Saved Without Knowing the Resurrection?

[JD731]

Well, we can agree that the last sentence of your post is entirely correct.

Amen! Probably the last two sentences are true.

The resurrection isn't the only thing that one must believe. There are several things that are necessary. They comprise what I refer to as the "Gospel Proper", meaning that they comprise those doctrines which comprise the barest minimum of what one must believe in order to be counted as one who has believed the gospel and is therefore saved. They are as follows....

I think the scriptures refers to these things that must be believed to be saved simply as "the faith." This phrase is in 42 verses throughout the NT beginning in Acts and ending in the revelation and is a reference to the fundamentals of the faith of Jesus Christ.

2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

[CJP69]

Amen! Probably the last two sentences are true.



I think the scriptures refers to these things that must be believed to be saved simply as "the faith." This phrase is in 42 verses throughout the NT beginning in Acts and ending in the revelation and is a reference to the fundamentals of the faith of Jesus Christ.

2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

"The faith" I think refers to the whole of Christianity and comprises very much more than the relatively small list of doctrines that make up what I'm calling the "Gospel Proper".

 

[JD731]

"The faith" I think refers to the whole of Christianity and comprises very much more than the relatively small list of doctrines that make up what I'm calling the "Gospel Proper".

possibly so, and a good biblical case could probably be made for that position. It certainly is not a divisive argument. But consider that the doctrine of the person and work of Jesus Christ is identified as the salvation doctrines that one must get right to be saved,


2 John 1:9-11
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.


10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

 

[John of Japan]

You've made no case to rest. "A case" presumes you've made an argument, not merely made a claim. A claim that doesn't even make sense, by the way.

How is it that Jesus is supposed to rise from the dead if He wasn't dead?

Just what is it that you think Matthew 12:40 means other than that Jesus died and was in the grave (i.e. "buried") for three days?

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.​

I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you actually read the whole thread, and paid attention to the OP? Of course Jesus died, was buried, rose again, and was seen by over 500 witnesses. I find it extremely strange that you would intimate that I don't accept that. But the thread is about the question asked me by a student.

Are you saying that the Gospel must include the burial and witnesses? I'm really not sure if that is what you are saying. I don't even know who you are. You are new to the BB and this is the first time we've interacted.

To include the burial and the witnessing as part of the Gospel is to include the actions of men (burial and witnessing) as part of the Gospel, which was accomplished by Christ (death for sin, resurrection). The Gospel cannot be 50% human action without taking away from the glory of God.

 

[CJP69]

possibly so, and a good biblical case could probably be made for that position. It certainly is not a divisive argument. But consider that the doctrine of the person and work of Jesus Christ is identified as the salvation doctrines that one must get right to be saved,


2 John 1:9-11
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.


10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

John was an apostle to Israel, not the body of Christ. His ministry and therefore his epistles where written to believing Jews who were saved during the previous dispensation, about the Kingdom gospel that was preached by Jesus, Peter, James, et al. per their agreement with Paul as recording in Galatians 2...

Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. ​

 

[CJP69]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you actually read the whole thread, and paid attention to the OP?

No, I haven't. It is possible that I missed something. Care to point out a post where you make an actual argument?

Of course Jesus died, was buried, rose again, and was seen by over 500 witnesses. I find it extremely strange that you would intimate that I don't accept that. But the thread is about the question asked me by a student.

It wasn't my intention to imply that you don't believe it but only that your position, as I understand it, makes no sense.

Are you saying that the Gospel must include the burial and witnesses?

I have clearly laid out explicitly what must be included in one's beliefs in order to be saved. Perhaps you missed it. I'm happy to repeat it for your consideration and comment....

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore 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. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior (i.e. acknowledge the above stated truths)) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

While I tried to be a concise as possible, I found that it made for easier reading and comprehension if I wrote it in such a way that several of the bullet point statements comprise more than one single doctrine within them. Otherwise, the list got rather long and was harder to follow the logic of them.

I am fully persuaded that a rejection of any one, or any part of one, of the above stated doctrines is a rejection of the gospel and is sufficient to prove that one is not saved.

