Just One Gospel?

[Apollos]

Paul's gospel was promised and made known by the OT prophets...

Paul's gospel was promised and made known by the OT prophets...

Jerry –

Thank you for your reply.

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.

Your thought “in the mind” certainly covers the “recognizing” of His authority, but it does little to help the “appeal to” His authority part – “What would you have me do Lord?”. His authority requires we acknowledge and do all that He requires to appropriate salvation – not just think about it.

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

Jesus said – “Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life…” So what works shall one do for “eternal life? One must hear the word, believe it, repent – and up to this point YOU agree! (This is your unanswerable Dichotomy - remember?) One must also confess Christ as Lord, and be water baptized for remission of sins. No one will ever think that any of these works EARN that great gift of eternal life. (And please, let’s not get off on a water baptism debate. Again, if we don’t agree that man must do something to appropriate eternal life, why debate what he should do?)

What separates the lost (Mt. 7:13) from the saved? It is what they DO!

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

Had I dismantled any English I am certain you would have pointed that out. I did not see any corrections, so I must be in good standing with my English.

Paul said that he did not “confer” or “consult” [Gal. 1:16] 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”.

This is a slightly different definition than you previously offered – “carry on a discussion” ??? WHERE did this definition come from??? This definition was never offered earlier by you in our discussions. I believe you are still attempting to dismantle the Greek. Allow me to quote your earlier definition from a credible source…

[Jerry said…]Here is the meaning of the word “confer” means at Gal.1:16: “with a dat. Of the pers. to put one’s self upon another by going to him,i.e. to commit or betake one’s self to another…to consult,to take one into counsel…Gal.1.16(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

Jerry, we have gone over this definition 3 or 4 times – this definition is not going to change. You are trying to “morph” the definition toward the word found in Acts 9:20 (“preach”) to make it better fit your theological thoughts. This is inappropriate research and disingenuous exegesis.

But after Paul received the gospel which he preached among the Jews [Acts 9:20] he was in fact “certain days with the disciples who were at Damascus”.And then “immediately” he preached Christ in the synagogues.

Paul had returned from Arabia to Damascus and he immediately preached the only gospel he knew to everyone. Look at Galatians 1:23 and compare it to Acts 9:21. The gospel Paul preached at the point of Acts 9 was the same gospel he referenced as being preached at the point of Galatians 1.

Acts 9:21 – ”And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests.”
Gal. 1:23 – “…but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc…”

You want to claim that Acts 9 speaks of Paul’s “Jewish” gospel and that Galatians 1 speaks of a “Gentile” gospel. These two passages tell us there was only ONE !

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.

This is amusing as it argues only from emotion. It also ignores the CONTEXT of why Paul said what he did in Galatians 1:16 – that being Paul did not “confer” with anyone to get the one gospel that he had received by revelation. But this point of “conferring” can be reduced down to TWO passages – Acts 9:20 and Gal. 1:16. These use TWO different words to convey TWO different actions, as we have seen in my prior post. It is as simple as knowing the difference between seeking advice (confer – Gal. 1:16) and giving advice (preach – Acts 19:20).

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

You must have confused yourself b/c you mixed this point. “Confer” and “consult” do have the same basic meaning. My point has been that PREACH (Acts 19:20) and CONFER (Gal. 1:16) do NOT have the same meaning as I have illustrated in previous posts.
<<<*>>>

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…

What Paul spoke of was –2- different “apostleships”, not 2 different gospels. See verses 7 AND 8 together to get the full context of Paul’s remark about these -2- spheres of work. The parenthetical statement of verse 8 of necessity explains verse 7.
<<<*>>>

So the gospel which he preached to the Jews was prophesised.But the gospel which he preached to the Jews [I believe you mean Gentiles??? - Apollos] was a message that was kept “secret” and not revealed by the prophets:

You then provided Romans 16:25… “Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, 26 but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith…”

Verse 25 alone does not give us the full meaning of what Paul is saying here so I included verse 26 for clarity and context.

Paul’s “my gospel” was the preaching of Jesus Christ. This “gospel” was “according to” (literally through or derived from) the “mystery” revealed. The “mystery” was not something unknowable, but rather something that had not been made known – the mystery that through the ages had been “kept in silence” (although bits and pieces were known… 1 Peter 1:10f, 1 Cor. 15:3). Verse 26 “BUT now is manifested” (revealed). AND by the “scriptures of the prophets” the gospel is made known, unto ALL nations unto the obedience of faith.

This passage clearly and succinctly tells the reader that Paul’s “my gospel” had been a mystery that was now derived from revelation AND that the OT “scriptures” now MAKE KNOWN the gospel unto obedience of the faith for all nations – this by the commandment of God.

What Paul preached – “my gospel” is indeed MADE KNOWN by the OT prophets !!!

The gospel was also PROMISED by the prophets – Romans 1:1-3 – “ Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 concerning his Son…”

Paul, at the start of the Roman letter as well at the end, tells us the prophets promised and [/u]make known[/u] the gospel that Paul preached.

Jerry, both your second and third arguments for a second gospel are dismantled with the truth of God coming through Paul himself!

 

[john w]

I cannot add much to what has already been eloquently stated regarding the term "the gospel". I re-iterate, however, that the term "the gospel" needs to be qualified within its dispensational setting.

Paul was commissioned to preach the gospel of the grace of God, the gospel of Christ, that was revealed to him from the risen, ascended, glorified, Lord Jesus Christ from heaven by revelation. This was his calling from the Lord Jesus Christ. And this is the only "good news" that will save you from the penalty of sin, the power of sin, and the presence of sin(salvation and justification, sanctification, redemption of the body/glorification). This gospel is summarized in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. But this is not "the gospel of the kingdom"-these are not equivalent or synonymous.

The Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry, the apostles, and the disciples all preached "the gospel of the kingdom"(including Judas). As all believers know, gospel means "good news", but there is more than one "gospel" in scripture, and the confusion in Christianity results from the failure to understand the absolute necessity of "rightly dividing the word of truth"(2 Tim. 2:15), mainly failing to distinguish between the prophetic program as revealed in the Old Testament, and the Mystery Program that was revealed to Paul.

Nowhere in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John will you find 1 Cor. 15:1-4 being preached as the "good news", the basis for our salvation and justification. Nowhere.

Consider this. You cannot preach what you do not know. You cannot believe that which you do not know.

During the Lord Jesus Christ's earthly ministry, the apostles and disciples had no knowledge of his impending, death, burial, and resurrection:

"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee" Mt. 16:21,22

"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him." Mark 8:31,32

Comment: Obviously, Peter was attempting to prevent the Lord's death! If the death, burial, and resurrection was the grounds for Peter's salvation and justification(as Paul expounds on in his epistles), why was Peter trying to prevent the very thing that would be the basis for his justification? See also John 18:10. Did he ever preach 1 Cor. 15:1-4? If he had, his rebuke of the Lord would be a non-sensical reaction!

"For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him." Mark 9:31,32

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." Luke 18:31-34

"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day...." Luke 24:45,46

"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." John 20:9

Comment: Notice they did not know it or understand it prior to His death! They were not preaching 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

Even after the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection, they intially did not believe it:

"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Mt. 28:17

"And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 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." Mark 16:11

"And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not." Luke 24:9-11

" And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?" Luke 24:41

And what is the simple reason for 1 Cor. 15:1-4 not being revealed, much less preached, in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?:

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Cor. 2:7,8


"Popular Christianity"(a contradiction in itself) continues to promote the prevalent but erroneous view that there is only one gospel in scripture. The fact that the message of the cross is not part of the "gospel of the kingdom" does not mean that the Lord Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection was not the critical in human history. And not one person has ever been, nor ever will be, saved apart from the death, burial and resurrection of "... the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ...."(Titus 2:13, Psalms 145:3). However, it is an entirely different matter to say that there is only one "the gospel". The Lord Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection was the lynchpin, the foundational event, but that fact was not always part of the content or message(a discussion of progressive revelation would be beyond the scope of this message). Indeed, during the Lord Jesus Christ's earthly ministry, the "gospel of the kingdom", the "good news" of the approaching Davidic, Messianic kingdom("...as the days of heaven upon the earth...." Deut. 11:24), which was the subject of Old Testament prophecy concerning the restoration of earth with the Lord Jesus Christ ruling in righteousness, was preached:

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people." Mt. 4:23

"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. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." Mt. 10:5-8

"And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15

This was the "good news" of the the ideal conditions that will exist in forthcoming , and promised, millennium kingdom, a time the scripture refers to as the times of "refreshing"(Exodus 31:17, Isaiah 28:12, Acts 3:19), and of the "restitution of all things"(Acts 3:21)-that which was lost in Genesis Chapter 3 would be restored. This is the enfolding of the promise that the Lord Jesus Christ shall rule from David's throne(2 Sam. 5-"the Davidic Covenant"-the covenant which God made with David at the time he revealed to him that Solomon would build the Temple, of which the reign of Solomon pre-figures the millennium reign-a type). Is this not what the Lord had in mind when He states that "...thou shalt see greater things than these...."(John 1:50)? And this was the focus of the prophetic program expounded throughout the OT and "the gospels"(Mt.-John)-"...which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets since the world began"(Acts 3:21).

