Poll: Do you agree with this picture?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
“And he told them a parable: "Look at the fig tree,
and
all
the
trees.”
**Luke *21:29 *ESV
http://bible.com/59/luk.21.29.esv
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
and
all
the
trees.”
**Luke *21:29 *ESV
http://bible.com/59/luk.21.29.esv
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
heir
TOL Subscriber
It's not the gospel of our salvation, that is for sure! Even if I only have 2 minutes with a person I can show them 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV all by itself and know that the power of God to save that person is in IT. They could be saved in that very moment when they believe it! There's no reason for me to present something else as the gospel like Romans 10:9-10 KJV. The preaching of the cross/the WHY of the cross is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV)!
Nope - its ISRAEL's aspect of the Gospel of (from) God concerning (about) His Son.
It is ISRAEL's aspect of the gospel of Christ - THEIR good news that Jesus is the Christ; the Son of God He had Prophesied "since the world began" to Israel thru THEIR Prophets, Acts 3.
In contrast, Paul's gospel from God about His Son - Paul's gospel of Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began; but now" was being "made manifest..thru preaching committed unto" Paul, Romans 16.
Both are gospel, or good news of, or from God, concerning, or about, His Son.
The following is from an Acts 28er I sometimes go back and forth with - your view is very similar to it.
I suspect your view was the result of someone in your ranks having delved into Welch and Bullinger out of their inability to solve for some things in Paul's ministry before said individual was at a point in their growth where they could soundly tackle said issues without having to rely on the errors the 28ers' method of study ends one up at.
You are not 28ers, heir - rather; some of your major views are very similar to theirs.
Last edited:
I'm sure you'll basically agree with this...
If we're going to get technical; 1 Cor. 15:1-5 is just as vague.
The very point of your OP is the issue of the need for clarity in each aspect of the terminology.
I used to preach at a Mission. It was always fascinating what various people believed about sin, about salvation; about the Cross; about died for; about rose again; you name it.
The actual gospel of Christ is 1 Cor. 15:1-5 in light of Romans 1:16-3:30, Romans 5; and the 1st half of Ephesians 2.
The various issues there; all of which can be presented in 5 min.
The sounder Grace assemblies do that much every service - without mention of the power of God unto salvation most will not even understand that.
Rather, the power of God unto salvation is made a given. As it had been for Paul (example, his reply to the Phillipian jailor implies Paul's awareness of this power of God unto salvation).
In fact, only its' content is different.
Its' basic principle is the same throughout the Scripture.
Exodus, for example...
Exodus 14:10 And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the LORD. 14:11 And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? 14:12 Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness. 14:13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever. 14:14 The LORD shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace. 14:15 And the LORD said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward: 14:16 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.
Some are just overly literal. As a result, they confuse a principle with content.
Which was Clete's point about that picture.
Anyway, even Paul makes it obvious in Cor. 15 that 1 Cor. 15:1-4 is based on much more than 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
Perhaps the three of us are on the same page - at least on this - the Olive tree is not Israel.
Rather, as with the other tree analogies, it represents an aspect of Israel's relationship with God.
This...
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
And this...
Romans 15:14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
Is not this...
Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, 2:18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 2:19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 2:20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Personally, bro, when sharing "the gospel" I never bring up Rom. 10:9-10 unless asked.
Prefacing it or not, it is Israel's due time, Lordship salvation.
While, towards giving them something they can turn to should someone later attempt to put Rom. 10:9-10 on them, I simply ask them 'okay, so now; what happens when you sin?'
This often leads to discussion based on Romans 6.
Agreed.
musterion
Well-known member
"Vague?" No. You're very mistaken, in my opinion, and I have no idea why you'd say it's vague. Your anecdotal explanation doesn't help me get your point so I'm leaving it out for clarity of my reply.
Yes! Which is all that Heir and I are trying to be...VERY, VERY CLEAR and assuming NOTHING about what the lost may know whenever we have a chance to share the Good News of Christ with them.
Look. I don't know why you or Clete keep disagreeing because it's clear you're not getting what we're saying here, and I have no idea why.
IT IS VERY SIMPLE.
