ECT The Gospel Proper

[musterion]

Awesome. You might not have realized what you were doing when you wrote that, but you admitted that this was the same gospel, even if the certain facts of that gospel were not yet fully understood or revealed.

The disciples did indeed come to understand the prophetic significance of His rising again.

But it happened AFTER He rose and EXPLAINED IT TO THEM.

How can we know that?

Luke 24:25-27

That means they did not - could not - have had faith in the fact of His resurrection. They were ignorant of it until AFTER the fact. So it could not have been preached as an article of faith.

But Paul's good news requires faith in His resurrection.

That can only mean that the good news of the Kingdom was NOT the same good news revealed through Paul.

 

[turbosixx]

You guys can debate water baptism all you want. I will NOT be including it in the gospel proper. Getting wet has nothing to do with getting saved.

Jesus says it does.
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Did getting wet have anything to do with Naaman being cleansed?

 

[Rosenritter]

Okay, since there seems to be a lul in the thread.

The word 'steward' in that verse in the LXX Greek is 'oikogenous' which is literally 'born in house', however it is generally understood along with 'ebed/servant' to be referring to Eliezer's role as 'house manager'.
Likewise, Joseph had a 'steward' in Egypt Gen_43:19 and Christ speaks of 'stewards/oikonomos' and 'stewardships/oikonomia' in various places.

Luk_12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward[oikonomos], whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?

Luk_16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward[oikonomos]; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Luk_16:2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship[oikonomia]; for thou mayest be no longer steward[oikonomos].


Paul:

Tit_1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward[oikonomos] of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

1Co_9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation[oikonomia] of the gospel is committed unto me.

Eph_3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation[oikonomia] of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Col_1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation[oikonomia] of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Paul uses the term 'dispensation/oikonomia/house law' to describe his unique ministry to the nations, as revealed to him directly from heaven by the ascended and glorified Lord Jesus.


Therefore, the concept of 'dispensation' exists throughout the Bible and is especially used by the Apostle Paul to describe his unique ministry to the nations.


Us 'dispensationalists' agree with Paul and 'dispensationalism' is at least as old as Paul... if not Eliezer.

If you mean that we have been given stewardship of delivering the message of salvation to the nations I have no disagreement, but I've seen that label be applied to a whole lot of other things.

 

[Rosenritter]

Because you are unable to understand the Gospel preached by Jesus and the twelve is not the Gospel Paul was sent to preach, you manage to miss what is so obvious to the rest of us.

Like those little words "A" and "BOTH" in the yellow above. It is not the same Gospel no matter how hard to try to convince otherwise.

Just work on reading all of what is written before you try to respond, and you should do better.

You remind me of the city fella that came out to the ranch and wanted to see a "filly", and all he saw was horses everywhere. :chuckle:

Forgive me if I don't always answer your posts, you've been on ignore for a while. If you are willing to stop and define a few words you might find yourself in agreement (at least until you realize what happened and get upset?)

The gospel is God's message of salvation for men. You are confusing presentation of the gospel and aspects of the gospel for the gospel itself. Fir example, let's take a familiar beast that we know as "elephant." If an elephant came into the room, would you say you have "seen" the elephant? You probably would, yet you wouldn't have seen the same details as someone who was directly in front of or on the other side of the elephant.

The left side of the elephant and the right side of the elephant aren't two different elephants. It's one elephant, and when the deaf man and the blind man both "see" (or hear) the same elephant. I think this is a fairly accurate summary of what I've seen presented as "evidence" of this "two gospels" doctrine as of late... that, coupled with a false idea that salvation is accomplished by works of the law, at least for some people.

 

[Rosenritter]

You words, while dead on correct, will have no efffect.

He has redefined to the word gospel to mean what he needs it to mean in order to maintain his doctrine. I've tried till i'm blue in the face. It's hopeless.

Yet you refused to answer basic questions... but you took the time to actually say "I'm not answering any questions."

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm not talking about the doctrine. I'm talking about the idea, the concept, of recognizing different eras in history where God did different things.

Dividing up history in the correct places makes it easier to understand the relevant portions of the piece you're trying to study.

For example, if you want to learn about WW2, you don't start in 1917 near the end of WW1, nor would you start halfway through 1942, but you might appropriately start (if you want to get an idea of the events leading up to WW2) after WW1 ended in 1918. This is rightly dividing.

In the same way, if you want to learn about different periods in the Bible you don't start halfway into Matthew or 50 chapters into Psalms, you start by getting an overview of the Bible, seeing where everything is, and then you can focus on certain portions by discerning where those portions begin and end.

If you only mean that you are arranging history into sections for your own benefit then we have no disagreement on that principle. But that's not what this is actually about, is it?

As far as Mid-Acts Dispensationalism goes, I don't know of any scripture that is even twisted to say something other than what it plainly says, let alone rejected.