This 1000 year reign will be characterized by the righteous reign of the Lord Jesus Christ, and, as J. Dwight Pentecost summarized , a time of peace, joy, comfort, justice, the removal of the curse, no sickness, healing of the deformed, no immaturity, economic prosperity, and Holiness. This holiness will be manifested through the King and the King's subjects, the JEWS. This holiness, this trait of Jews("an Israelite"-John 1:47) having "...no guile", is realization of the promise of the New Covenant, and this is what the Lord Jesus Christ was alluding to in John Chapter 1.

Indeed, the millennium kingdom will be the fruition, the display, and the fulfillment of 3 covenants promised in The Old Testament-the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New Covenant. The Lord Jesus Christ was prophesizing partial fulfillment of the New Covenant in John 1:47. Part of the promise of the New Covenant was that the Jews would be given a new heart, and a new spirit:

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." Jeremiah 31:33

"At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: NEITHER SHALL THEY WALK ANY MORE AFTER THE IMAGINATION OF THEIR EVIL HEART(emphasis mine)." Jeremiah 3:17

"Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: THAT THEY MAY WALK IN MY STATUTES, AND KEEP MINE ORDINANCES, AND DO THEM: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:17-20.

And yet, as shown previously, the disciples and apostles understood absolutely nothing of the cross and resurrection. Any honest read of scripture must come to this conclusion. So, how can anyone say that they "...preached Christ crucified...." 1 Cor. 1:23), or 1 Cor. 15:1-4, as Paul did? This is impossible, if we have a LORD God of reason(Isaiah 1:18). Only later, through Paul's apostle ship, was the cross and resurrection revealed as the central theme of the gospel in this "...dispensation of the grace of God..."(Eph. 3:2-again, the discussion for the reasons for this are beyond the scope of this message).

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

PS: And guess what is being preached by TBN, CBN.....? The gospel of the kingdom.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Apollos,

It is impossible to discuss these things with someone who is forced to pervert the Scriptures at every turn.For instance I said:

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…

Of course he was being specific (that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles and not the gospel which was preached to the Jews) but you can somehow throw your reason to the wind and say:

What Paul spoke of was –2- different “apostleships”, not 2 different gospels.

If Paul wanted to say "apostleships" then he would have said that.But since this does not fit your ideas you just close your eyes and pretend that he was speaking of an "apostleship" and not a "gospel".After all,what use do you have for the Scriptures since you already have all the answers?

I asked you:

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

To which you replied:

One must also confess Christ as Lord, and be water baptized for remission of sins. No one will ever think that any of these works EARN that great gift of eternal life. (And please, let’s not get off on a water baptism debate. Again, if we don’t agree that man must do something to appropriate eternal life, why debate what he should do?)

So according to your "reasoning" if the Lord said that one of the requirements to be saved is to be baptized with water and you do just that then the Lord is not in "debt" to fulfill His part of the agreement.That is ridiculous.

That is your febble attempt to try to make salvation come by works.

In regard to the baptism of repentance,it was necessary to believe that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah,the Son of God, before one could even be baptized:

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"(Acts8:36,37).

The eunuch was already born of God before a drop of water even touched him:

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

Those who were born of God during the past dispensation were born "not through the will of the flesh" (which would include submitting to the rite of water baptism) but instead by their "faith":

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

Despite all this you just cannot understand that eternal life is a free gift that come to all who believe and "worketh not"!

Earlier I provided the following definition of the word "confer":

Here is the meaning of the word “confer” means at Gal.1:16: “with a dat. Of the pers. to put one’s self upon another by going to him,i.e. to commit or betake one’s self to another…to consult,to take one into counsel…Gal.1.16"(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

The meaning could not be any plainer,but you say that Paul was not "consulting" with any men in the following verses:

"And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God"(Acts9:19,20).

Even though he was with other disciples for a while you can somehow imagine that he did not take even one of those men into his counsel and tell them what had happened to him.And if he went and preached in the synagogues then anyone who is not blinded can realize that he was taking those he preached to in his counsel.But you are somehow able to part company with your common sense and deny that which cannot be denied.

Paul, at the start of the Roman letter as well at the end, tells us the prophets promised and make known the gospel that Paul preached.

Yes,it was promised by the prophets but it was not revealed until Paul.Therefore it was kept "secret" until Paul revealed it.

AND by the “scriptures of the prophets” the gospel is made known, unto ALL nations unto the obedience of faith.

You would have us believe that it was a secret even though it was in the OT Scriptures!This is another case of you having to throw your reason to the wind so that you can cling to the "doctrines" invented by men.The actual words at Romans 16:26 is "prophetic writings",i.e. the inspired writings of the New Testament.A prophet is "one,who moved by the Spirit of God,declares what he received by inspiration".That fits Paul perfectly.

Paul says that these "inspired writings" are made known now,but you can somehow imagine that the word "now" as used by Paul was in reference to hundreds of years before Paul even wrote those words.

Paul had returned from Arabia to Damascus and he immediately preached the only gospel he knew to everyone. Look at Galatians 1:23 and compare it to Acts 9:21. The gospel Paul preached at the point of Acts 9 was the same gospel he referenced as being preached at the point of Galatians 1.

Acts 9:21 – ”And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests.”
Gal. 1:23 – “…but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc…”

Of course you leave out the part that those who said the words in regard to "now preaching the faith of which he once made havoc" were Jews--"the churches of Judea which were in Christ"(Gal.1:22).

Are you under the impression that these churches were filled with Gentiles?

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

John Whalen,

Excellent post! Hope to hear more from you.

 

[Apollos]

Only details in the Gospel plan were hidden...

Only details in the Gospel plan were hidden...

John –

Interesting post, albeit inaccurate. Instead of laboriously quoting you, I will make my response in narrative.

The word “gospel” needs to be used and defined in the context of the passage in which it is used. In Mark 1:15 Jesus said:

“ The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.”

There is a context to, but no “qualification” needed of, the word here. Jesus said believe the “glad tidings”, whatever the glad tidings were to be. There were/are “glad tidings” about many things in the NT. We see the following in the NT:

The gospel.
The gospel of the kingdom.
The gospel of Jesus Christ.
The gospel of the kingdom of God.
The gospel of the grace of God.
The gospel of God.
The gospel of his Son.
The gospel of Christ.
The gospel of peace.
The gospel of [your] salvation.

These things are the “gospel”, whether those “glad tidings” be about the kingdom, the Christ (God’s anointed), the Son (human aspect of Jesus), God (the designer of salvation’s plan), God’s grace (His disposition), peace, or our salvation. Certainly you would not suggest that there were 10 or more “gospels” mentioned in the NT, yet you want to single out the “gospel of the kingdom” as if were of its own right a distinct and separate issue of “glad tidings”.

The “gospel of the kingdom” is no more a separate gospel than the “gospel of peace” is. Each description as used in the NT is but synecdoche for the other, mentioning a specific aspect of the ONE gospel Jesus began to preach at the beginning of His ministry. There is so much to be glad about in the ONE gospel !

The earthly ministry of Jesus seems to have emphasized the kingdom. The King was standing in their midst, and all people of the earth were to be His subjects, so appropriate attention to this matter of the kingdom seems appropriate – after all, it was “at hand”. Those who say the kingdom did not come, show the Holy Spirit to be a buffoon and Jesus a liar – the words of whom can never be trusted!

But what the Jews were looking for in kingdom design was far from the Divine plan. It was to be a spiritual kingdom with a spiritual King:


It is the kingdom that:

Luke 16:16 - The “law and the prophets” foretold until John came preaching it.
Luke 17:20 - The kingdom that did not come with “observation”.
Luke 17:21 - But the kingdom that is within the faithful.
Luke 9:27 - It was a kingdom that was to come during the lifetime of some already living then - cf. Dan. 2:44
Luke 24:49 – A kingdom that was to come with POWER – cf.Acts 1:8, Acts 2!
John 18:36 – It was never intended to be an earthly kingdom.
John 3:3 – A kingdom that only those who are “born again” can “see”.
Acts 2:21 - A kingdom for ALL nations to come unto – “whosoever” – cf. Isaiah 2:2.
Acts 2:23-33 – The kingdom Jesus was raised up to be King and rule over.
Colossians 1:13 – The kingdom the saved are translated into.

And the GOSPEL is the message to ALL the nations throughout the world for His witness – Matt 24:14 and the kingdom, cf. Acts 1:8 !
These things are the “glad tidings” about His KINGDOM !!!

These glad tidings of the kingdom were PROPHESIED in the OT and REVEALED in the NT. The very use of man-made expressions such as “prophetic program” & “mystery program” suggest that these theories themselves are MAN-MADE.
<<<*>>>

The manner in which Paul received the gospel that he was commissioned to preach was the same manner as the 12 and others received the gospel they were commissioned to preach (Matt. 28:18f, Luke 24:47, Acts 1:8.) – by revelation. The gospel was revealed to the 12 and others by “revelation” also - (Eph. 3:5, Lk. 24:49, cf. John 14:23,16:13) – Paul had no monopoly on revelation as revelation was the means of delivery of the gospel for the early church! Your attempt to make Paul’s method of gospel reception unique, and therefore inferring his gospel was also unique, will not work here.

