ECT The Gospel Proper

[Rosenritter]

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.​

[/QUOTE

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.

In the parable the ruler still returns on schedule.

 

[Rosenritter]

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.​

... and we all know that the Ethiopians were Jews.

 

[glorydaz]

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!)

Don't you know how to use the quote feature? You still didn't get it right.

Jesus did come to free the Jews from their unrighteous rulers....to sit on David's throne here on earth.

John 12:13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.​

Zechariah 9:9
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***.


But, He was rejected and crucified instead. That kingdom gospel is put off until after the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. You can read Ezek. 37 if you're interested.

 

[glorydaz]

... and we all know that the Ethiopians were Jews.

Probably half of them were.

 

[Rosenritter]

Don't you know how to use the quote feature? You still didn't get it right.

Jesus did come to free the Jews from their unrighteous rulers....to sit on David's throne here on earth.

John 12:13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.​

Zechariah 9:9
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***.

But, He was rejected and crucified instead. That kingdom gospel is put off until after the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. You can read Ezek. 37 if you're interested.

First, Jesus WAS the King of Israel that came in the name of the Lord, but second, you seem to have the same misunderstanding as those that sought to make him a physical king. Unlike those Jews you should already have the benefit of the gospel to inform you otherwise:

John 6:15 KJV
(15) When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Jesus didn't INTEND to become their physical king in that age.

 

[Nang]

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

Jesus Christ is Truth. There is no other Truth.

Faith in that propositional fact is what saves the soul and that faith comes as a gift from God alone.

Clark was not in error at all.

 

[glorydaz]

In the parable the ruler still returns on schedule.

There was a schedule?
Where did you see that?

Occupy til I come doesn't sound like much of a schedule, does it?

 

[Rosenritter]

Probably half of them were.

Unlikely: "Ethiopian" means "gentile" by default, at least.

Gentile

Eunuch must have been a Gentile because he was Ethiopian.

Eusebius (c. 275-339),[8] Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306-373) as well as Bede (c. 672-725), Nicephorus Callistus (c. 1256-1335), Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270-1349), and Martin Luther (1483-1546)[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_eunuch

 

[Rosenritter]

Jesus Christ is Truth. There is no other Truth.

Faith in that propositional fact is what saves the soul and that faith comes as a gift from God alone.

Clark was not in error at all.

Faith is not a fact, it is belief in action.

 

[Rosenritter]

There was a schedule?
Where did you see that?

Occupy til I come doesn't sound like much of a schedule, does it?

Did you not notice that the ruler had already left before these people sent him a message? It sure sounded like you were saying that Jesus intended to become a physical ruler over Israel, but .... they rejected him by crucifying him so he had to change his plans!

Jesus did come to free the Jews from their unrighteous rulers....to sit on David's throne here on earth.

But, He was rejected and crucified instead. That kingdom gospel is put off until after the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. You can read Ezek. 37 if you're interested.

Glory, Jesus came to this earth to be crucified on that cross from the beginning. It is written in the 22nd Psalm, for example... WAY before the crucifixion.

That crucifixion was no accident. I don't know how you can be confused on this.

 

[glorydaz]

First, Jesus WAS the King of Israel that came in the name of the Lord, but second, you seem to have the same misunderstanding as those that sought to make him a physical king. Unlike those Jews you should already have the benefit of the gospel to inform you otherwise:

John 6:15 KJV
(15) When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Jesus didn't INTEND to become their physical king in that age.

Did I say Jesus intended anything?

I'm talking about the Gospel of the Kingdom, and the Gospel of Grace not being the same. Are you denying the verses I gave you? Those are the words of the prophets, and those are the words the Jews understood. That Jesus knew He would be crucified and the Kingdom would be postposed doesn't change the facts being addressed.

That's why Paul's Gospel is called the mystery. It is not the same as the Kingdom Gospel.

 

[Nang]

Faith is not a fact, it is belief in action.

Faith is belief in propositional fact
revealed by God through the Person of
Jesus Christ.

 

[glorydaz]

Did you not notice that the ruler had already left before these people sent him a message? It sure sounded like you were saying that Jesus intended to become a physical ruler over Israel, but .... they rejected him by crucifying him so he had to change his plans!