Perhaps instead of making accusations like that without any supporting evidence, you should provide examples of scripture that you think that dispensationalists (specifically, MADs) reject because they supposedly "contradict the core concepts).

DIFFERENT means of salvation for one person against another. That's a teaching of "dispensationism" that contradicts a core concept of scripture.

 

[Rosenritter]

No. It was conditional upon recognizing Him as Messiah.

That is a commonly believed lie. No one knew nor expected Him to rise from the dead, not even the disciples, until it had happened. So no one had faith in the fact of His resurrection before it happened, nor was it expected of them. It is part of the mystery gospel of grace TODAY but it was not required as a component of faith prior to the cross nor for a good stretch afterwards into the book of Acts. The fact that He DID rise again was stated plainly but that's different from how Paul preached it.

But clearly you listen to nothing people try to tell you.

So the thief on the cross believed in a powerless Messiah that was about to die as a failed Messiah? Sorry, your explanation is somewhat lacking. And contradicted by the thief's own words, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom."

 

[Rosenritter]

The disciples did indeed come to understand the prophetic significance of His rising again.

But it happened AFTER He rose and EXPLAINED IT TO THEM.

How can we know that?

Luke 24:25-27

That means they did not - could not - have had faith in the fact of His resurrection. They were ignorant of it until AFTER the fact. So it could not have been preached as an article of faith.

But Paul's good news requires faith in His resurrection.

That can only mean that the good news of the Kingdom was NOT the same good news revealed through Paul.

You seem to have the idea that "certain articles of faith" (knowledge) is what equals salvation... whereas I am saying that salvation is by faith in our Creator. So maybe you might show me how you would answer this question then:

Hebrews 11:24-26 KJV
(24) By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
(25) Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
(26) Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

Moses was born (and died) many years before Christ, yet he is said to have esteemed the reproach of Christ greater ... than the treasures of Egypt and in fact the prophecy of "a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me" came after he had rejected Egypt.

Deuteronomy 18:15 KJV
(15) The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Yet Moses is said to have had faith in Christ. So if Moses had faith in Christ, how can you say one needs explicit understanding of all these little details and that faith in our Lord (God) is not the same as faith in our Lord (Jesus?) I don't know how you have divided up your idea of "dispensations" but I bet that there are at least a few between Moses and Jesus.

 

[Rosenritter]

Jesus says it does.
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Did getting wet have anything to do with Naaman being cleansed?

Oh, I know this one! (Raises hand) Naaman wasn't cured by the water, but God cured Naaman in response to his faith ... even specifically the manifest evidence of his faith.

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm not talking about the doctrine. I'm talking about the idea, the concept, of recognizing different eras in history where God did different things.

Dividing up history in the correct places makes it easier to understand the relevant portions of the piece you're trying to study.

For example, if you want to learn about WW2, you don't start in 1917 near the end of WW1, nor would you start halfway through 1942, but you might appropriately start (if you want to get an idea of the events leading up to WW2) after WW1 ended in 1918. This is rightly dividing.

In the same way, if you want to learn about different periods in the Bible you don't start halfway into Matthew or 50 chapters into Psalms, you start by getting an overview of the Bible, seeing where everything is, and then you can focus on certain portions by discerning where those portions begin and end.

By that definition everyone is a Dispensationalist.

 

[turbosixx]

Oh, I know this one! (Raises hand) Naaman wasn't cured by the water, but God cured Naaman in response to his faith ... even specifically the manifest evidence of his faith.

It's obvious the water did not do the curing but could he have been cleansed without dipping in the water as told?


We are told Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved

 

[Rosenritter]

It's obvious the water did not do the curing but could he have been cleansed without dipping in the water as told?

We are told Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved

Of course he could have been cleansed without his washing (God did the curing, and he does not actually need the water) but the answer is that grace is bestowed in response to faith and belief, not upon the rebellious or the disobedient. The washing of that water was the decision for faith and belief.

Could we be saved without belief? God could bestow eternal life upon anyone and everyone (he does not actually need belief) but the answer is that grace is not bestowed in response to faith and belief, not upon the rebellious or the disobedient.

 

[turbosixx]

Of course he could have been cleansed without his washing (God did the curing, and he does not actually need the water) but the answer is that grace is bestowed in response to faith and belief, not upon the rebellious or the disobedient. The washing of that water was the decision for faith and belief.

True. I guess I misunderstood your point. Just so we're on the same page. God told him how to be cleansed by dipping 7 times. Since he was obedient to what God had instructed, God cleansed him.

Could we be saved without belief? God could bestow eternal life upon anyone and everyone (he does not actually need belief) but the answer is that grace is not bestowed in response to faith and belief, not upon the rebellious or the disobedient.

Did you intend to say "grace is not bestowed in response to faith and belief"? I assume you didn't intend to add the "not".