The death, burial, and resurrection (DBR) of Christ had been prophesied – 1 Cor. 15:3-4. That the 12 did not comprehend this during the time of Christ’s earthly ministry means what? That the 12 did not preach the fact of the DBR of the Christ before it took place means what? Repentance and remission of sins was to begin at Jerusalem – Luke 24:47 – this after Christ sends the HS to guide them into all truth (John 14:23, 16:13) which He did on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The “basis for our salvation” had been prophesied and was soon to be fact. You can not place faith in an event that has not taken place! What the 12 may or may not have known before Acts 2, they knew on Pentecost! If Paul can preach the DBR of Christ after Acts 2, why couldn’t the 12 in Acts 2? The answer is – the 12 could and they did!

AFTER the fact of the DBR, Christ commissioned His disciples to GO INTO ALL THE WORLD and to preach to the GOSPEL to EVERY creature – ALL NATIONS – Matt. 28:18f, Mark 16:15f – baptizing into the baptism (in water) that HE commissioned. It was time to preach the “gospel of Christ” – His DBR.

(It is not amusing to me that dispys show “mono-vision” at this point. You can “see” the commission Jesus gave in Matthew 10 for the disciples to go to the Jews only, but refuse to “see” the world-wide commission in Matthew 28 to go to all nations. But of course this “view” must be maintained and the truth denied to protect your theology. If the disciples went world-wide then Paul’s appointment to saving the Gentiles is diminished to commonality and his importance as your carrier of the sacred 2nd gospel diluted and threatened in the created scheme of “bi-gospel-ism”.)

“And what is the simple reason for 1 Cor. 15:1-4 not being revealed…”?
This passage says the DBR of Christ was “according to the scriptures”… and that -
Christ died for our sins “according to the scriptures”.

It is evident that the DBR of Christ for the sins of man was prophesied in the scriptures – see also 1 Peter 1:10f. The prophets had been looking for this time for hundreds of years.

So what had not been revealed? The details. The HOW of God accomplishing this salvation of man was not revealed. Suffering and salvation was prophesied – the details were hidden. So don’t tell us the gospel Paul preached wasn’t prophesied – he tells us in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 that it WAS !

No one knew that the details - Christ was to die on the cross to save man - it was known already that the Christ was to suffer and that salvation was coming! Man did not understand until the wisdom of God (kept in mystery – that is, was not made known) was revealed – [/b]1 Peter 1:12, 1 Cor. 2:7-8[/b]. God used prophesy to create the mystery that would not be revealed until He had accomplished that which He had planned from before the foundation of the world – the salvation of man from sin. This fact of salvation through Christ now displays His brilliant wisdom!

What Paul was preaching was “according to the scriptures” – it had been prophesied!
That doesn’t leave any place for any supposed 2nd (rate) gospel, does it?

And that the 12 did not understand or preach this until after the fact ?
Well, God’s wisdom is great isn’t it?

 

[elected4ever]

Apollos, that was a well presented answer. However I would consider a small change for John 18: 36. Instead of saying, "It was never intended to be an earthly kingdom." I would say that it is not a kingdom of this earthly system. One day Christ will return and set His Kingdom on the earth. We may be saying the same thing but saying it differently. Other than that I think you are right on point. :e4e:

 

[bornagain]

Apollos is wrong

Apollos is wrong

When Jesus was on earth, He preached two different gospels (the greek word for gospel is "euaggelion", which means "good tidings" or "good news").

First, He preached the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews (Matthew-Luke)
Then, He preached the Gospel of the grace of God (John)

Paul just expounded that gospel Jesus preached on the book of John. Tell me why, if all gospels are the same, why didn't Jesus emphasized on belief in the three gospels, and then, in the gospel of John, all He talks about (and thank God He does!) is believing in the Son?

Why are the first three gospels synoptical (they look the same), while the gospel of John is very different?

You better study dispensationalism.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This is fairly typical of those who deny an earthly kingdom:

John 18:36 – It was never intended to be an earthly kingdom.

Here is what the Lord Jesus actually said:

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence"(Jn.18:36).

Peter expected that a kingdom would be set up on earth,asking the Lord Jesus,"Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"(Acts1:6).

The Lord did not tell him that he was wrong for expecting a kingdom on earth,only that he was not to know the time when it would be set up.

But there are those who say that Peter was wrong for expecting an earthly kingdom.They think that they know more about the kingdom that Peter.

But how many of those people were with the Lord while He spoke of the things pertaining to the kigdom",as was Peter?:

"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"(Acts1:3).

The OT Scriptures are full of prophecies describing a kingdom,and the Lord Jesus opened Peter's understanding of those Scriptures:

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

Despite this there are many people who think that Peter was mistaken and they think that they know much more about the kingdom that did Peter.

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

 

[BChristianK]

Jerry,

Forgive me for my tardiness in responding, graduations and such filled the hours and took me away from TOL.

I think it would be fruitful to start with a reminder as to where we are in our discussion concerning Acts 3:19-20.
1. You and I both agree that Peter couldn't have meant to offer the kingdom immediately in Acts 3:19-20 since both of us agree that at the very least, the events described in the Olivet Discourse would need precede the Lord’s return. So, as you can see, you yourself do not consider the repentance of this crowd as sufficient. If they repent, that is not in and of itself sufficient to bring about the Lord’s return. And that is why I have said over and over again that the repentance of the Jews in this verse would not restore all things. There would still need be a great apostasy, tribulation, and not the least of among those things, there would need to be the destruction of the temple.

So the only question left is, “is their repentance necessary for the return of the Lord?” I would argue it isn’t, if we let scripture explain and interpret scripture we will see that the Lord Himself did not predict a great repentance before His return bur rather a great turning away.

Matthew 24:10-12 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,

So now what? we conclude that Peter was telling the crowd that repentance would precede the Lord’s return despite the clarity of Christ’s prophecy that many will turn away from the faith before His return?

What you have Peter saying is exactly the opposite of what the Lord Prophesied.

Thus we look to other alternatives which turn out to be more likely anyway.

Can the Greek construction lead us to conclude that the verse is a conditional statement?

Yes, given the fact that an is present in the sentence we can.

Does the verse meet a classic construction for a conditional sentence?

No. The other elements are not present:

Wallace in His Greek Grammar give us a clue into this situation…

-Explicit conditional sentences follow four general patterns in the Greek NT. Each Pattern is known as a class: hence, first class, second class, third class and fourth class.

Wallace then goes on to diagram the conditional sentence classes explaining. That in first, second and fourth class conditions the Greek word ei appears in the protasis. In Second class conditions the greek word ean appears in the protasis.
(see Wallace’s Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics)

Now if you look at the Greek for Acts 3:19-20 you see this as the apadosis:
Metanohsate (repent) oun (therefore) kai (and) (return).

No ei or ean. Therefore it is not an explicit conditional sentence.

Now in the apadosis you do have this:
ieV (into, to toward) to  (the wiping away) umwn tas amartiaV (of your sins) prwV (that, so that) an (un-translated conditional particle) elqwsin (verb meaning to come, this is in the subjunctive) kairoi anayuxewV apo proswpou tou kuriou (times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord) kai (and) aposteilh (A verb that means to send also in the subjunctive) prokeceirismenon umin Xriston Ihsoun (the one appoint for you, Christ Jesus).


Now you ask me to give you one Greek scholar that would translate aposteilh as may send. Really it would be harder to find one that wouldn’t. The NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NKJV all translate it as may send. Given that there are teams of scholars from various denominations who worked on each of these, I’d say you’ve been trumped, but if you still want a name, here are a couple.
Bill Mounce says,

“The subjunctive does not describe what is, but what may (or might) be. In other words, it is the mood not of reality but of possibility (for probability). (Page 282, Basics of Biblical Greek by William D. Mounce, is the professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell.)

Even Summers who sees the subjunctive as more definite admits the following:

Since the subjunctive expresses action which is not a reality but is objectively possible, this means that in the mind of the speaker or writer there is a good possibility of the action taking place. The fulfillment is expected in the future, and thus the subjunctive is closely related to the future indicative. However, the future indicative describes what will take place and the subjunctive what may occur. Thus the words “may” or “might” often appear in translating subjunctives.

So there you go, two scholars for the price of one 

Now, lets consider the an that occurs before elqwsin in the verse. What could this mean?

It could be indicative of weak conditionality.
It could mean that we should translate the verb after it as a future indicative.
It could mean that this is softly hortatory.
It could mean that the following should be translated with “whoever” or “Whenever” preceding it.


It could mean a host of things but what we can’t be is 100% certain of any of them. That’s a problem for your theology because it depends so much on a verse that has multiple possible and viable translations. But there is even a bigger problem for you, the conditional particle, an only appears before elqwsin it doesn’t appear at all before aposteilh. And since Peter is clear to qualify his statement of the coming of the Lord with the following:

Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

We would have to ignore all sorts of lexical, syntactical and theological evidence to the contrary in order to get a kingdom offer out of this verse.

Again, even you don’t think that their repentance or turning is sufficient to bring back the Lord, the events of the Olivet Discourse would need occur.

