ECT The Gospel Proper

[glorydaz]

If the man was Jewish, then it the burden would have been to mention that he was Jewish. Instead it said he was Ethiopian. Reading Isaiah isn't limited to Jews nor the definition of Jewish, and eunuchs were prevented form becoming proper Jews regardless.

The burden would be to mention he was Jewish? You're kidding right?

He was going to Jerusalem to WORSHIP. He was reading from the book of Isaiah written in Hebrew.

Isaiah 56:3-7
3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.​

 

[glorydaz]

Do you deny your own quote?



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

You're calling me a liar. Don't deny it.

You're accusing me of contradicting myself, and I wasn't.

I should just report you.

 

[Clete]

I don't have a problem with hypotheticals unless they are used to undermine scripture. I totally agree, God knows the hearts of men and if someone believes and dies on his way to being baptized, I am of the opinion they are saved. In a situation like that, I say God is the judge and He is just. However, that reasoning cannot be used to justify someone not being baptized who has the opportunity.

Of course it can.

Water baptism is either required or it isn't. It either gets you saved or it doesn't.

Just because a hypothetical forces you to modify your doctrinal position doesn't mean it's been used to undermine the scripture. It just means that you are required to add a caveat to what had been a dogmatic theological position.

And it's an important point because this is how errors are found. Maybe this caveat points to a more serious error and maybe it doesn't but one's attitude should always be pointed in the direction of "How am I wrong?" not "How can I salvage my doctrine?"

I agree timing is a huge issue. Do you believe God established a new covenant with Israel on Pentecost?

Just as Christ fulfilled the Feast of Tabernacles with His birth, Passover with His death, Unleavened Bread while in the grave and First Fruits with His resurrection, Pentecost was the fulfillment of the Feast of Weeks.

It's the same prophesied program, fully intact and on track.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Under what covenant did these Israelites have their sins forgiven and received the Holy Spirit?

Everyone in the New Testament who was saved prior to Paul's ministry was saved under the Kingdom Gospel and remained under it until their natural death. (Rom. 11:29)

True, but I suggest you have the bigger problem. I do not have to modify what is written. Jesus commanded baptism to make disciples, baptize the believers. The apostles, including Paul, baptized the believers. Paul, about 20 years after being sent, is still baptizing believers just as Jesus instructed. If baptism is NOT part of the gospel, why isn’t Paul arguing against it instead of practicing it?

I do not modify what is written at all. On the contrary, my doctrine permits me to take the bible to mean what it plainly states to a larger degree than any other system in existence.

As for why Paul baptized, he sort of did and didn't, right? Sure, there are those that he baptized but then he clearly distances himself from the practice later on, stating the he was glad that he didn't baptized hardly anyone in Corinth. Not exactly what one would do if it were still the salvific requirement that it had been prior to the current dispensation. It was a practice that survived the change but faded away, just a miracles did.

Acts 11:16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’​

Having said that, the confusion on the issue, I think, is quite understandable and there is certainly no harm in performing the ritual so long as it is understood that it's not what's saving you and that water washing away sin is symbolic and not literal. It is the blood of Christ we are washed by, not a vat of water.

In short, when it comes to this issue, while I have a specific belief for my own practice, when it comes to debating it, I tend to punt. I don't see the need to create division over what is almost universally recognized as a symbolic ritual.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Right Divider]

True, but I suggest you have the bigger problem. I do not have to modify what is written. Jesus commanded baptism to make disciples, baptize the believers. The apostles, including Paul, baptized the believers. Paul, about 20 years after being sent, is still baptizing believers just as Jesus instructed. If baptism is NOT part of the gospel, why isn’t Paul arguing against it instead of practicing it?

Please show us the scripture where Paul commands water baptism for entrance into the body of Christ.

 

[Right Divider]

If the man was Jewish, then it the burden would have been to mention that he was Jewish. Instead it said he was Ethiopian.

Made up.

Reading Isaiah isn't limited to Jews nor the definition of Jewish, and eunuchs were prevented form becoming proper Jews regardless.

Sure... lots of gentiles picked up copies of Isaiah at the corner bookstore for their reading pleasure. :rotfl:

 

[Idolater]

The question, "What is the Gospel?" has come up a few times in various recent conversations I've had both here on TOL and elsewhere and I've been somewhat surprised by the degree of confusion that exists around what seems like ought to be a simple thing. Of course the confusion surrounding all the details is no surprise but it seems that not even the basics of the gospel are as easy to nail down as one might expect.

I propose the following as a bare bones, base minimum version of what one must believe in order to be saved. Call it the Gospel Proper, if you will.