I'm really not sure if that is what you are saying. I don't even know who you are. You are new to the BB and this is the first time we've interacted.

Yes, it seems I've jumped the gun a bit. Perhaps you could just tell me what it is you're getting at so that I can understand without having to read the entire thread. Point me to a post or two that gets me up to speed or just reiterate it because I can't understand why anyone who believes that Jesus died for their sin, spent three days in the grave and then rose from the dead could think that these facts are not a necessary part of the gospel message, even if one of them is merely implied.

To include the burial and the witnessing as part of the Gospel is to include the actions of men (burial and witnessing) as part of the Gospel, which was accomplished by Christ (death for sin, resurrection). The Gospel cannot be 50% human action without taking away from the glory of God.

That's a meaningless thing to say. Let God worry about His own glory and simply present the gospel a written (by men) in the scriptures.

Are you really making a big deal about saying that the burial of Jesus isn't part of the gospel?

If so, I wasn't misunderstanding you at all and I ask again, what exactly is it that someone is supposed to believe that Jesus resurrected from if not the grave? I mean there was a stone rolled in front of the grave opening that was sealed with a Roman seal and guarded so what in the world was that if it wasn't a burial? Why would anyone not just know intuitively that a man who rose from the dead had been buried? It's not exactly typical for someone to just lie around dead on the street for three days. Right?

So what am I missing here? This just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

 

[JD731]

1) John was an apostle to Israel, not the body of Christ.
2) His ministry and therefore his epistles where written to believing Jews who were saved during the previous dispensation, about the Kingdom gospel that was preached by Jesus, Peter, James, et al. per their agreement with Paul as recording in Galatians 2...

3)
Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. ​

Just so ones can understand I am still on the subject of the necessity of the preaching of the resurrection for salvation, I am defending my previous comments per 2 John 1.

I think, CJP69, that we have more with which we agree than not, so I will just make a couple observations.

Concerning point 1 above;

John was unique among the apostles in this way. He wrote 5 of the New Testament letters.
John - 1) Information under the dispensation of Law -past tense - Things that were - The ministry of Jesus
1st, 2nd, 3rd John - 2) Information under the dispensation of grace - present tense -Things that are - The churches
Revelation of Jesus Christ - 3) Information under the dispensation of the "fullness of times") - future tense - Things that shall be hereafter.- The day of the LORD

John was the only apostle with this distinction. All his works were written after Israel lost her national identity and her people were dispersed into the nations in 70 AD when the temple, the seat of God's government, was destroyed, and they were separated (dead) from God and came under the control of gentiles laws.

John was an eye witness of the events of three distinct dispensations and the eternal state..

Concerning point #2 above;

While I will agree that the 3 letters John wrote about this dispensation was instruction for his own people, it was not as an apostle, but as a father. He did not use the word Israel in any of those letters. In fact, John only used the word Israel 7 times total. Four times he used the word in his gospel account and 3 times in the Revelation. It is fitting that he did not use the word in his three epistles because the apostolic era ended with the dispersion of the nation Israel and John seems to be the only one of the 12 left alive from that point in history. The apostles, the band of 12, were ministers to Israel, or as God put it in a few places in scripture, to the "creature." Israel is now dead and buried and awaiting resurrection, in John's day. Time is not progressing for dead entities in the grave. God almost always divides his number for complete things into 3+4 = 7, or 4+3=7. this is easily evident in scripture if you are looking for it.

Concerning Point #3
Ga 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

These are wonderful and necessary scriptures for our understanding but they do not teach two different gospels or that there existed one gospel for the Jews and another for the gentiles. Verse 9 defines what is meant and it is Paul and Barnabas who will be taking the gospel to gentiles while the focus of the ministry of the twelve would be to the circumcision, which of course, was a broader application than just Jews.

It was Peter who "opened the door of faith" to the gentiles in 40 AD and the first gentile was saved by hearing the gospel of Christ that he preached to them. We are given the essence of the sermon in Acts 10 and the resurrection is in it. Read Acts 14:27 and context here.