Glory, Jesus came to this earth to be crucified on that cross from the beginning. It is written in the 22nd Psalm, for example... WAY before the crucifixion.

That crucifixion was no accident. I don't know how you can be confused on this.

I'm not. But, it's clear you are. :chuckle:

 

[Rosenritter]

Did I say Jesus intended anything?

I'm talking about the Gospel of the Kingdom, and the Gospel of Grace not being the same. Are you denying the verses I gave you? Those are the words of the prophets, and those are the words the Jews understood. That Jesus knew He would be crucified and the Kingdom would be postposed doesn't change the facts being addressed.

That's why Paul's Gospel is called the mystery. It is not the same as the Kingdom Gospel.

Do you deny your own quote?

Jesus did come to free the Jews from their unrighteous rulers....to sit on David's throne here on earth. But, He was rejected and crucified instead.

Because now you're contradicting yourself. Was Jesus prevented from his mission by the crucifixion or not?

 

[glorydaz]

Unlikely: "Ethiopian" means "gentile" by default, at least.

Gentile

Eunuch must have been a Gentile because he was Ethiopian.

Eusebius (c. 275-339),[8] Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306-373) as well as Bede (c. 672-725), Nicephorus Callistus (c. 1256-1335), Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270-1349), and Martin Luther (1483-1546)[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_eunuch

You stick with the defaults. I'll stick with the Book.

He came to worship in Jerusalem. He was reading from the Hebrew scriptures...Isaiah.

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

Acts 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.​

Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman. There were proselytes from every country.

 

[glorydaz]

Do you deny your own quote?



Because now you're contradicting yourself. Was Jesus prevented from his mission by the crucifixion or not?

Surely you can't be as stupid as it appears you are. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[glorydaz]

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?

Since faith is in His blood.....He is necessary for salvation.

 

[turbosixx]

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

Paul went to all nations and baptized them "in the name of" Jesus. Just as Jesus instructed on how to make disciples.

Why would Paul baptize these men "in the name of" Jesus if they were already believers? They didn't request it.
Acts 19:2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
Paul doesn't question that they are believers.

When he finds out they didn't receive the Spirit, what does he question? Their baptism.
3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.”

Before he lays hands on them giving them the Holy Spirit, he baptizes them "in the name of" Jesus.
5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

If baptism was not part of the gospel, Paul would be arguing against it not practicing it.

 

[turbosixx]

... 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.



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.



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?

I suggest to you John 3 is looking forward to baptism "in the name of" Jesus. Before Jesus's DBR, he was looking/speaking to his glorification, the church being built and the establishment of the kingdom. That's why John's baptism was insufficient because it wasn't "in the name of" Jesus.

You mentioned vs 5,6. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit
Water at birth is fleshly birth and the water of baptism is spiritual birth.
Rom. 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Cornelius received the Holy Spirit but not the water. Peter commands them be water baptized. It's the only time we see someone being commanded to be baptized. It's because the two go together. Just like we see in Acts 19 and other places.

 

[Clete]

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.​

Yes, it was the catalyst.

Stephen, after using 'irresistible wisdom' during his ministry ((Acts 6:10) - 'irresistible wisdom' is prophetically important, by the way). He then made a persuasive case for Jesus being the Messiah before the rulers of Israel, at the end of which he had a vision of Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father (standing is indicative of pending judgment) and then the rulers of Israel stoned Stephen, the witnesses of which laid down their clothes at the feet of Saul (Acts 7:58), who consented to his death (Acts 8:1). Saul is then converted on the Damascus Road and becomes the first member of the Body of Christ (Acts 9). All one nicely logical story line.

All of this occurred approximately one year after Pentecost (Luke 12:6-9).


Listen, if you haven't read Bob Enyart's, "The Plot", you really should do so. If you're not into reading theology books, get the MP3s of his seminars where he covers the same material. Better yet, get both! You'll be stunned at how much more sense the whole bible makes. All of the connections that are woven throughout the bible just come into sharp relief and are simply mind blowing! Seriously, its well worth the expense and time.

Resting in Him,
Clete