The specific content of 1 Cor 15:1-4 is what the pagan Corinthians heard and believed when they were saved.
How do we know that?
Because Paul reminds them that this content is what they'd heard and believed when they got saved. That goes right in line with Paul's saying he deliberately knew nothing among them but Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor 2:2).
But that content is simply not referenced in Romans 10:9-10, which based on my years of reading various Gospel tracts is used MORE often with the lost than 1 Cor 15:1-4 is.
I don't want to presume to speak for Heir but I'm pretty sure THAT is our only issue here.
That is why I said to use Romans 10:9-10 as a stand-alone invitation to the lost is VAGUE and WRONG because the saving content -- as defined by Paul in 1 Cor 15 -- is not there.
So for some reason you have this exactly backwards, in my opinion. You see vagueness in 1 Cor 15 but saving clarity in Romans 10. That is backwards. I do NOT get how you can possibly see that but it's not my problem.
I mean neither you nor Clete any ill will but I'll stick with what Paul said on this. The CORE of any Gospel invitation to the lost MUST focus on the point of 1 Cor 15:1-4 because that's what Paul said he shared with the lost.
No, Musterion - heir was attempting to correct your assertion.
This here...
This assertion that it has to be prefaced with 1 Cor. 15, is off.
It is not our gospel - ours is that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures and rose again according to the Scriptures.
That is not Romans 10's gospel.
There is no prefacing ours with Israel's (unless one is doing what Paul did when dealing with a Jew - showing them what Israel rejected back when it had been on the table - that Jesus was very Christ).
Theirs involved not only believing with the heart, but confessing with the mouth that Jesus is the Christ Who God raised from the dead.
That is Acts 3.
Further, Paul's "according to the Scriptures" not only implies his use of the Scriptures, but that was his practice.
That is more than simply 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
Note his words to the...
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 17:3 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.
Some believe; most do not; he is run out of town, and heads down to Thessalonica, where he obviously follows his same "Bible Conference" pattern, lol
17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Later, he reminds them...
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
This here...
This assertion that it has to be prefaced with 1 Cor. 15, is off.
It is not our gospel - ours is that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures and rose again according to the Scriptures.
That is not Romans 10's gospel.
There is no prefacing ours with Israel's (unless one is doing what Paul did when dealing with a Jew - showing them what Israel rejected back when it had been on the table - that Jesus was very Christ).
Theirs involved not only believing with the heart, but confessing with the mouth that Jesus is the Christ Who God raised from the dead.
That is Acts 3.
Further, Paul's "according to the Scriptures" not only implies his use of the Scriptures, but that was his practice.
That is more than simply 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
Note his words to the...
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 17:3 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.
Some believe; most do not; he is run out of town, and heads down to Thessalonica, where he obviously follows his same "Bible Conference" pattern, lol
17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Later, he reminds them...
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
And no; no ill will taken...nor meant.
Obviously, I my understanding on Rom. 10:9-10 is neither the one Clete holds, nor the one heir holds.
Clete's appears earlier Mid-Acts on this; mine, later Mid-Acts, and heir's, STP's, and a few others on here, later still.
Stam (earlier MAD), for example, had held Rom. 10:9-10 as for us, to us, and about us. As does Jerry (may he be well).
Jordan (later MAD) does not.
It'd be interesting to read from the various MADs on here who holds to what, on this.
But things always end up a battle of egos and who is right.
Again, brother, no ill will taken, nor meant.
Personally, though I believe I hold a sound view on this one, nevertheless, I find I enjoy reading of all the views and approaches, as I find it all rewardingly challenging.
Obviously, I my understanding on Rom. 10:9-10 is neither the one Clete holds, nor the one heir holds.
Clete's appears earlier Mid-Acts on this; mine, later Mid-Acts, and heir's, STP's, and a few others on here, later still.
Stam (earlier MAD), for example, had held Rom. 10:9-10 as for us, to us, and about us. As does Jerry (may he be well).
Jordan (later MAD) does not.
It'd be interesting to read from the various MADs on here who holds to what, on this.
But things always end up a battle of egos and who is right.
Again, brother, no ill will taken, nor meant.