• God exists.
• He is the Creator of all things and He is holy, perfect and just.
• We have, by doing evil things, rebelled against God.
• We, having rebelled against the God who gave us life, deserve death.
• God, being unwilling that all should perish, provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ and who is God incarnate.
• Jesus, being Himself innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

I thought of taking each point one at a time and commenting on each but about half way through I thought it would be better to just leave them as they are. Otherwise, the temptation would be to take issue with something in my commentary rather than with any one point of the gospel proper that I've presented. I've also intentionally left out scripture references. Again, it felt like I was already debating an issue that may not be in dispute. Such references are easily found an presented if anyone wants to challenge the biblical veracity of any of these points.

Is there something that you think I've left out?
Is there something that I've included that you think might be good doctrine but isn't necessary to believe in order to be saved?
Is there something that you think is just flat out wrong?

Whatever you've got, bring it. Just try to be respectful and kind, please.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Stab #2

God is real, and He raises the dead. Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, and He suffered and died for our sins, and He was raised from the dead, and He ascended to heaven, where He is now seated at the right hand of the Father. We can live forever if we believe in Him.

 

[Danoh]

If the man was Jewish, then it the burden would have been to mention that he was Jewish. Instead it said he was Ethiopian. Reading Isaiah isn't limited to Jews nor the definition of Jewish, and eunuchs were prevented form becoming proper Jews regardless.

Slow down there...

Isaiah 56:1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 56:2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 56:5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

To this very day, the Law and the Prophets are very important among the Ethiopians.

By the way, during the Greek conquest, Greek became the common language of many countries. Resulting in a need for the translation of the OT that was still prevalent in the 1st Century - the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT.

Thus, it would not have been a problem for anyone so interested to seek out, towards obtaining, a personal copy of one Book of the OT or another.

Not to mention, that Ethiopian is described as "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, had come to Jerusalem for to worship," obviously, per the above concerning eunuchs, described in his copy of Isaiah 56.

A note - passages like the above make obvious that that Ethiopian is merely a type of the Gentile Nations when Israel's Kingdom is Restored, one day - they will not be required to submit to circumcision, nor to those aspects of the Law meant to identify ONLY Israelites as God's Kingdom of Priests OVER said Gentile Nations.

Deuteronomy 4:1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.

4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. 4:6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 4:7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 4:8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

Not surprisingly, this Two-Fold People during that time (Israel as a Kingdom of Priests OVER the Gentiles, one day) described by Isaiah in the above, is often described by him - here is another example...

Isaiah 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God. 66:10 Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her: 66:11 That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory. 66:12 For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees.

66:19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD. 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD. 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

In short...

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Try that some time.

Romans 5:6-8.

 

[MennoSota]

Indeed, the free gift of salvation in the present dispensation is hated and rejected.

Dispensationalism is barely over 100 years old.
God has always chosen to save his children by gracious choice, apart from works. Jesus atonement saves those for whom he died. No more, no less. This is declared to Joseph before Jesus is born.
Matthew 1:21
"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
His people are not the Jews, nor the Gentiles, but instead it is those people from every tribe and tongue whom God has chosen to save.
Always and ever the Gospel has been an act of gracious, unmerited favor, from God to His chosen people.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Dispensationalism is barely over 100 years old.
God has always chosen to save his children by gracious choice, apart from works. Jesus atonement saves those for whom he died. No more, no less. This is declared to Joseph before Jesus is born.
Matthew 1:21
"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
His people are not the Jews, nor the Gentiles, but instead it is those people from every tribe and tongue whom God has chosen to save.
Always and ever the Gospel has been an act of gracious, unmerited favor, from God to His chosen people.

Atoms have been around far longer than their discovery. Doesn't mean they didn't exist or that they weren't the most correct model of the building blocks of the universe prior to their discovery.

In the same way, dispensationalism may have only come into existence (emphasis on "may have") recently, but that doesn't exclude it from being correct.

Now that that's out of the way...

Did Jesus have a choice in coming to die on the cross?

 

[MennoSota]

Atoms have been around far longer than their discovery. Doesn't mean they didn't exist or that they weren't the most correct model of the building blocks of the universe prior to their discovery.

In the same way, dispensationalism may have only come into existence (emphasis on "may have") recently, but that doesn't exclude it from being correct.

Now that that's out of the way...

Did Jesus have a choice in coming to die on the cross?

God has never chopped his work of grace up into different time zones. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

 

[turbosixx]

Of course it can.

Water baptism is either required or it isn't. It either gets you saved or it doesn't.

Just because a hypothetical forces you to modify your doctrinal position doesn't mean it's been used to undermine the scripture. It just means that you are required to add a caveat to what had been a dogmatic theological position.

And it's an important point because this is how errors are found. Maybe this caveat points to a more serious error and maybe it doesn't but one's attitude should always be pointed in the direction of "How am I wrong?" not "How can I salvage my doctrine?"

Then let's take that hypothetical one step farther. Jesus said, Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved
So if baptism isn't necessary because someone who believes dies before being baptized, then belief isn't necessary because someone could die on the way to hearing the gospel and believing.

