ECT The Gospel Proper

[glorydaz]

Think about it. If Satan was going to pervert the gospel and baptism is NOT part of the gospel, wouldn't pushing water baptism be a good tactic?

Man is always trying to insert himself into the Gift of salvation.

You must repent of sins, you must be baptised, you must obey the commandments.....

 

[steko]

Since that first "elephant" was the kingdom gospel, you must be right because they continued to preach that gospel for quite some time after Christ's death.

So why did it change after Stephens's death? Was it the catalyst for Paul being sent to preach his gospel?

Acts 22:19-21
19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: 20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. 21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.​

Luk 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Act 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Act 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
Act 6:11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
Act 6:12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
Act 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
Act 6:14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
Act 6:15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel[agellos/messenger].

Act 7:1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
.....................................................................
Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

 

[glorydaz]

Since that first "elephant" was the kingdom gospel, you must be right because they continued to preach that gospel for quite some time after Christ's death.

So why did it change after Stephens's death? Was it the catalyst for Paul being sent to preach his gospel?

Acts 22:19-21
19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: 20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. 21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.​

Luk 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Act 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Act 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
Act 6:11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
Act 6:12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
Act 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
Act 6:14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
Act 6:15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel[agellos/messenger].

Act 7:1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
.....................................................................
Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

I can't believe I hadn't noticed that connection before.

I'm still not sure what Clete was referring to, however. :think:

 

[turbosixx]

Man is always trying to insert himself into the Gift of salvation.

You must repent of sins, you must be baptised, you must obey the commandments.....

What is the purpose of baptism? With scriptural support please.

 

[turbosixx]

Man is always trying to insert himself into the Gift of salvation.

I did not insert baptism, Jesus did.
Mk. 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Paul obeys Jesus by baptizing believers, 20 years after being sent.
Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Not only were they believers but they had already been water baptized. Paul would not lay hands on them until they had been baptized "in the name of" Jesus. If belief is ALL that is necessary, then why would Paul, 20 years after being sent, ever water baptize anyone like Jesus instructed?

 

[glorydaz]

I did not insert baptism, Jesus did.
Mk. 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Paul obeys Jesus by baptizing believers, 20 years after being sent.
Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Not only were they believers but they had already been water baptized. Paul would not lay hands on them until they had been baptized "in the name of" Jesus. If belief is ALL that is necessary, then why would Paul, 20 years after being sent, ever water baptize anyone like Jesus instructed?

Because water baptism was for the Jews, and Paul didn't refuse baptism to those who requested it.

Acts 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.


Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.​

 

[turbosixx]

Because water baptism was for the Jews, and Paul didn't refuse baptism to those who requested it.

Acts 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.


Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.​

Your quotes refer to Johns baptism, not baptism "in the name of" Jesus which is for everyone.
Matt. 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[Danoh]

Continue with the context.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
The purpose of those signs were to confirm the word that they proclaimed was from God. We don't need them anymore because the word has been confirmed...

All you have done is proven once more that you do not know how to study these things out properly.

Leaving you at what you just now did with the above - you read your own interpretation into what was meant in that passage.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

In the above, verse 20's "confirming the word with signs following" refers to those signs having been evidence that what they were preaching was from God.

That is what "the word" there is referring to - to preaching Him.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; IN MY NAME shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: IN THE NANE OF Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. 3:7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

Preaching Him to whom?

No sense in bothering - for you adamantly go against the witness of Early Acts as to who it repeatedly says they were preaching to.

So never mind who the writer OF HEBREWS also mentions who said preaching had been confirmed by signs and wonders to...

Hebrews 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

Why?

"For the Jews require a sign,"1 Corinthians 1:22a.

Romans 5:6-8 towards ya, Turbo.

 

[turbosixx]

Preaching Him to whom?

Doesn't matter, the gospel is for all.

2 Cor. 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.

Acts 15:12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

 

[glorydaz]

Your quotes refer to Johns baptism, not baptism "in the name of" Jesus which is for everyone.
Matt. 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

But they didn't go out to all nations....the kingdom program was put on hold.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It's been years since I read Dr. Gordon H. Clark's excellent book, Faith And Saving Faith, but, if I remember anything from reading it, it is that he, therein, completely exploded the view of the nature of faith that you are handing out, here.

I have been informed and edified by the very fine Calvinist Gordon Clark...to a point. That said, you would do well to better inform yourself of the differences between Clark and the Reformed views of epistemology, particularly as related to archetypal and ectypal knowledge.

For example:
https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2005/gordon-clark-and-sandemanianism/#

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ience-of-God&p=5271614&viewfull=1#post5271614
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ent-of-faith&p=4876794&viewfull=1#post4876794

Dr. Clark was in error because he overreacted to the liberal denial of propositional truth by denying personal truth altogether. This created problems for his psychology, Christology, and soteriology. People are not propositions. A man is not the sum total of the propositions he assents to. Christ as a person cannot be reduced to what He propositionally knew. People are not saved by assenting to propositions. Christ is a Person. The apostle Paul taught Timothy the importance of holding fast the form of sound words but also knew WHOM he believed. He gave thanks to God for His unspeakable gift. He prayed for the Ephesians to know that which passeth knowledge. The personal element should not be denied. Our faith includes the propositional, but it goes further. By means of it the Holy Spirit unites us to the person of Christ, so that what is His by covenant becomes ours in Him.

