul preached at Jerusalem (Acts 9) he preached to the Gentiles.
3.) What Paul preached to Jew and Gentile was what the prophets and Moses said should come – the death and resurrection of Christ.
4.) The details of the plan of salvation were not known until revealed – 1 Pt 1:10-12 (although I have not discussed when these details were revealed).

We now take up 1 Corinthians 2:6-13 and your comments about this passage.

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.

1.) You make the assumption that Paul is speaking in regards to a gospel he preached only to the Gentiles. This cannot be established from this passage.
2.) You then make the assumption that this presumed second gospel was not prophesied about. This passage says nothing about such prophesy or lack of it and it says nothing about a gospel not being revealed. This begs the question!
3.) This passage does not say that the PURPOSE of the Lord Jesus dying upon the cross was not prophesied.

Let us now look specifically verses 7 and 8 to see what the passage does tell us…

“ 7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, [even] the [wisdom] that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: 8 which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory…”

The context shows that Paul is discussing God’s WISDOM. God’s Apostles and prophets (the “we”, see Eph. 3:5) were speaking God’s WISDOM – the wisdom that had been “in a mystery”, that had “been hidden” but was now being made known and revealed. God’s wisdom was the thing hidden – this passage says nothing about the gospel not being prophesied or that the gospel had been hidden. God’s wisdom had been hidden within the gospel – His plan to save man. We did not know the details – 1 Peter 1:10-12 – but we knew salvation was coming.

Paul tells us also that had “the rulers of this world” known what God’s wisdom was, that is, how God planned to execute the plan, then “the world” would not have crucified the Lord. Does this mean that the PURPOSE of the Lord’s death was not prophesied? OR, does this mean that “the rulers” did not know God’s wisdom and how God planned to execute the plan?

1.)The gospel of salvation was prophesied about as 1 Peter 1:10-12, Galatians 3:8, 2 Timothy 3:15 and other passages clearly show.
2.) The purpose of the Lord’s death upon the cross was prophesied. Without having to canvass the OT, Paul plainly tells us that it was –
1 Corinthians 15:3 – ”For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures…”.

Clear exegesis and elimination of presumption reveals to us from scripture that Paul preached a gospel that had been prophesied. God chose to hide (before the foundation of the world) in that early message of salvation how He would eventually secure salvation for ALL mankind – this through the sufferings of Christ upon the cross – and revealed that freely for all men today through His “holy Apostles and prophets”.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I had presented 1 Peter 1:22 – “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth…”. Were you offering a counter argument by presenting Acts 15:9 – “ …cleansing their hearts by faith” ? You did not present this verse last time – you must have just found it.

Apollos,go back and check my original answer and you will see that I did include this verse.

(For accuracy we are once again we are talking about -2- different words – heart & soul.) But “faith” certainly entails ALL that one must believe to be “cleansed” – however dictated or directed by God’s word. We have already covered that “mental assent” is inadequate.

Yes,but you reject the many times in the Scriptures that proves that once a person believes the gospel that he receives eternal life.

This brings us once again to what I mentioned last time – “I thought anyone such as yourself that believes that one must hear, believe, and repent would understand that just “believing” is insufficient – I certainly pointed this out in our earlier discussions.

Of course one must "hear" the gospel before they can believe it.You think that just because the writers do not mention "hear" every time that you can add on any conditions that you want.

As far as the command to "repent" goes,the meaning is to have a change of mind in regard to one's past way of living.That is why those who were baptized came confessing their sins.

Now tell me why the Lord Jesus did not mention "repenting" as a condition of receiving salvation here:

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

Perhaps the Lord should have consulted you before He spoke those words.

Acts 16:32-33 – “ And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately.”

The Jailor was “spoken to” – there were things he need to know and the next verse shows there were things he needed to DO.

Paul told him exactly what he needed do to be saved--"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).

The expression in verse 31 – “believe on” – as I have pointed out and I quote from my first post to you - “is an expression that lends itself to the idea of recognizing & appealing to His authority.” All of His authority – not just the parts you want to pick out of it.

Then why was not the Apostle John aware of that?

He said that those who believe that Jesus is Christ,the Son of God,are born of God.Too bad John didn't consult you before he made such a blunder.

This isn’t easy believe-ism – there’s more to it than that, as the next -2- verses showed.
This response appears to be disingenuous. Where is REPENTANCE – you seem to keep leaving that out of your responses for some reason. Why is that?