Ac 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: he is Lord of all:
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people (of Israel), and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Peter had to overcome some Jewish ceremonial traditions (dispensational rules) before he could preach to gentiles and he had to be taught by Christ himself that salvation is provided to all on the conditions of faith in certain things pertaining to himself and contained concisely in the package called "the gospel," not the least of which is his resurrection from the dead.

 

[Van]

What is the difference between the revealed content of the gospel, and what people believed as credited by God?

Fundamentally, the idea of saying you must believe in "X, Y, and Z" to be saved is unstudied legalistic nonsense. God must credit your faith, as He knows your heart, and your commitment to follow God and your love of God are essential. If we do not believe in God, or believe God rewards those who seek Him, we certainly do not fit scripture's stated requirements. Further, if we do not believe Jesus performed His miracles by the power of God, that seems to fall short of God's required beliefs established after the resurrection. In summary, we must believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
​

Does anyone know precisely what God requires in order to credit someone's faith as righteousness? Nope.

For example, before the prophecy of the virgin birth, did the OT saints believe in Christ's virgin birth? Nope

Now, that the gospel of Christ has been revealed, we should be as concerned with the needed deeply rooted conviction as with the intellectual content of our faith. We must commit to Christ as our Lord, as well as our Savior.

 

[CJP69]

Just so ones can understand I am still on the subject of the necessity of the preaching of the resurrection for salvation, I am defending my previous comments per 2 John 1.

I think, CJP69, that we have more with which we agree than not, so I will just make a couple observations.

Concerning point 1 above;

John was unique among the apostles in this way. He wrote 5 of the New Testament letters.
John - 1) Information under the dispensation of Law -past tense - Things that were - The ministry of Jesus
1st, 2nd, 3rd John - 2) Information under the dispensation of grace - present tense -Things that are - The churches
Revelation of Jesus Christ - 3) Information under the dispensation of the "fullness of times") - future tense - Things that shall be hereafter.- The day of the LORD

John was the only apostle with this distinction. All his works were written after Israel lost her national identity and her people were dispersed into the nations in 70 AD when the temple, the seat of God's government, was destroyed, and they were separated (dead) from God and came under the control of gentiles laws.

John was an eye witness of the events of three distinct dispensations and the eternal state..

Concerning point #2 above;

While I will agree that the 3 letters John wrote about this dispensation was instruction for his own people, it was not as an apostle, but as a father. He did not use the word Israel in any of those letters. In fact, John only used the word Israel 7 times total. Four times he used the word in his gospel account and 3 times in the Revelation. It is fitting that he did not use the word in his three epistles because the apostolic era ended with the dispersion of the nation Israel and John seems to be the only one of the 12 left alive from that point in history. The apostles, the band of 12, were ministers to Israel, or as God put it in a few places in scripture, to the "creature." Israel is now dead and buried and awaiting resurrection, in John's day. Time is not progressing for dead entities in the grave. God almost always divides his number for complete things into 3+4 = 7, or 4+3=7. this is easily evident in scripture if you are looking for it.

Concerning Point #3
Ga 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

These are wonderful and necessary scriptures for our understanding but they do not teach two different gospels or that there existed one gospel for the Jews and another for the gentiles. Verse 9 defines what is meant and it is Paul and Barnabas who will be taking the gospel to gentiles while the focus of the ministry of the twelve would be to the circumcision, which of course, was a broader application than just Jews.

It was Peter who "opened the door of faith" to the gentiles in 40 AD and the first gentile was saved by hearing the gospel of Christ that he preached to them. We are given the essence of the sermon in Acts 10 and the resurrection is in it. Read Acts 14:27 and context here.

Ac 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: he is Lord of all:
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people (of Israel), and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Peter had to overcome some Jewish ceremonial traditions (dispensational rules) before he could preach to gentiles and he had to be taught by Christ himself that salvation is provided to all on the conditions of faith in certain things pertaining to himself and contained concisely in the package called "the gospel," not the least of which is his resurrection from the dead.