I think the right approach is the one taken by F.F. Bruce when he summarizes…

The people of Jerusalem (perhaps as representatives of the “the whole house of Israel”) are called on to reverse the Passover Eve and to accord Jesus united allegiance as Messiah. While many id respond to this call in the earliest days of the church, they remained a minority; it is idle to speculate what might have happened if t hey had formed the majority. As it is, one of Luke’s motifs in Acts is the progressive acceptance by Gentiles. But, in the general context of Acts, Peter’s words mean this: the gospel blessings destined to flow from Jesus’ death and resurrection must spread throughout the world; then, and not till then, will he return from the right hand of power. (F.F. Bruce’s commentary on Acts in NICNT, page 85, emphasis mine)

We don’t have to look too far to substantiate this…

And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 24:14)

So if you believe the events of the Olivet discourse must precede the return of the Lord, then the gospel, that is a testimony to all nations (including the gentiles) must be proclaimed before His return. And this means two things.
1. The gospel they were given was gentile inclusive.
2. That Peter was not offering an immediate earthly kingdom accompanied by the return of Jesus.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Let us examine these verses:

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures"(1Cor.15:3,4).

Apollos says:

“And what is the simple reason for 1 Cor. 15:1-4 not being revealed…”?
This passage says the DBR of Christ was “according to the scriptures”… and that -
Christ died for our sins “according to the scriptures”.

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

1Cor.15: also says that He would rise the third day according to the Scriptures.But again this was only revealed in "types".The Apostle did not even know that HE must die,and even after HE was crucified they still did not know that He was to be resurrected (Jn.20:9).

It is evident that the DBR of Christ for the sins of man was prophesied in the scriptures – see also 1 Peter 1:10f. The prophets had been looking for this time for hundreds of years.

The prophets knew of His sufferings and they also knew of the grace that was to come to them,but they did not know what the sufferings did signify:

"They wondered what the Spirit of Christ within them was talking about when he told them in advance about Christ's suffering and his great glory afterward. They wondered when and to whom all this would happen"(1Pet.1:11).

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

BChristianK,

Welcome back.I must say that I have missed our discussions.I am leaving for the USA tomorrow for a two week vacation so I do not know when I will be able to respond again.You said:

1. You and I both agree that Peter couldn't have meant to offer the kingdom immediately in Acts 3:19-20 since both of us agree that at the very least, the events described in the Olivet Discourse would need precede the Lord’s return.

Yes,but He could have begin to put into effect the things that would lead to the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse.

So, as you can see, you yourself do not consider the repentance of this crowd as sufficient.

I never said such a thing.Before He returns the things prophesised before His return must first be put into play.Then His return will follow.

If they repent, that is not in and of itself sufficient to bring about the Lord’s return.

As I said before,if they would have turned to the Lord then that alone would satisfy Pater’s offer of the kingdom.

So the only question left is, “is their repentance necessary for the return of the Lord?” I would argue it isn’t, if we let scripture explain and interpret scripture we will see that the Lord Himself did not predict a great repentance before His return bur rather a great turning away.

There would have been “many” unbelievers who would have attempted to thwart the will of God,but there is no evidence that the “many” spoken of in these verses is in regard to Israelites.

So now what? we conclude that Peter was telling the crowd that repentance would precede the Lord’s return despite the clarity of Christ’s prophecy that many will turn away from the faith before His return?

This is referring to the time when the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world.And again there is no evidence that those who turn away from the faith are Israelites.

What you have Peter saying is exactly the opposite of what the Lord Prophesied.

No,you are saying that these verses are in regard to Israelites despite the fact that there is no evidence of that.

But, in the general context of Acts, Peter’s words mean this: the gospel blessings destined to flow from Jesus’ death and resurrection must spread throughout the world; then, and not till then, will he return from the right hand of power. (F.F. Bruce’s commentary on Acts in NICNT, page 85, emphasis mine)

The Scriptures directly contradict the commentary of F.F.Bruce.The Lord Jesus will return before the blessings of the Cross spread throughout the world.He will return at the end of the tribulation when He delivers the nation of Israel from the invading armies:

” Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east(Zech.14:3,4).

This will be at the end of the 70th week of Daniel:

” Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy”(Dan.9:24).

But at that time most of the world outside of Jerusalem will remain in unbelief.Their judgment will await the time when the Lord will “roar out of Zion”:

” The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake”(Joel3:15,16).

This corresponds to the following words of the Lord Jesus:

” Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”(Mt.24:29,30).

It is not until then that the Lord’s judgment and wrath will come upon the unbelievers.So F.F.Bruce’s idea that “the gospel blessings destined to flow from Jesus’ death and resurrection must spread throughout the world; then, and not till then, will he return from the right hand of power” is clearly in error.

The blessings that come from the Cross will not come upon the whole world until after He returns in glory.

With that being said,please give me your interpretation of the meaning of the following words of Peter:

”Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you”(Acts3:19,20,NASB).

Remember,you said that it was not possible for the Lord to send back the Lord Jesus for at least two thousand years because He had already appointed a time for the kingdom to be set up on the earth.With that in mind,I want you to take special care in addressing the words,”and that He may send Jesus”.

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

 

[Apollos]

Let's continue to kick dispensationalism in the teeth...

Let's continue to kick dispensationalism in the teeth...

Jerry –

(Why are you trying to answer for John? Is John not capable of answering for himself? You and I have enough to discuss without you borrowing items from him to defend - don't cha think?

I prepared the post below before you borrowed trouble from John, so it may not address everything you have made mention of to me. I don't really want to discuss the fallacies of earthly kingdom beliefs here - there is not enuf room or time.)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jerry -

Thanks for your reply.

It is impossible to discuss these things with someone who is forced to pervert the Scriptures at every turn.

Like you are a real bed of roses? Stop whining, suck it up, and drive on.
<<<*>>>

You had asked me to tell you what “works” do not put the Lord into debt. You parsed my reply – cutting it in half. That is not nice – shame-shame! But I know you did that because you did not want to deal with the belief dichotomy you have created for yourself. I understand that it is difficult for you to claim we are saved by “believing” only (“easy believe-ism”), and then attempt to explain why repentance is necessary as well for salvation in addition to “believing”. I “believe” you will tell me someday.

But the works chosen by God to appropriate salvation are not works of merit or works of the OT law – but they are His works - “works of God”. They are works that actuate the promise God made to man. If there is a “debt” created in appropriating salvation from God, then God created that “debt” when He made that promise to man.

Man must hear and believe His word, repent, confess Christ, and be (water) baptized for the remission of sins to receive salvation from God. This is by God’s choosing – this is His plan. I still have your list of “works – it contains 3 out of the 5. Keep studying… The eunuch did not rejoice until AFTER his water baptism.

What think ye ?
Romans 10:10 – “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
Jerry, does “confession” play a part in your salvation process?

Jerry offered:
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God…"(1Jn.5:1).
How disingenuous! Where is the REPENTANCE mentioned here that YOU require prior to salvation? One verse is not enough to tell us what we need to know to appropriate salvation from God. John 3:3f tells us much more about the process of being “born” of God.

Jerry offered:
”Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"(Jn.1:12,13).
How is submitting to water baptism the “will of the flesh”? If God chose water baptism as a part of the salvation process (and He did), how does that become the “will of man”? Man did not choose it – in fact, most men reject God’s will on this topic. But if one is to be “born of God”, it will be by man conforming his will to the will of the Father to ALL He says about it.

Despite all this you just cannot understand that eternal life is a free gift that come to all who believe and "worketh not"!

Jerry, be honest enough with yourself that you require “works” in the process that you claim saves and perhaps you will come to grips with man having to take an active part in his own salvation – in the way God choose for him to be. Also, quit taking “works” as you use it in this quote (and others), out of context. Once again, Paul was talking here about works of merit, not about works that God requires. There are -3- types of works mentioned in the NT – THREE. Jesus said believing is a work – John 6:29.
<<<*>>>

Of course [Paul] was being specific[Galatians 2:2] (that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles and not the gospel which was preached to the Jews) but you can somehow throw your reason to the wind and say…
[Apollos - What Paul spoke of was –2- different “apostleships”, not 2 different gospels.]

Okay – you were at verse 2 and I was at verse 7 and 8, but I stated such. But verse 2 doesn’t change anything – Paul wanted those at Jerusalem to know of certain what he was preaching among the Gentiles since there had been a problems.

Apostleships – yes. But we can describe those at “spheres of work” as many commentaries do if you like that better. Afterall, verse 8 does explain verse 7 in Galatians 2. The word “For” at the beginning of verse 8 was put there for a reason – it clarifies verse 7. Have you ever read the NLT rendering of these verse? Let me share –

Galatians 2:7-8 – “They saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the Good News to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews. 8 For the same God who worked through Peter for the benefit of the Jews worked through me for the benefit of the Gentiles.”NLT

I almost exclusively use the ASV, but the NLT rendering knocks this one “out of the park”.
<<<*>>>

Now back to your struggle with word definitions. I am glad to see you revert back to your original definition for “confer” from Thayer. Where DID that other stray definition pop-up from? (This area must remain a “no-morph” section!)