The word "repentance" means to have a change of mind.The Jews were told to have a change of mind concerning their past,sinful way of living.

Last time I remarked: “But believing IS a work – it is a work of God – John 6:29. Why did you forget that?”

I tire of answering the same question over and over.Go back and you will see my previous answer.

There is nothing figurative about the statement.

We are not saved by "works" but in your zeal to place others works you say that that could not be right because we are saved by believing and that is a work.

But you have not yet explained why Paul says that the reward comes to him who worketh not,but believeth.You just deny those words and say that one is saved by faith plus works.Too bad that Paul did not consult you before he wrote those words.

Second, it is considered a “work” because Jesus said it was. You only recognize works of merit and no other type.

Yes,and we should believe that the Lord is a litearl "door" because He said that He is.

The fact is Paul’s context here in this verse are “works” of MERIT. The type of works needed in appropriating salvation are the works selected by God, ei. “works of God” – see above. You recognized this type of work (merit) in Romans 4:5 as I pointed out last post – distinguishable from the other 2 types of “works” seen mentioned in the NT – which I also illustrated for you last post.

Paul says that the reward comes to him who "worketh not".He would not have said this if some work was needed to be saved.The Scriptures also reveal that "the gift of God is eternal life"(Ro.6:23).You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word "gift" or you would not continue to argue that one must work for a gift.

Apollos,there is not much reason to go on because if you cannot even understand the meaning of the words "worketh not" and the word "gift" then you cannot understand the more complicated things.

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

 

[Apollos]

Works of God will always be needed...

Works of God will always be needed...

Jerry –

Thanks for the reply.

Yes,but you reject the many times in the Scriptures that proves that once a person believes the gospel that he receives eternal life.

When I see it or when you show it from scripture I will let you know. No ONE verse tells us how to obtain salvation – this I already illustrated early on – you refused to accept this simple fact.

You think that just because the writers do not mention "hear" every time that you can add on any conditions that you want.

Peculiar – you added repent, yet I could not find it in even one of your passages early on. But I admit I do not understand the dichotomy you have created for yourself.

As far as the command to "repent" goes,the meaning is to have a change of mind in regard to one's past way of living.

Repeating the definition does not answer your problem or my question. You repeat your favorite verses to show that “mental assent” only saves, yet refuse to explain how you came to accept that a WORK like repentance must be performed prior to salvation. This is your dichotomy dilemma!

Now tell me why the Lord Jesus did not mention "repenting" as a condition of receiving salvation here:
"He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life"(Jn.5:24).

Simple – as I have said the expression “believe on” lends itself to the idea that a person must submit and/or appeal to the authority of the Lord – the same applies in Acts 16:32f. And I believe the Apostle John was well aware of this. But then again, this verse or John’s do not mention the REPENTANCE that you require prior to salvation does it? We would be finished discussing IF works are needed for salvation IF you would resolve your dichotomy on “belief” versus works. Then we could discuss which works are necessary.

The word "repentance" means to have a change of mind.The Jews were told to have a change of mind concerning their past,sinful way of living.

Wow – you defined repentance AGAIN in the same post. Yet you could not show me where it fits into the verses you keep telling me teach the “easy believe-ism” you purport not to believe but keep affirming.

Last time I remarked: “But believing IS a work – it is a work of God – John 6:29. Why did you forget that?” I don’t need to look back – you have NEVER told me HOW this verse is “figurative”. You tire of “answering” it (not!), but what you really tire of is my insistance for you to answer – HOW IS THIS FIGURATIVE in John 6:29??? You are being disingenuous again.

But you have not yet explained why Paul says that the reward comes to him who worketh not,but believeth.

The reward is not for those who work for it to put God in their DEBT (in context of the passage – see verse 4), but those who by faith in God OBEY that which He has promised. It is just that easy. And yes, I have explained this before.

Yes,and we should believe that the Lord is a litearl "door" because He said that He is.

I thought this was a little funny. I can perceive the “figurative” use of door in the passage you refer to, but I just can’t perceive figurative use of the word WORK in John 6:29. I bet most others can not see anything figurative in John 6:29 either.

Paul says that the reward comes to him who "worketh not".He would not have said this if some work was needed to be saved.

You are arguing with yourself on this one. I have shown you that YOU require works yourself, although you want to say you do not. I showed how YOU said this passage used “works” to depict works of merit. Yet you deny your own requirements and deny the context of the passage you defined so you may cling to a belief that you can not defend at this point from your own teaching. That is quite a “work” in itself!