I agree that there is likely more that we agree on than disagree but I disagree with almost everything you said in this post. If Paul's gospel was the same as that of the Twelve, there was no reason for his ministry to ever exist in the first place. God had all the Apostles He needed if the goal was to spread the gospel message that He had spent three years training the twelve to preach. There was simply no reason for a thirteenth apostle, who was directed, by divine revelation, to go and explain his gospel to the twelve, unless something had dramatically changed, which of course was the case.

Having said that, I have found, through long experience, that this is one debate that it is almost always fruitless to engage in on an internet debate forum. It's just too much of a paradigm shift. It is a complex subject that basically requires a slow approach where the arguments are developed a single step at a time and where one is asked to almost start from scratch in their approach to their understanding of the bible. These short format debate forums just aren't conducive to that sort of thing.

 

[John of Japan]

No, I haven't. It is possible that I missed something. Care to point out a post where you make an actual argument?


It wasn't my intention to imply that you don't believe it but only that your position, as I understand it, makes no sense.


I have clearly laid out explicitly what must be included in one's beliefs in order to be saved. Perhaps you missed it. I'm happy to repeat it for your consideration and comment....

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore 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. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior (i.e. acknowledge the above stated truths)) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

While I tried to be a concise as possible, I found that it made for easier reading and comprehension if I wrote it in such a way that several of the bullet point statements comprise more than one single doctrine within them. Otherwise, the list got rather long and was harder to follow the logic of them.

I am fully persuaded that a rejection of any one, or any part of one, of the above stated doctrines is a rejection of the gospel and is sufficient to prove that one is not saved.


Yes, it seems I've jumped the gun a bit. Perhaps you could just tell me what it is you're getting at so that I can understand without having to read the entire thread. Point me to a post or two that gets me up to speed or just reiterate it because I can't understand why anyone who believes that Jesus died for their sin, spent three days in the grave and then rose from the dead could think that these facts are not a necessary part of the gospel message, even if one of them is merely implied.


That's a meaningless thing to say. Let God worry about His own glory and simply present the gospel a written (by men) in the scriptures.

Are you really making a big deal about saying that the burial of Jesus isn't part of the gospel?

If so, I wasn't misunderstanding you at all and I ask again, what exactly is it that someone is supposed to believe that Jesus resurrected from if not the grave? I mean there was a stone rolled in front of the grave opening that was sealed with a Roman seal and guarded so what in the world was that if it wasn't a burial? Why would anyone not just know intuitively that a man who rose from the dead had been buried? It's not exactly typical for someone to just lie around dead on the street for three days. Right?

So what am I missing here? This just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

The thread is about the Gospel and what is necessary in proclaiming it. In particular, if you go back and read the Opening Post (OP) I quote one of my Bible college students and ask what others would answer. I don't see your list of things one must believe to be answering the OP.

As for me stating my position, I've done that a number of times in the thread. To be clear, in evangelism it is necessary to proclaim the Gospel that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. One must not leave out the resurrection.

Have to run. We're practicing for our church's evangelistic version of Dickens' Christmas Carol.

 

[John of Japan]

\
That's a meaningless thing to say. Let God worry about His own glory and simply present the gospel a written (by men) in the scriptures.
...snip
So what am I missing here? This just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

This shows me you never read the thread. You jumped in at the very end and said your piece without knowing what went on. My mistake was thinking you had actually read the thread and were responding to the discussion I had with another

We discussed whether or not in 1 Cor. 15 the burial and witnesses were a necessary part of the Gospel. My position is that the burial proves the death of Christ, and the witnesses prove the resurrection.

No offense, but It's actually kind of rude, in my opinion, to jump in after 9 pages of a thread, not having read the OP (apparently) and not responding to the OP, but rather throwing an opinion out there that is unconnected with the OP.

Also, on a discussion forum like this, there is the danger of sidetracking or derailing the thread if you go off on your own without knowing the OP. The author of the OP (me in this case) has the right to hold people to the subject of the OP.

 

[JD731]

I agree that there is likely more that we agree on than disagree but I disagree with almost everything you said in this post. If Paul's gospel was the same as that of the Twelve, there was no reason for his ministry to ever exist in the first place. God had all the Apostles He needed if the goal was to spread the gospel message that He had spent three years training the twelve to preach. There was simply no reason for a thirteenth apostle, who was directed, by divine revelation, to go and explain his gospel to the twelve, unless something had dramatically changed, which of course was the case.