My original point was, we need to get wet because that is what our Lord and Savoir told us to do if we want to be saved. The water doesn't save us but being obedient does.

 

[Rosenritter]

True. I guess I misunderstood your point. Just so we're on the same page. God told him how to be cleansed by dipping 7 times. Since he was obedient to what God had instructed, God cleansed him.

Did you intend to say "grace is not bestowed in response to faith and belief"? I assume you didn't intend to add the "not".

My original point was, we need to get wet because that is what our Lord and Savoir told us to do if we want to be saved. The water doesn't save us but being obedient does.

Yes, that "not" was accidental. I must have been reformatting my sentence structure and missed that. And I agree with you on your conclusion, that faith includes love and obedience. You cannot say you have faith in God while hating God, and willing disobedience to God is the antithesis of faith. A disobedient loveless faith isn't faith at all: a right faith is evidenced by works of faith, and those works of faith strengthen and perfect our faith.

"Practice makes perfect" and as such we must put faith and love and obedience into practice.

 

[Rosenritter]

True. I guess I misunderstood your point. Just so we're on the same page. God told him how to be cleansed by dipping 7 times. Since he was obedient to what God had instructed, God cleansed him.

Did you intend to say "grace is not bestowed in response to faith and belief"? I assume you didn't intend to add the "not".

My original point was, we need to get wet because that is what our Lord and Savoir told us to do if we want to be saved. The water doesn't save us but being obedient does.

Acts 8:27, 35--37 KJV
(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,
...
(35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
(36) 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?
(37) 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.

I have to wonder why any Christian on this forum would denigrate the call to baptism as merely "getting wet." We have this example of the response to faith by the Ethiopian and as such even a reasoning that "baptism is only for the Jews" cannot be said to "hold water" in this regard. Jesus himself (our God) commanded the disciples to baptize the nations (not one nation of Judah) and the symbolism is equally applicable to any one who would place themselves in Christ.

 

[steko]

Acts 8:27, 35--37 KJV
(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,
...
(35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
(36) 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?
(37) 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.

I have to wonder why any Christian on this forum would denigrate the call to baptism as merely "getting wet." We have this example of the response to faith by the Ethiopian and as such even a reasoning that "baptism is only for the Jews" cannot be said to "hold water" in this regard. Jesus himself (our God) commanded the disciples to baptize the nations (not one nation of Judah) and the symbolism is equally applicable to any one who would place themselves in Christ.

Why do you automatically assume that the Ethiopian eunuch was a non-Jew?

Peter said that the first gentiles to hear the gospel and believe, heard it from his mouth... Acts 10 and Acts 15.

Take note of the Ethiopian's confession. Is there anything lacking from what is considered to be a necessary confession unto salvation for us today?

 

[glorydaz]

Forgive me if I don't always answer your posts, you've been on ignore for a while. If you are willing to stop and define a few words you might find yourself in agreement (at least until you realize what happened and get upset?)

I'm way too old to get upset over I read on the internet.

So, the sooner you understand that, the sooner we can move on.

 

[glorydaz]

Yet you refused to answer basic questions... but you took the time to actually say "I'm not answering any questions."

Forgive me if I don't always answer your posts, you've been on ignore for a while. If....

Yet you took the time to offer me an "If". If I play by your rules, you mean?

:think:

 

[glorydaz]

The gospel is God's message of salvation for men. You are confusing presentation of the gospel and aspects of the gospel for the gospel itself. Fir example, let's take a familiar beast that we know as "elephant." If an elephant came into the room, would you say you have "seen" the elephant? You probably would, yet you wouldn't have seen the same details as someone who was directly in front of or on the other side of the elephant.

The left side of the elephant and the right side of the elephant aren't two different elephants. It's one elephant, and when the deaf man and the blind man both "see" (or hear) the same elephant. I think this is a fairly accurate summary of what I've seen presented as "evidence" of this "two gospels" doctrine as of late... that, coupled with a false idea that salvation is accomplished by works of the law, at least for some people.

You see the preaching of the kingdom on earth as the same elephant as the kingdom in heaven?

Hmmmm.....

 

[turbosixx]

I have to wonder why any Christian on this forum would denigrate the call to baptism as merely "getting wet." We have this example of the response to faith by the Ethiopian and as such even a reasoning that "baptism is only for the Jews" cannot be said to "hold water" in this regard. Jesus himself (our God) commanded the disciples to baptize the nations (not one nation of Judah) and the symbolism is equally applicable to any one who would place themselves in Christ.

Here is my theory on that. Jesus said, Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved
Baptism completes the conversion of a Christian so Satan is going to do his best to prevent that. Just like the forbidden fruit. Simple law, eat and you will die but Satan added one simple word, "NOT".

I believe he has done the same with baptism. So this is what people believe today, whoever believes and is NOT baptized will be saved.