Here is the meaning of the word “confer” means at Gal.1:16: “with a dat. Of the pers. to put one’s self upon another by going to him,i.e. to commit or betake one’s self to another…to consult,to take one into counsel…Gal.1.16"(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

The meaning could not be any plainer,but you say that Paul was not "consulting" with any men in the following verses: … (Acts 9:19,20)

Are you inferring that Paul consulted with men to obtain the gospel he preached at Acts 9:20 ??? OR perhaps you think he consulted with men to know what to preach in Acts 9:20 ??? Paul did not CONFER/CONSULT in Acts 9:20.

I am saying what I have said all along. Without qualifying, mitigating, or morphing any definitions, Paul was PREACHING (Grk. = kerusso)the gospel in Acts 9:20 – not “consulting” with men to obtain the gospel or to know what to PREACH. And…
I am saying that Paul did not CONFER (Grk. = prosanatithemi) to obtain the gospel he preached, as the context in Galatians 1:16 affirms.
These are the TWO words that the HS used to communicate the TWO different actions.
You attempt to obfuscate this issue with "definition envy" to protect your errant argument #1 for two different gospels. This evidence is too clear and easy to understand. You argument requires to use the word CONFER in both passages to sustain your point when that word is NOT used in both passages. No amount of human rationalizing can change the truth. Your argument is broken b/c of incorrect word usage!

Even though he was with other disciples for a while [Acts 9:20] you can somehow imagine that he did not take even one of those men into his counsel and tell them what had happened to him.

I could “imagine” Paul had a burrito grande while in Damascus also, but that would not be based on scripture and therefore not of faith. PREACHING is what Acts 9:20 is talking about. The verse says Paul “preached Christ in the synagogues”. You got caught in an errant argument – fess up!
<<<*>>>

Yes, it [the gospel] was promised by the prophets [Romans 1:2] but it was not revealed until Paul. Therefore it was kept "secret" until Paul revealed it.

You can not prove from scripture that the gospel or the “hidden wisdom of God” was kept secret until Paul. The disciples in Acts 8:4 that were “scattered abroad” took the gospel with them and preached it everywhere they went – ex. Acts 11:19. This was before Paul’s conversion.

You would have us believe that it was a secret even though it was in the OT Scriptures!

??????? Did you just not agree above that the gospel was promised in the OT by the prophets(Rom. 1:2)??? Be consistent !!! Read my post to John above. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and 1 Peter 1:10-12 clearly show that the sufferings/DBR of the Christ, His dying on the cross for our sins, and man’s coming salvation pursuant to this was prophesied in the OT. The HOW was the secret – this was what man did not comprehend because God’s wisdom was hidden in those prophecies. Not all of the plan was revealed prior to His DBR.

The actual words at Romans 16:26 is "prophetic writings",i.e. the inspired writings of the New Testament.

Prophetic writings – okay. But “writings of the prophets” is still a correct rendering.
But writings of the NT – I don’t think so! Show me something from the context of the passage to indicate that Paul is speaking of NT “scripture” and not the OT – particularly his own writing(s).
Out of the other -6- references to “scripture” in the book of Romans, all refer to the OT. And unless you provide some kind of extra-terrestrial-exegetical evidence from the context here there will be no reason for anyone to believe this reference in Romans 16:26 does not refer to OT scripture.
(###Out of curiosity, can you show me just ONE verse in the NT where Paul or any NT writer makes reference to NT writings being “prophetic writings” or “scriptures” ? Excluding Romans 16:26 of course…)

Paul says that these "inspired writings" are made known now,but you can somehow imagine that the word "now" as used by Paul was in reference to hundreds of years before Paul even wrote those words.

NOW that the gospel has been made “manifest” (– please look at the context -) we can know what the scriptures of the OT prophets have been saying, things that no one understood prior to God’s revelation – 1 Peter 1:10-12. The CONTEXT of this passage is not hard to see for those who want the truth.

Of course you leave out the part that those who said the words in regard to "now preaching the faith of which he once made havoc" were Jews--"the churches of Judea which were in Christ"(Gal.1:22). [my comparison of Acts 9:21 with Gal. 1:23]

I did not overlook anything as you suggest - Methinks you missed my point. I will try to make my point again later when our plate is not so full.

 

[Freak]

Does baptism save? Jesus said it does

Here we go again with this Mormonism crap. Water has never saved anyone :kookoo: , Lighthouse.

 

[john w]

I can speak for myself. Although "...I am not eloquent...I am slow of speech, and slow of tongue...."(Exodus 4:9,10), my command from the LORD God is to be faithful, and to communicate, not to be successful or convict. Success and conviction are the LORD's responsibility.

I did not respond because I was banned for the length of one of my posts, for which I take responsibliity, and have accepted. I have been "unbanned", at least for now.

However, I will probably be "re- banned" for the length of this post, so others may have "the last word"(Bill O'Reilly)!

1. In Eph Chapter 2, the Apostle Paul presents his argument-he sets forth the basic three-fold division in God’s dealing with mankind: Time Past, 2:11,12; But Now, 2:13); the Ages to Come, 2:7. When the Holy Bible is partioned, “laid out”, yes divided(we have a God of division, despite what you have been taught) according to this divinely inspired framework, we see the "big picture", not only that we are reading, but when and to whom it was written. Without this division, mass confusion results, including concluding that "all gospels are the same....there is just one gospel", as Apollos writes. Thus the Word of God rightly divided provides the key to its own proper understanding and right division:

Time Past: Eph. 2:11-12 sets forth the basic issue in Time Past as the division between "the Circumcision" and "the Uncircumcision", between the nation Israel, and everyone else= the Gentiles. When you find his issue governing the way God was working with man, you know you are in Time Past. This covers the “Old Testament” (see Gen. 17:9-14. Deut. 4:5-8, Num. 23:9) as well as Matthew- John (see Rom. 15:8, Matt. 105-6; 15:24; John 4:22 and the early Acts period (see Luke 24:47, Acts 1:6-8; 2:14,22,36:5:32:11:19).

In times past, the prophetic program, salvation was always through the nation of Israel as the instrument, the vessel, by which mankind would know the LORD God of the Holy Bible. This explains a seemingly puzzling verse such as:

"... for salvation is of the Jews." John 4:22


In time past, God would bless all non-Jews through the nation of Israel, the nation of His own creation. Gentiles are blessed through Israel's rise to kingdom glory(Is. 49:6, Luke 2:30-32), as "Priests(the members of the Body of Christ are never referred to as priests-never- in this dispensation, there is no mediatorial body-the Lord Jesus Christ is the only mediator in this dispensation-1 Tim. 2:5) of the LORD...Ministers of our God"(Is. 61:6), "my messenger"(Is. 42:19), servants the LORD has chosen(Is. 41:6, 44:1). Israel was to become God's witnesses to the unbelieving world of the promised seed, the Lord Jesus Christ(Gal. 3:16), that there was one true and living God(Is. 43:1, 10-12; Mt. 24:14;Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8, 10:41,43), and thus be His vessel(Jer. 18, 19;11; Is. 52:11) by which "all families of the earth(shall)be blessed"(Gen. 12:2,3) through the Lord Jesus Christ. Israel was to be the appointed channel, and were to be delivered from the curse of the law in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the entire world through the Lord Jesus Christ:

Gen. 12:1-3, 22:16-18, 49:10; Ex. 19:5,6; Psalms 67:2, 96:3, 98:1-3; Is. 41:8, 42:6,7, 44:1, 49:6, 56:6-8, 60:3, 61:6-9; Jer. 33:9; 2 Chr. 6:32; Zech. 8:13-23; 1 Kings 8:41-43; Mt. 28:18,19; Mk. 16:15; Luke 2:30-32, 24:46,47; Jn. 4:22; Acts 1:8, 3:25; Romans 9:4, 15:8; Gal. 3:16

Notice Israel being chosen for service, as a vessel, as a channel, by the LORD God(separation to and for service is the biblical meaning of sanctification/consecration/holiness):

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." Deut. 7:6

"But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." Ex. 11:7

"But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people." Lev. 20:24

See also Exodus 19:5,6, 33:16; Numbers 23:9; Deut. 10:15, 14:2, 26:17-19; 2 Sam. 7:23; 1 Kings 8:53; 2 Kings 5:15; Psalms 106:4,5, 135:4, 147:19,20; Amos 3:2; 1 Chr. 17:21; Is. 43:10, 44:1,2; Romans 3:1,2, 9:4


But Now: Eph. 2:13 indicates that in this period of time, Gentiles are no longer “far off”, but rather the “middle wall of partition” between Israel and the Gentiles has been eliminated, and now “those who were far off are made nigh.” Romans through Philemon provide the doctrine for the Body of Christ in this "dispensation of the grace of God"(Rom. 11:13; 15:16; 16:25, 1 Cor. 14:37, Eph. 3:1-9). There is no more "middle wall of partition"(Eph. 2:14). God is no longer discriminating between Jew and Gentile in this dispensation(Romans 10:12)-God has "concluded them all in unbelief"(Romans 11:32), and has "concluded all under sin"(Gal. 3:22), and is no longer during this age bestowing blessings upon those that bless Israel(Per Gen. 12:3). Gentiles, who in "time past"(Eph. 2:11) rebelled against the LORD God(Gen. 5:8-10, 6:5, 11:1-6; Romans 1:18-32), were "without Christ", had "no hope"(Eph. 2:12), and were given up by God(Romans 1:24, 26, 28), and were "sons of the stranger"(Is. 56:6), can be blessed and saved apart from Israel. Gentiles are now blessed through Israel's fall(instead of their rise in time past):

Romans 2:11, 10:12, 11:11,12,15,25,30-32; Acts 28:27,28; Eph. 2:11-22, 3:6-8; Gal. 3:28; Col. 1:27, 3:11

Notice that Israel, in this dispensation(temporarily-in ages to come they will be again), is no longer the vessel, the channel, for service it once was nationally:

"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek:...." Romans 10:12

"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." Col. 3:11

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28

"The Ages to Come: God will bring His purposes to fruition, and thus Eph. 2:7 points to the Ages to Come. The books of Hebrews through Revelation is the doctrine and focus in this period(which includes the Tribulation).