I love exchanges with dispensational thinkers because there is an application of logic and reason involved and one can learn and expand his understanding often times. Your logic here assumes there is a different gospel because a different apostle was added at a later date than the 12. However there is just one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and he is the only way for any man to get to the Father, he says in John 14, no matter who he is, Jew or gentile.

Having said that, I have found, through long experience, that this is one debate that it is almost always fruitless to engage in on an internet debate forum. It's just too much of a paradigm shift. It is a complex subject that basically requires a slow approach where the arguments are developed a single step at a time and where one is asked to almost start from scratch in their approach to their understanding of the bible. These short format debate forums just aren't conducive to that sort of thing.

I certainly agree with this paragraph for the simple reason that dispensationalists are varied in their views. One very nice gentleman on another thread said he is an Acts 28 dispensationalist. I really do not know what that means because I do not study the different views of dispensationalism but have developed my own by trying to compare scripture with scripture and being very careful to believe the words in what I have confirmed to my self as the very words God has chosen to reveal himself and his ways, the KJV. How can two walk together except they be agreed?

I will just say here that no one was commissioned to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and confirm their words with 5 different sign gifts except the 12 apostles and 70 prophets. Theirs was a national message and was rejected by the national rulers. As I mentioned earlier the gospel of Jesus Christ required eye witness accounts of his ministry to Israel and his death, burial, and resurrection from the dead. Only these men would preach this gospel to Israel and they would be rejected at the seat of government, the temple in Jerusalem, and some of them killed after a seven year campaign. It would be after this that God would save Saul (Paul) in 37/38 AD and give him the revelation of the gentile church and commission him in Acts 13:2 as apostle to the gentiles.

Everything that has happened in this age was revealed in parables by Jesus Christ in the gospels and explained in the epistles. Because Israel would not receive the New Covenant in the blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, he invited those who were not bidden to the marriage supper (the gentiles) to come in individually so his house may be full. For that contingency, he would need an apostle who had the same gifts and calling as the 12 apostles and who would be no less in his authority than they. The sign gifts he exercised among the gentiles confirmed his apostleship to the 12. That is what sign gifts are for.

2Co 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

As one can see above, the resurrection is always a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

That is all I have for this thread. I just wanted to offer my opinion on whether the resurrection must be a part of the gospel in the salvation plan of God.

 

[CJP69]

The thread is about the Gospel and what is necessary in proclaiming it. In particular, if you go back and read the Opening Post (OP) I quote one of my Bible college students and ask what others would answer. I don't see your list of things one must believe to be answering the OP.

As for me stating my position, I've done that a number of times in the thread. To be clear, in evangelism it is necessary to proclaim the Gospel that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. One must not leave out the resurrection.

Have to run. We're practicing for our church's evangelistic version of Dickens' Christmas Carol.

So, the whole disagreement is about whether someone has to specifically mention the burial of Jesus when presenting the gospel? Talk about straining out gnats. Wow!

I mean, the thought occurred to me in passing, in that this is what it sounded to me like the disagreement was about, but I just let it go thinking that can't actually be what these people are arguing about.

My apologies for think you were arguing about some else.

 

[John of Japan]

So, the whole disagreement is about whether someone has to specifically mention the burial of Jesus when presenting the gospel? Talk about straining out gnats. Wow!

I mean, the thought occurred to me in passing, in that this is what it sounded to me like the disagreement was about, but I just let it go thinking that can't actually be what these people are arguing about.

My apologies for think you were arguing about some else.

It was a pretty hefty sidetrack. My opponent is very strong in his opinion that the burial and witnesses absolutely must be part of the Gospel. And he let me know my faults in no uncertain terms! I felt like a genuine heretic for a while there!

 

[CJP69]

I love exchanges with dispensational thinkers because there is an application of logic and reason involved and one can learn and expand his understanding often times. Your logic here assumes there is a different gospel because a different apostle was added at a later date than the 12. However there is just one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and he is the only way for any man to get to the Father, he says in John 14, no matter who he is, Jew or gentile.