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

You wouldn't know because you don't care to learn.

... I have an open invitation for you to explain your foundation and to respond to specific questions, but you said it would waste your time and that you would that I buy someone else's book.

 

[glorydaz]

... I have an open invitation for you to explain your foundation and to respond to specific questions, but you said it would waste your time and that you would that I buy someone else's book.

I think he goes by priors. You have those.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yes, rewording is pretty important, and that's why you should just use quotes. Leaving off a couple of words and adding another changes what I said. Close isn't good enough, since your rewording made no sense at all.

Then can you explain the difference between

"Jesus ... was a salvation from the world's unrighteous rulers?" and
"Jesus preached a gospel of salvation from the world's unrighteous rulers?"

since you apparently support one and deny the other? Regardless, the point was the "salvation from the world's unrighteous rulers!" Salvation is salvation from DEATH unto LIFE. Jesus didn't come to free anyone from the world's unrighteous rulers (at least not in this age!)

 

[Rosenritter]

Those things are all actually good news, and things to cheer over. But, since "Calvinism is the gospel", and Calvinism is the doctrines that God infallibly predestined some portion (perhaps the vast majority?) of one's fellow human beings to be inexorably excluded from having a personal relationship with Jesus, and that He predestined them to suffer unfathomable, unmitigated, fiery torment, forever, you'll, perhaps, excuse rational, humanoid-type humans for scratching their heads as to how such things can, in the slightest degree, rationally be considered good news!

If the gospel is good news and glorious news then it must be something that is indeed good and glorious. A message of "when you die you've likely been assigned to be brought back to life and tortured for eternity" is not an improvement over what man has been naturally shown that awaits him at the end of his days.

 

[Rosenritter]

That's why I threw it out there with a smiley face. I knew you were expecting it but probably didn't really care to discuss it. I figured, as you said, have been debating baptism for years.

I am fully convinced that baptism is part of the gospel and is required to "wash away your sins". Let's take your hypothetical, someone believes but dies before being baptized. I strongly suggest hypotheticals shouldn't be used to go against what scripture says.

Is it baptism that is required to wash away our sins, or the willingness to have our sins washed away that is expressed through baptism? It seems to me that if someone says they want to have their sins washed away but is unwilling to be baptized (perhaps they don't want to get wet) then I would have great reason to doubt their sincerity and commitment.

 

[Rosenritter]

And yet you completely ignore ALL the rest of the "great commission" that Christ gave to the TWELVE (eleven at the time) apostles that will judge the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

Mar 16:17-18 KJV And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.​

Think about it. If Satan was going to pervert the gospel and baptism is NOT part of the gospel, wouldn't pushing water baptism be a good tactic?

Does it says that every believer will have every sign follow them? I think that Paul took up a serpent and was not harmed, but when was he drinking deadly things? Seriously, your logic has huge gaping holes in it.

 

[Rosenritter]

I disagree. Please consider this. What Jesus means in telling Nicodemus that he must be born again, is that Nic can't rely on his birth into the nation of Israel(God's people) for salvation. Thus he must be born again in to the new people of God, Christ.
John the Baptist makes the same point.
Luke 3:8 Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

... except neither Nicodemus nor Jesus said anything about one's birth within the heritage of Israel, anywhere in that conversation.
... which also does not explain how come "flesh" and "water" are used in parallel between verses 5 and 6.

Also, if Jn. 3 is talking about water at birth, then why did Jesus command baptism?

First, Christ's command for baptism of the nations does not need to derive its authority from John 3... but it would be quite strange if that's what it depended on, since there is no explicit mention of baptism in John 3 at all.

Second, Jesus commanded baptism because of the symbolism of death and rebirth, it already had a recognized significance proven by he who went before Jesus to clear his way, also called John the Baptist. Jesus himself was baptized for our example. John 1 is reason enough.

Here we see people who had received the Holy Spirit and Peter commands them to be water baptized.

Acts 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Water and Spirit just like Jesus said. There are other passages that prove this but this should be sufficient.

If you acknowledge that there are already passages that prove that there is a call to baptism just as Christ was baptized, and you understand these passages to be direct, clear, and sufficient, then why work John 3 against its context for a point that needs no reinforcement?

 

[Rosenritter]

How convenient.


Paul did NOT water baptize those in Acts 19. This has been explained to you, but you are too stubborn to believe it.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why Paul was glad that he baptized so FEW, if it's a requirement for salvation.

You are a WORKS salvationist and are an enemy of the gospel.

Paul said that some planted and others watered... but it was God who gave the increase.

1 Corinthians 3:5-9 KJV
(5) Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
(6) I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
(7) So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
(8) Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
(9) For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

 

[Rosenritter]

If baptism could wash away sins, our Lord Jesus Christ need not have died upon the cross.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:​

The Gospel, itself, is the power of God unto salvation.

Eph. 5:6 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.​

By that same measure, if FAITH could deliver us unto salvation there would be no need for Jesus either. The relevant question is unto whom are you being baptized and unto whom do you live in faith?