You absolutely must distinguish between the mystery program and the prophetic program. If you do not, you will fail to see the perfect continuity of that “which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21), and the manifestation of this will be of asserting that there is just one "the gospel". Again, the great confusion among believers, including some of the comments on this board, despite how graciously and eloquently the views are expressed, is failure to rightly divide the word of truth(2 Tim. 2:15), i.e., confusing the prophetic program, which has as its core the LORD God's dealing with unbelieving Israel and the unbelieving nations in judgement and wrath, which was "spoken about since the world began"(Luke 1:68-70; Acts 3:21-24), from the mystery program as revealed to the apostle Paul, which "was kept secret, hidden(in God, not the OT scriptures) since the world began (Romans 16:25; Ephesians 3:5,9; Colossians 1:26). And hence, many second coming passages(there are 8 times as many references to the Lord Jesus Christ's second coming as opposed to His first) are mistaken for the rapture, and many "the gospel"'s are mistaken for 1 Cor. 15:1-4(And even more confusion exists regarding when the Rapture occurs in relation to the Tribulation-another subject)..

Simple "Logic 1"-: Something cannot be both kept secret/hidden, and spoken of since the world began. That is nonsensical, and would violate the law of Non-contradiction. If you disagree with this, we might all as well "Go home-class dismissed-we can discuss nothing".

Apollos, you have been shown in "Jethro Bodine" English, that the 12 were not preaching 1 Cor. 15:1-4 as a basis for justification. And you were shown the even more simpler reason as to why it was not preached(1 Cor. 2:8)-this is part of "the wisdom of God in a mystery", "the hidden(emphasis mine)wisom", which is "the mystery of the gospel"(Eph. 6:19). You cannot preach that which you do not know, and you certainly cannot believe that which was not revealed-and the 12 did not know, or words have no meaning. You might as well go read "Alice in Wonderland", where the Queen says to Alice: "The word means what I say it means".

This gospel, "my gospel", was not preached before the salvation of Paul, despite claims to the contrary. It is his gospel, which he received by revelation. He said it was.That is why he called it "my gospel"-"he mystery of the gospel"(Eph. 6:19). If you do not accept that it is his gospel, you can be a psychic, massage therapist, truck driver, a securities broker(my part time position-2 Cor. 5:20 is my full time job)or a plum picker. There is one thing you cannot be, however, and that is a bible believer or teacher. The mystery of the body of Christ is revealed to Paul(Eph. 3:1-6). It was not revealed in other ages before the revelation to him: "kept secret since the world began"(Romans 16:25), "in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men"(Eph. 3:5), "from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God"(notice hid in God, not in scripture-forget about searching for it in the OT-you will not find it),"hath been hid from ages and from generations"(Col. 1:27). It was not only revealed to him, it was revealed through him. No one knew of the body of Christ before Paul. Paul told them, and the Spirit showed them. See Galatians 2, when the apostles at Jerusalem "perceived the grace that was given" to Paul(Gal. 2:9), which concerns the mystery and his gospel, which agrees with the text of Ephesians chapter 3. His gospel is tied to the mystery(see Eph. 6:19). Anyone who thinks otherwise and thinks himself to be a spiritual person, according to Paul, is an ignorant person, to whom he says, "let him be ignorant"(1 Cor. 14:38).

We are saved by Paul's gospel(1 Cor. 15:1-4), we are established by Paul's gospel(Romans 16:25), and we are going to be judged by Paul's gospel(Romans 2:16).

Again, the Holy Bible is divided as described in Eph 2:11, 12, 13 and verse 7

Genesis through early/mid Acts- God is dealing with Israel alone= Time Past
Romans through Philemon- God is dealing with the Body of Christ=But now
Hebrews through Revelation-God is resuming/will resumeHis prophetic program with Israel= Ages to Come

Until you acknowledge how God shows you to correctly read and understand the Holy Bible, you will be mixing it up, with apparent contradiction heaped upon apparent contradiction.

You must understand the importance of the secret, hidden nature of the present dispensation of grace (Eph. 3:1-9), the “mystery”,and you will thus see the perfect continuity of that “which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21), as compared to the revelation of the secret mystery program. The prophetic program has been temporarily interrupted by "the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest” (Rom. 16:25,26).

The present dispensation of grace is “the mystery” hid in God until first revealed to the Apostle Paul (Eph. 3:1-9, Col. 1:24-26, Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Tim. 2:4-7, Tit. 1:2-3, etc.) Thus in Paul’s writings alone we find the doctrine, position, walk and destiny of the body of Christ. Although all Scripture is for us(2 Tim. 3:16), and "for our learning"(Romans 15:4), all Scripture is not written to or about us. Those who say it is are deceiving themselves. This is the key to understanding the Bible.

Up until six years ago, I was in the same proverbial boat of confusion because I did not recognize Ephesians 3:9, which the LORD God wanted me to see! Satan is no idiot(Gen. 3:1-subtl)-his aim is not to make us sin today-we do quite well on our own without his assistance in this regards! His goal is to keep us ignorant of this new mystery program that God began with Paul. Paul did not accidentally keep repeating"don't be ignorant"(Romans 11:25; 1 Cor. 10:1, 2 Cor. 1:8, 2:11; 1 Thes. 4:13-biblically, ignorant does not mean stupid-it merely means 'lack of knowledge'). And don't think that Paul didn't have trouble with people listening to him either! Before the end of his life, all had forsook him and his message-2 Tim. 4:16, Colossians 4:11. How true is Eclessiastes 1:9 today- the majority of those in Christendom which do not understand and/or who reject Pauline Truth for this new "...dispensation of the grace of God...."(Eph. 3:2). They say that there is no such thing as a new dispensation ; that the Bible is all the same, and all "the gospel"s are the same.

I am under no allusion-I am "no Paul", but I fully understand, and accept, that anyone who preaches the message of right division, as Paul did, will be criticized and found in the minority, and may even be labeled a "heretic". That is "part of the territory"-Paul suffered the same fate, and I should expect the same. No one stood with Paul, and all forsook him(2 Ti. 4:16). But popularity, or sincerity, does not determine the truth. Paul's foes thought he was teaching heresy(Acts 24:14), and all who would preach Jesus Christ "...according to the revelation of the mystery" will suffer the same fate. I say this not as a matter of eliciting sympathy, but as a matter of fact.


Those who fail to rightly divide this Bible, refusing/failing to recognize the distinctive apostleship of Paul, are attempting to overthrow the Pauline epistles, and consider them as mere "supplements", denying the unique ministry and gospel of Paul, which was given him by revelation. Those who do this(most "expositors")deny almost every major doctrine, which Paul states, was shown him concerning the body of Christ. They typically teach that all of the doctrines were in effect, before the revelation given to him, or known by others prior to him. They deny the Holy Spirit's statement through Paul, and are, in effect, calling Paul a liar.They think Paul was a glorified errand boy, a "flunky", for the apostles at Jerusalem. They say the 12 apostles already knew and taught what Paul said in "grade school English"(no need for "expositors"-just ability to read simple English) stated he received from the risen, ascended, and glorified Lord Jesus Christ by revelation from heaven(no person gave it to him or taught him it-Galatians 1:12 ff.):

1. The revelation of the gospel of the grace of God
2. The revelation of the mystery of the Body of Christ
3. The riches of the glory of the mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory
4. The revelation of the mystery of the gathering of the body of Christ(and those who promote the doctrine of the body being gathered after the "great tribulation" is built on failure to recognize that it is a mystery and not a prophesied event).
5. The revelation of the mystery of the fall of Israel

As mentioned, Paul understood that many would be "ignorant" of this. Paul's epistles, exclusively, teach these doctrines, which refer specifically to the Body of Christ, not Israel in the wilderness, Gentiles before the Law, Israel under the Law, or anyone during the Great Tribulation or the Millennial reign of Christ.