No, this is a dramatic over simplification to the point of being flatly incorrect.

The gospel has changed several times throughout history, Paul's Apostleship is simply consistent with the fact that it changed during the Acts period. Paul's gospel is so different, in fact, that without the book of Acts, no one would accept any of Paul's epistles as scripture and we'd all be doing Christianity more or less as Messianic Jews.

I certainly agree with this paragraph for the simple reason that dispensationalists are varied in their views. One very nice gentleman on another thread said he is an Acts 28 dispensationalist. I really do not know what that means because I do not study the different views of dispensationalism but have developed my own by trying to compare scripture with scripture and being very careful to believe the words in what I have confirmed to my self as the very words God has chosen to reveal himself and his ways, the KJV. How can two walk together except they be agreed?

I will just say here that no one was commissioned to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and confirm their words with 5 different sign gifts except the 12 apostles and 70 prophets. Theirs was a national message and was rejected by the national rulers. As I mentioned earlier the gospel of Jesus Christ required eye witness accounts of his ministry to Israel and his death, burial, and resurrection from the dead. Only these men would preach this gospel to Israel and they would be rejected at the seat of government, the temple in Jerusalem, and some of them killed after a seven year campaign. It would be after this that God would save Saul (Paul) in 37/38 AD and give him the revelation of the gentile church and commission him in Acts 13:2 as apostle to the gentiles.

Everything that has happened in this age was revealed in parables by Jesus Christ in the gospels and explained in the epistles. Because Israel would not receive the New Covenant in the blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, he invited those who were not bidden to the marriage supper (the gentiles) to come in individually so his house may be full. For that contingency, he would need an apostle who had the same gifts and calling as the 12 apostles and who would be no less in his authority than they. The sign gifts he exercised among the gentiles confirmed his apostleship to the 12. That is what sign gifts are for.

2Co 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

As one can see above, the resurrection is always a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

That is all I have for this thread. I just wanted to offer my opinion on whether the resurrection must be a part of the gospel in the salvation plan of God.

Its interesting to read your posts because I can see that you're only inches away from being a dispensationalists yourself and yet I can also see that all the elephants of world could not at once pull you one inch closer to it than you already are.

Being an "Acts 28 Dispensationalists" merely means that you believe that the dispensation of Grace started at the close of the Acts period. This is very much a minority view and there are several problems with this position, in my opinion. The vast majority of dispensationalists are "Acts 2 Dispensationalists" and believe that the current dispensation started at Pentecost. For the record, I am what is commonly referred to as an "Act 9 Dispensationalist" or a "Mid-Acts Dispensationalists". I am fully persuaded that the dispensation of grace began with the conversion of Paul in Acts 9, which happens immediately after the official rejection of Jesus as the Messiah by the governing officials of Israel and the subsequent stoning of Stephen.

There are several books that have been written that do a good job of making the case but there is one in particular that does easily the best job of really solidly establishing the doctrine in all its particulars. The first chapter of which can be read for free at the following link....

The Plot by Bob Enyart

You should check it out!

 

[JD731]

No, this is a dramatic over simplification to the point of being flatly incorrect.

The gospel has changed several times throughout history, Paul's Apostleship is simply consistent with the fact that it changed during the Acts period. Paul's gospel is so different, in fact, that without the book of Acts, no one would accept any of Paul's epistles as scripture and we'd all be doing Christianity more or less as Messianic Jews.

There is only one gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the gospel of salvation. The gospel simply means "good news, glad tidings." Fot instance the new testament says the gospel was preached to Abraham. That does not mean the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached to him, because his gospel requires his name. It was glad tidings that he and Sarah was to have a child in their old age as promised in the covenant we now know as the Abrahamic covenant, without which no one would be saved.