You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word "gift" or you would not continue to argue that one must work for a gift.

It is something I will receive for acting upon a promise, not something I will ever deserve or earn.

Apollos,there is not much reason to go on because if you cannot even understand the meaning of the words "worketh not" and the word "gift" then you cannot understand the more complicated things.

I will leave it up to you whether we continue or not. But I understand these things very well because I recognize the –3- types of works clearly depicted in the NT –and- I know from God how to appropriate the “gift” He has promised to all that diligently seek Him.
<<<<*>>>>

Did you want to say anything about my dismantling of your second argument which was purporting a second gospel?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Apollos,

You said:

Simple – as I have said the expression “believe on” lends itself to the idea that a person must submit and/or appeal to the authority of the Lord

Doing something in the mind is not the same thing as doing something in the flesh.One can believe in the authority of the Lord in the mind but that is not the same thing as doing something in the flesh.

The reward is not for those who work for it to put God in their DEBT (in context of the passage – see verse 4), but those who by faith in God OBEY that which He has promised.

So what Paul really meant is that the rward comes to him who worketh not (except for those works which do not put God into debt),but believeth (and doing works that do not put God into debt).

OK,Apollos,tell me what those “works” are that do not put the Lord into debt.

Did you want to say anything about my dismantling of your second argument which was purporting a second gospel?

It is you who is forced to dismantle the English language in order to even attempt to answer my points.

Paul said that he did not “confer” or “consult” any human beings after he received the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles but instead he went immediately into Arabia.The words “consult” and “confer” mean “carry on a discussion or deliberation”.

But after Paul received the gospel which he preached among the Jews he was in fact “certain days with the disciples who were at Damascus”.And then “immediately” he preached Christ in the synagogues.

But you can somehow imagine that he would not confer or consult any of the Lord’s desciples after the greatest experience of his life.I guess that you think that he just sat around with them and not even mention the great things that had just happened to him.And you can imagine that he did not carry on any kind of a discussion or deliberation when he was preaching in the synagogues “proving that this is very Christ”.

To you the words “confer” and “consult” do not mean the same thing everyone else believes it means.

Secondly,Paul went to the Apostles as recorded at Galatians 2 and used the words “that gospel that I preach among the Gentiles”,and then he named two different gospels—the gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal.2:2,7).If there was only one gospel why did he name two and if there was only one gospel why was it necessary to specify that the one which he discussed with the Apostles is the one which he preached among the Gentiles?

Thirdly,Paul was put on trial because he was charged with sedition among the Jews:

” For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes”(Acts24:5).

And Paul knew that the chages against him were in regard to what he was preaching to the Jews (Acts24:13-15).And in regard to that accusation Paul defended himself by saying that he preached nothing at all but what the prophets and Moses said would happen:

” I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles”(Acts26:22,23).

So the gospel which he preached to the Jews was prophesised.But the gospel which he preached to the Jews was a message that was kept “secret” and not revealed by the prophets:

” Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, even the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began”(Ro.16:25).

And if one examines the Acts record they can see that the message that was preached to the Jews was in regard what the prophets had revealed—His death,burial and resurrection and the fact that it is Jesus Who is the Messiah,the Son of God (Acts17:2-3).

At the same time Paul was preaching Jesus Christ according to the revealation of the mystery to the rest of mankind.And that message is the fact that those who believe his gospel are “justified freely by the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”(Ro.3:24).

Paul even speaks of the two different gospels not only at Galatians 2 but also here:

” But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more”(Acts20:24,25).

The gospel of the kingdom is in regard to the identity of Israel’s promised Messiah,and the heart and soul of the gospel of grace is centered on the “purpose” of His death upon the Cross—“when we were enemies we were reconciled by the death of His Son”(Ro.5:10).

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

 

[hitek357]

This looks like relatively basic discussion of Acts 9 Dispensationalism. I come from the position that Paul preached a different Gospel - it's obviously different whether you look at the whole or merely snippets as discussed above.

My question is since the Gospel of the Uncircumcism temporarily supplants the Gospel of the Circumcism, what would have happened - what would things have looked like - if Israel HAD corporately believed? Oh, I supposed it all would have over in seven years, but how about those seven years? Would requirements of animal sacrifice have been lifted? Other ceremonial laws? Other symbolic laws?

Quick! My pastor wants to know, and now he thinks I'm a heretic.