We are commanded to follow Paul today, not Peter, for following Paul is following the Lord Jesus Christ. The Body of Christ's prophet, or leader, is the apostle Paul, "...the apostle of the Gentiles...."(Romans 11:13). Just as Israel followed Moses, believers in this dispensation are commanded by the risen, ascended, and glorified Lord Jesus Christ to follow Paul: 1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1; Philippians 3:17, 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:9; 1 Timothy 1:16. His writings are scripture, the inspired word of God(1 Thessalonians 2:13; Titus 1:3; 2 Peter 3:15,16), and are the Lord Jesus Christ's words and commands in this dispensation: Romans 15:18; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 2 Corinthians 13:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:2; 1 Timothy 6:3 . The Lord Jesus Christ appointed Paul as :

-our apostle(not Peter, nor "the 12"): Romans 11:13; 2 Corinthians 11:5; Galatians 2:8; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11
-our pattern; 1 Timothy 1:16
-the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles in this dispensation: Romans 15:16; Ephesians 3:7,8; Colossians 1:23-25
-a preacher: 1 Timothy 2:7 2 Timothy 1:11; Titus 1:3;
- a teacher of the Gentiles: 1 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11
- a prophet: 1 Corinthians 14:37
-the masterbuilder, having laid the foundation of the Body of Christ: 1 Corinthians 3:10
-a steward of the mysteries of God: 1 Corinthians 4:1
-the administrator, "steward", for the present dispensation of the grace of God: Ephesians 3:1-9
-authoritative: Titus 2:15; 2 Corinthians 13:10

Paul calls The LORD God to witness more often than any other biblical writer, and no other biblical writer spoke with an oath more than Paul: Romans 9:1; 2 Corinthians 1:18, 11:10,31; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8; 1 Timothy 2:7

Despite what you have been taught by "tradition", the Lord Jesus Christ's "marching orders" for today are given through Paul(the mystery program), not Peter(the prophetic program). And the reason for the apostacy of the RCC(I am a former "Roman") and most of so-called "Christianity"? Following Peter instead of Paul, following the prophetic program, and knowing "Christ after the flesh"(2 Cor. 5:16-his earthly ministry, presented as King of the Jews), instead of the mystery program, and knowing him as "the head of the body", the risen, ascended, glorified Lord Jesus Christ from heaven as revealed to the apostle Paul, "the apostle of the Gentiles"(Romans 11:13).

Paul alone was chosen to be God's spokesman for this new dispensation. The other 12 Apostles knew nothing about this dispensation; they knew only what Paul taught them ,and that is why Paul said he went by revelation- by direct command of the risen, ascended, glorified Lord Jesus Christ of heaven, to Jerusalem to confer with the 12 Apostles, and to teach them what gospel he preached- Gal. 2:2. If the Jerusalem apostles had been preaching the same gospel, that would had not have been not only unnecessary, but insane! And thus, we have TBN and the rest of the apostates preaching the gospel of the kingdom.

I've said enough. I repeat, nowhere was 1 Cor. 15:1-4 preached as a basis for justification in Mt.-John. Those who contend it was are being blinded by the god of this world, and deceived/spoon-fed by their pastor, reverend, latest book, priest, pastor, TV ministry, "Dr.Phil/Oprah............."

2. No literal, earthly 1000 year kingdom as suggested by your post? Consider:

Columbo: The Case of the Sinless Man on Earth
or
Evidence there will be literal "thousand year"(Revelation 20:2- 7) reign of the Lord Jesus Christ-"... as the days of heaven upon the earth...."(Deuteronomy 11:21)
By John M. Whalen

All Christians should agree that The Lord Jesus Christ was the only man that has ever walked the earth to this point in time(2005) who had no sin: 2 Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15,7:26; 1 John 3:5; Luke 23:4; John 18:38,19:4-6. Is this not a "basic doctrine" of Christianity, and a pre-requisite for the Lord Jesus Christ being our kinsman-redeemer? Notice:

"Who did no sin, NEITHER WAS GUILE FOUND IN HIS MOUTH(emphasis mine)". 1 Peter 2:22

But notice:

"Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, IN WHOM IS NO GUILE!(emphasis mine)" John 1:47

How is this possible-Nathanael is characterized as a man on earth "in whom is no guile"?

The solution:

Part of the definition of a prophet is "one who speaks for another"(for eg., Moses speaking on behalf of the LORD, Aaron speaking for Moses-Exodus 4:12,15("put words in his mouth"),16("thy spokesman"); 7:1; Deuteronomy 18:18("will put my words in his mouth").

The Lord Jesus Christ was a prophet, "the prophet": Deut. 18:15;Mt. 13:57,21:11;Mk. 6:4; Luke 1:76,4:24,7:16,24:19;John 1:45,4:44,6:14,7:40,9:17; Acts 2:30,3:22,23,7:37. The definition fits the Lord Jesus Christ's own admission:

"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." Jn. 8:28

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." Jn. 12:49-50

"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." John 14:10

Thus, the Lord Jesus Christ was fulfilling His role as a/the prophet. He was speaking for His Father in Heaven-the words He spoke were His Father's words, not His(as was true for all the prophets).

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee" John 1:48

And notice if we "...search out a matter...."(Proverbs 25:2):

"And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon." 1 Kings 4:25

" But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it." Micah 4:4

"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree." Zech. 3:10

Thus, in John 1;47, the Lord Jesus Christ, in the context of his office "the Prophet", was looking into the future, and providing a glimpse of the ideal conditions that will exist in forthcoming , and promised, millennium kingdom, a time the scripture refers to as the times of "refreshing"(Exodus 31:17, Isaiah 28:12, Acts 3:19), and of the "restitution of all things"(Acts 3:21). This is the enfolding of the promise that the Lord Jesus Christ shall rule from David's throne(2 Sam. 5-"the Davidic Covenant"-the covenant which God made with David at the time he revealed to him that Solomon would build the Temple, of which the reign of Solomon pre-figures the millennium reign-a type). Is this not what the Lord had in mind when He states that "...thou shalt see greater things than these...."(John 1:50)?

This 1000 year reign will be characterized by the righteous reign of the Lord Jesus Christ, and, as J. Dwight Pentecost summarized , a time of peace, joy, comfort, justice, the removal of the curse, no sickness, healing of the deformed, no immaturity, economic prosperity, and Holiness. This holiness will be manifested through the King and the King's subjects, the JEWS. This holiness, this trait of Jews("an Israelite"-John 1:47) having "...no guile", is realization of the promise of the New Covenant, and this is what the Lord Jesus Christ was alluding to in John.

Indeed, the millennium kingdom will be the fruition, the display, and the fulfillment of 3 covenants promised in The Old Testament-the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New Covenant. The Lord Jesus Christ was prophesizing partial fulfillment of the New Covenant in John 1:47. Part of the promise of the New Covenant was that the Jews would be given a new heart, and a new spirit:

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." Jeremiah 31:33

"At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: NEITHER SHALL THEY WALK ANY MORE AFTER THE IMAGINATION OF THEIR EVIL HEART(emphasis mine)." Jeremiah 3:17

"Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: THAT THEY MAY WALK IN MY STATUTES, AND KEEP MINE ORDINANCES, AND DO THEM: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:17-20

As Columbo would say, "That clears that up!"


In Christ,
John M. Whalen

 

[Apollos]

Water can not save the unbelievers...

Water can not save the unbelievers...

Here we go again with this Mormonism crap. Water has never saved anyone :kookoo: , Lighthouse.

Ask the those that crossed the Red Sea if water saved them from anything.

Ask the Egyptian army - lol!

(BTW - I am not a Mormon, just in case you really thought so.)

 

[Freak]

Ask the those that crossed the Red Sea if water saved them from anything.

Ask the Egyptian army

Water did not bring those who crossed the sea eternal salvation. Water has never saved a soul for eternity.

Do you believe water baptism is essential for salvation?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Apollos,

You said:

Man must hear and believe His word, repent, confess Christ, and be (water) baptized for the remission of sins to receive salvation from God.

Since you cannot understand the things which are “freely” given to all who believe I will use the words of the author of Hebrews that were addressed to those he called “babes”:

"Because of this,having left the discourse of the beginning of Christ,let us be borne on to full growth,not laying down again a foundation of repentance from dead works…"(Heb.6:1,Green,Interlinear Greek-English New Testament,"Literal Translation").

What else can this be referring to but what was being preached beginning with John the Baptist and continuing on to the day of Pentecost?The "repentance from the acts that lead to death" is in regard to the "baptism of repentance".This preaching was in regard to repenting (having a change of mind) in regard to the past way of living.Those who were baptized by John were "confessing their sins"(Mt.3:6).

The message “of the beginning of Christ" was in regard to two baptisms,the rite of water baptism and the baptism performed by the Lord Jesus Christ giving the gifts of the Holy Spirit for "power":

" I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit…"(Mt.3:11).

Shortly before the day of Pentecost the Lord Jesus told His Apostles to wait in Jerusalem and He would baptize them with the Holy Spirit for "power":

" But ye shall receive power, after the Holy Spirt is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me…(Acts1:8).

What was this "power" in regard to?:

" And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following"(Mk.16:20).

To continue with Hebrews 6:

"Because of this,having left the discourse of the beginning of Christ,let us be borne on to full growth,not laying down again a foundation of repentance from dead works,and upon faith upon God,of (the) baptisms,of doctrine,and of laying on of hands…("Literal Translation").