Personally, though I believe I hold a sound view on this one, nevertheless, I find I enjoy reading of all the views and approaches, as I find it all rewardingly challenging.
musterion
Well-known member
Again, it looks like you misunderstand what I meant. I will take blame for that.
I said IF someone is going to use Romans 10 with the lost -- which many do, but I do not -- they MUST also include 1 Cor 15 and actually make 1 Cor 15 the point. Problem there is, many may STILL focus on the "doing" of their having confessed Christ more than simply trusting Him. So I avoid referencing it entirely and I still cringe when I do see it (if memory serves, I think I've seen it even in some otherwise well-done Grace tracts).
Anyway, does that make sense?
I do believe that is what I've been saying.
*sigh*
That is correct. I don't do it but many do...just like many insist "giving your heart to Jesus" is the Gospel. That's how Romans 10 came up, iirc.
Exactly.
Since I think we now understand one another, isn't your disagreement here more with Clete?
Not really sure what his view on Rom. 10:9-10 is. In an earlier post to me on this thread, it appeared to me he holds the view that heir has been asserting that Enyart holds about Rom. 10:9-10.
Which is an earlier Mid-Acts view on that passage.
Go back to his comment to me back when I brought up part of Rom. 10 - and (I) riled up Nick :chuckle:
Which is an earlier Mid-Acts view on that passage.
Go back to his comment to me back when I brought up part of Rom. 10 - and (I) riled up Nick :chuckle:
Looks like we are NOT on the same page, after all, lol
Especially that second paragraph.
musterion
Well-known member
I was going to post something about how Romans 10 aligns with what was preached in early Acts but you beat me to it.
Speaking of that. Having kept up somewhat with Ivan Burgener after his switch to 28, it's "sticky areas" like this one in basic MAD doctrine that has caused some (including Ivan) to go 28, where many of them are seen as reconciling disagreements such as this. I've read his arguments on a few things since he went 38, and those of others. There are some good point they raise; points which, if nothing else, emphasize how MAD generally tends to dismiss them as not important or simply pays little if any attention at all.
Anyway, may iron continue to sharpen iron.
Speaking of that. Having kept up somewhat with Ivan Burgener after his switch to 28, it's "sticky areas" like this one in basic MAD doctrine that has caused some (including Ivan) to go 28, where many of them are seen as reconciling disagreements such as this. I've read his arguments on a few things since he went 38, and those of others. There are some good point they raise; points which, if nothing else, emphasize how MAD generally tends to dismiss them as not important or simply pays little if any attention at all.
Anyway, may iron continue to sharpen iron.
musterion
Well-known member
PS
Ah-hah. A light just went on over my head.
If this is what you meant months ago by calling some here 28ers, then all you had to do is come out and say that this is why, and request a discussion. I can now see why you'd make that conclusion but it was not warranted; if they're 28 they're keeping it hidden from us...and no, I don't believe for a second that they are 28 or keeping it hidden. 28ers tend to be very bold. Anyway, you should have just asked instead of slinging labels.
Ah-hah. A light just went on over my head.
If this is what you meant months ago by calling some here 28ers, then all you had to do is come out and say that this is why, and request a discussion. I can now see why you'd make that conclusion but it was not warranted; if they're 28 they're keeping it hidden from us...and no, I don't believe for a second that they are 28 or keeping it hidden. 28ers tend to be very bold. Anyway, you should have just asked instead of slinging labels.
Lol - ya should have asked.
I have never asserted heir and STP et al are 28ers.
I have joked that SOME of their views are ALMOST Acts 28.
Because those parts of their views are very similar to those held by the 28ers.
What I meant just now by earlier MAD, later, and later still, is the history.
Many of Jerry Shugart's outdated views, for example, were from what MAD had held to earlier in MAD history.
I have never asserted heir and STP et al are 28ers.
I have joked that SOME of their views are ALMOST Acts 28.
Because those parts of their views are very similar to those held by the 28ers.
What I meant just now by earlier MAD, later, and later still, is the history.
Many of Jerry Shugart's outdated views, for example, were from what MAD had held to earlier in MAD history.