Just as Christ fulfilled the Feast of Tabernacles with His birth, Passover with His death, Unleavened Bread while in the grave and First Fruits with His resurrection, Pentecost was the fulfillment of the Feast of Weeks.

It's the same prophesied program, fully intact and on track.

Everyone in the New Testament who was saved prior to Paul's ministry was saved under the Kingdom Gospel and remained under it until their natural death. (Rom. 11:29)

I don't understand how this answers my question. Maybe I need to rephrase it. Did those on Pentecost have their sins forgiven under the law of Moses? If not, then by what law?

As for why Paul baptized, he sort of did and didn't, right? Sure, there are those that he baptized but then he clearly distances himself from the practice later on, stating the he was glad that he didn't baptized hardly anyone in Corinth. Not exactly what one would do if it were still the salvific requirement that it had been prior to the current dispensation. It was a practice that survived the change but faded away, just a miracles did.

There is so much I could ask you that pertains to this but I think this might be more to the root. What is/was the purpose of water baptism? Scriptural support please.

It is the blood of Christ we are washed by, not a vat of water.

How was Naaman cleansed of his leprosy by dipping in water?

 

[JudgeRightly]

God has never chopped his work of grace up into different time zones. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Funny how you completely avoided the question I asked.

Let's try again.

Did Jesus have a choice in coming to die on the cross?

And as for the above...

So we should build an ark and tell everyone that there's gonna be a big flood and that if they want to live, they should get on it? :dunce:

 

[turbosixx]

Please show us the scripture where Paul commands water baptism for entrance into the body of Christ.

You say Paul got his commands directly from Christ. Can you see Paul obeying Jesus's commandment?
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,

Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Please show us the scripture where Paul commands water baptism for entrance into the body of Christ.

You say Paul got his commands directly from Christ. Can you see Paul obeying Jesus's commandment?
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,

Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The first passage is not from Paul.

The second does not say they were water baptised.

Neither are Paul saying that water baptism is required to enter the Body of Christ.

 

[MennoSota]

Funny how you completely avoided the question I asked.

Let's try again.

Did Jesus have a choice in coming to die on the cross?

Does God have a choice? Yes. God did not have to display grace at all. He could have killed Adam and Eve immediately.

And as for the above...

So we should build an ark and tell everyone that there's gonna be a big flood and that if they want to live, they should get on it? :dunce:

How do you even jump to this conclusion?
God displayed His grace toward Noah and his children. Everyone else died.
Grace has always been God's modus operandi with His chosen people.
Do you reject God as a gracious God?

 

[glorydaz]

Dispensationalism is barely over 100 years old.
God has always chosen to save his children by gracious choice, apart from works. Jesus atonement saves those for whom he died. No more, no less. This is declared to Joseph before Jesus is born.
Matthew 1:21
"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
His people are not the Jews, nor the Gentiles, but instead it is those people from every tribe and tongue whom God has chosen to save.
Always and ever the Gospel has been an act of gracious, unmerited favor, from God to His chosen people.

Deut. 7:6-8 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. 7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

 

[turbosixx]

The first passage is not from Paul.

It's from Jesus. Doesn't Paul get his commands from Jesus?

The second does not say they were water baptised.

I suggest to you it is exactly that, water.

Baptism "in the name of" Jesus is water baptism. Here is my scriptural support.
They were believers, Paul doesn't question their belief, v2.
Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Here are believers who are baptized "in the name of" Jesus and it clearly states it's water.
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.

What do you believe baptized "in the name of" Jesus is and with scriptural support?

Neither are Paul saying that water baptism is required to enter the Body of Christ.

Paul doesn't say it isn't required and he practiced it on all his journeys.

 

[glorydaz]

Paul doesn't say it isn't required and he practiced it on all his journeys.

Why in the world would you say that? Paul said he baptized very few people, and was glad he didn't do more. Why is that? Because water baptism is a work of man....not the one baptism that saves.

Paul says, specifically, that we are saved by grace through faith....no water baptism there at all.

1 Cor. 1:14-16 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.​

Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas. You call that practicing baptism on "all his journeys"? Seriously?

 

[turbosixx]

Why in the world would you say that? Paul said he baptized very few people, and was glad he didn't do more. Why is that? Because water baptism is a work of man....not the one baptism that saves.

Paul says, specifically, that we are saved by grace through faith....no water baptism there at all.

1 Cor. 1:14-16 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.​

Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas. You call that practicing baptism on "all his journeys"? Seriously?

You're taking 1:17 out of context to discredit baptism. Seriously?


Christ said it.
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Paul believed it.
8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

What is the purpose of baptism? With scriptural support.

 

[Right Divider]

You say Paul got his commands directly from Christ. Can you see Paul obeying Jesus's commandment?
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,

Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Do you play a lot of DODGE BALL?

Please show us where Paul COMMANDED believers to be WATER BAPTIZED in order in be a member of the body of Christ.

It's just not there no matter how much you fumble around.