The Hebrew Christians are being told not to lay down again the foundations in regard to "baptisms" and the "laying on of hands and to leave the things from the beginning of the preaching of Jesus Christ.The "baptisms" are in regard to the "baptism of repentance" and the baptism by the Lord Jesus Christ which were in regard to power to confirm the gospel,the sign gifts.And in the Scriptures the "laying on of hands" is in regard to both the receiving of the sign gifts and healing.

Today there is only "one baptism",and that is not in regard to either of the baptisms which the Hebrew Christians were told to leave behind.The batism for today is:

” For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body…the Body of Christ”(1Cor.12:13,27).

The "discourse of the beginning of Christ" was centered on the identity of Jesus—that He is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.And those who believed that message were "born of God"(1Jn.5:1-5).

The Acts record will be searced in vain for any time that the "word of reconciliation" was ever preached to the Jews.That is the message for this dispensation.But that is not the "discourse of the beginning of Christ".On the day of Pentecost the Apostle Peter told the Jews about the death and burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ,and then he summed up his sermon by saying:

" Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ"(Acts2:36).

When the eunuch believed the truth that he believed is: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"(Acts8:37).

When Paul was converted he went to the synagogues and preached that "He is the Son of God…proving that this is the very Christ"(Acts9:20).

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

Later we see exactly what Paul was preaching to the Jews:

" And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ"(Acts17:2,3).

That is the "discourse from the beginning of Christ".We are to leave that behind and go on to maturity.Here is the "word" that we are to preach today:

" And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation"(2Cor.5:18,19).

The "word of reconciliation" cannot be preached apart from the "purpose" of His death upon the Cross:

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

" And, having made peace through the blood of his cross by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight"(Col.1:20-22).

So we can see that the two baptisms were associated with the "discourse from the beginning of Christ" and that discourse is not the same message we are to preach today.Preaching that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God,is not the same thing as preaching that the sinner is reconciled to God by the death of His Son.

Apollos,you cannot even recognize that the “discourse of the beginning of Christ” is not the same gospel that is being preached today.You say that there was only one gospel.You will not believe that Christians are to leave behind the baptism of repentance and move on to maturity.

You like being a “babe” and you have decided that you like it so much that you are going to remain a “babe”.

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

 

[Apollos]

Christ's kingdom did come and it is spiritual in nature...

Christ's kingdom did come and it is spiritual in nature...

E4E –

Thank you for the friendly reply.

I did mean what I said about the kingdom. It was never intended to be earthly – that is, it was never intended or designed to be on this earth other than those that would be a part of the kingdom as subjects. It was always to be spiritual in nature and effect – this is why Acts 2, particularly verse 23-33 describe how Christ was raised up to set upon the throne of David from the right hand of God – not Jerusalem.

His return will only be in the air, not upon this earth, to meet us and return to the spiritual realm.

I only included comments on this topic to fully answer what John W. had said in relationship to his dispensationalism. I do not want to side track the discussion from dispensationalism to discuss the nature of Christ’s kingdom or even water baptism – I want to continue to dismantle dispy theory.

Learn from that. Then hopefully later you and I can discuss the qualities of the kingdom and how glorious it is!

Best regards to you my friend!

 

[Apollos]

The Gospels - each has a reason as provided through the Holy Spirit...

The Gospels - each has a reason as provided through the Holy Spirit...

Bornagain-

You offered nothing to substantiate your views, but then if you can do no better than John or Jerry, what would ave been the point?

Tell me why, if all gospels are the same, why didn't Jesus emphasized on belief in the three gospels, and then, in the gospel of John, all He talks about (and thank God He does!) is believing in the Son?

I think some of your dispy “brothers” here might well disagree that Jesus preached that supposed 2nd gospel you think is there. But I know that all the books contained in the NT are to provide information to effect the salvation of the soul of man. Had they all been the same, we would not have all the information that we do.

I believe by Divine providence we have the canon of scripture that we do and each is to provide more information about God and our service to Him. The synoptic gospels (Mt/Mk/Lk) provide perscpectives from different views – Matthew for Jews, Mark for the Romans, Luke for the Greeks. I see John as the gospel for all people.

One of the greatest faults with dispensationalism is that is parses the books of the NT into seemingly unrelated letters written at random - without design or continuity - with some exception for Paul and his letters. This exception basically granted to create the dispy theory of an unknown gospel - otherwise Paul would have been parsed just as much.

You better study dispensationalism.

I am. And the more I do the smellier it gets! You better study your BIBLE !!!

 

[Apollos]

The scripture (that God would justify the Gentiles by faith) preached the GOSPEL...

The scripture (that God would justify the Gentiles by faith) preached the GOSPEL...

John –

This verse quickly comes to mind as I view your last response…

Matthew 6:7 – “And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”

You don’t have to say everything in one post – I see why it leads to people being banned. It also does not lend itself to a discussion board – such bulk stiffles discussion as it is overwhelming from the standpoint of where to begin. You can see there have been no responses besidies myself since that mess. So get a grip!

In brief (a manner to which you may not be accustomed to), the most of the scriptures you provide do not support the points you attempt to make with them. It is out of scope to think we can discuss them all, so I will pick a couple passages to review and we can go from there. Let’s see if you shall attempt a little “one-on-one” exegesis.

Your “laid out” big picture from Ephesians 2 is flawed, as it does not address how God dealt with man before Israel became a nation – does it? The “ages to some” deals with the spiritual aspect of things in the “heavenly places” (see verse 6 before this) and the “riches” of His grace that will be enjoyed then in heaven, but nothing here speaks of things on this earthly ball of dirt.

Further, the gospels are a part of the NEW testament, not the old as you assert. It was at this time that, first, John came to prepre the way of the Lord – something God planned to do through John and not before. It was also at this time that Jesus was telling all that –

“You have heard that it was said by them of OLD time…”
”BUT I say unto…” – Matthew 5 and following verses.

At this time Jesus began to reveal His will. There is nothing to prevent anyone from revealing their will before the fact of death, even though a will does not go into effect until after the death of the testator – Hebrews 9:16.

Simple "Logic 1"-: Something cannot be both kept secret/hidden, and spoken of since the world began. That is nonsensical, and would violate the law of Non-contradiction. If you disagree with this, we might all as well "Go home-class dismissed-we can discuss nothing".

Expand your reasoning and maybe you can understand. Let me “learn” you somethin’ ! Analogy: I was given a wrapped gift for 2 weeks before my birthday last year and told not to open it until the date. I did not know what was in the package, but I knew I had a gift. I was told it was a nice gift and that it was something I needed. I knew in the future I would know what the gift was – when the time was right for it to be known!

Although I did not know what was in the package, I spoke of the gift for 2 weeks prior to the date. I was promised that it was something I needed – but I had to wait. IF you can see that this gift was KNOWN about, yet SECRET, then we can continue. Otherwise, you can “go home” – or perhaps ask Jethro to explain this to you.

The gospel (the tidings about God’s plan to save man) was known of for hundreds of years before Christ came. If you disagree, you must explain passages such as…

Galatians 3:8 – “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, [saying,] In thee shall all the nations be blessed.” –and as-

1 Peter 2:10-12 – “Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that [should come] unto you: 11 searching what [time] or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them. 12 To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angel desire to look into.”

These things were known of (Christ’s sufferings, grace, salvation), but no one knew exactly what it was or HOW God was going to do it! God hid His wisdom to much of the WHAT and HOW He would accomplish the salvation of man. This is exactly what Paul is telling us in 1 Corinthians 2:7f. It was God’s WISDOM – not the GOSPEL – that Pauls says was hidden. Otherwise, man would not have crucified the Lord! (Once you begin reading the passage for what it says, and not what you have been told, then and only then will you see what was and was not hidden from man.)

Romans 16:25-26 – “ Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, 26 but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith…”

Paul’s gospel is “my gospel” also – it is what I also preach! Paul’s effort to “personalize” the gospel to himself is only because he chose to make the distinction of what he preached from the other false “gospels” that already circulated (and still do) at that time – cf. Galatians 1:6-9. This was not done in any attempt for him to say the gospel he preached was only his.

Paul’s gospel (the glad tidings) and the preaching of Jesus Christ (the fact of the D/B/&R) are according to (derived from) the revelation of the mystery. This “mystery” is that which had been kept silent (that is unrevealed – not made known). Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:7f that this mystery was God’s WISDOM.

BUT – now the mystery is “manifested” or revealed (the gift has been “opened”).

AND – now the mystery is “made known” by the “scriptures of the prophets” unto the “obedience of faith” – for ALL nations. Paul’s “my gospel” was spoken of in the OT scriptures !!! No amount of whining can change this fact! By reading the OT scriptures we can now know what the prophets were saying about Christ’s sufferings, God’s grace, and His salvation to come - as God had commanded them to write. This is exactly what Peter is telling us in 1 Peter 1:10f.

Now John, your buddy Jerry refused to answer any of this in his last post. He got busy trying to tell me what a “babe” I am – lol ! Perhaps you will attempt to do better in your defence of this smelly “theology” known as dispensationalism. We shall see… (Take a good long look at Galatians 3:8 –tell me something about it!)