This age of gentile salvation is the fulfillment of the promise that all nations will be saved through this seed of Abraham and the very first line in the canon that was addressed to gentiles, Romans, was not the gospel of Jesus Christ but the "gospel of God." This is the theme of the 13 letters of the apostle Paul to the gentiles. That line, in a 7 verse sentence, probably the longest in the Bible, includes the gospel of Jesus Christ and could not be realized without it.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated (from the other apostles) unto the gospel of God,

Here is the nutshell definition of the gospel of God;

Ro 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you (gentiles) according to my gospel, (the gospel of the grace of God) and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

The good news is not that the gospel of Christ is different for gentiles but that gentiles are made "partakers" of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant in Christ, which is the forgiveness of sins in his blood and the gift of eternal life, which is his indwelling spirit, and sonship.

Ro 15:25 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

Paul calls this gospel the gospel of God 7 times and 3 times he calls it my gospel (if I remember correctly) for a total of 10 times, always a gentile number.

The gospel of God is the gospel of his grace and he has now opened the door of faith to us gentiles and sent our own apostle to teach us how to be acceptable to God. It is what Paul said;

Rom 15:15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.
18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

(he did not speak of the tithe or fasting, etc. ha)

Its interesting to read your posts because I can see that you're only inches away from being a dispensationalists yourself and yet I can also see that all the elephants of world could not at once pull you one inch closer to it than you already are.

I am puzzled that you think I am almost a dispensationalist, not offended, just puzzled. I am full bore dispensationalist, because God created them. ( God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (aions = ages = worlds); Heb 1:1-2)

The dispensation began when the rules changed for Israel. He took away the first covenant that he might establish the second.

Being an "Acts 28 Dispensationalists" merely means that you believe that the dispensation of Grace started at the close of the Acts period. This is very much a minority view and there are several problems with this position, in my opinion. The vast majority of dispensationalists are "Acts 2 Dispensationalists" and believe that the current dispensation started at Pentecost. For the record, I am what is commonly referred to as an "Act 9 Dispensationalist" or a "Mid-Acts Dispensationalists". I am fully persuaded that the dispensation of grace began with the conversion of Paul in Acts 9, which happens immediately after the official rejection of Jesus as the Messiah by the governing officials of Israel and the subsequent stoning of Stephen.

Thanks for that. The explanation makes sense.

There are several books that have been written that do a good job of making the case but there is one in particular that does easily the best job of really solidly establishing the doctrine in all its particulars. The first chapter of which can be read for free at the following link....

The Plot by Bob Enyart

You should check it out!

I will check it out.

 

[CJP69]

I am puzzled that you think I am almost a dispensationalist, not offended, just puzzled. I am full bore dispensationalist, because God created them. ( God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (aions = ages = worlds); Heb 1:1-2)

Well, it seems to me that "full bore" might be over stating it, although I understand why you'd not think so. It seems that if you were actually a "full bore dispensationalists" that you'd not try to argue that there's only one gospel. That's what the covenant theologians preach, not dispensationalists (generally speaking).

The dispensation began when the rules changed for Israel. He took away the first covenant that he might establish the second.

We are not part of the second covenant, which is all about Israel. We are not Israel. We are not Israel's replacement nor do any of the promises made to Israel apply to the Body of Christ. There is overlap when it comes to the covenants made with Abraham because God intentionally made him the father of both groups, Israel and the Body, but when it comes to Israel in particular, their covenants are conditional, legalistic covenants that are antithetical to a dispensation gospel that is based entirely on grace alone, apart from works.

Thanks for that. The explanation makes sense.

I will check it out.

Let me know what you think of the foundation the author has laid in that first chapter.

 

[JD731]

Well, it seems to me that "full bore" might be over stating it, although I understand why you'd not think so. It seems that if you were actually a "full bore dispensationalists" that you'd not try to argue that there's only one gospel. That's what the covenant theologians preach, not dispensationalists (generally speaking).

It seems you did not read my comments with understanding. That may be my fault but I think I mentioned at least three "gospels."

Galatians 3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee (in Abraham' family) shall all nations be blessed.
This verse identifies the gospel (good news, glad tidings) as being that God would justify the nations through one of Abraham's family and on the principle of faith.
Galatians 3:24-26
24 Wherefore the law was our (Jews in context) schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.(gentiles were never under the Law as an operative principle of divine dealing)
26 For ye (gentiles) are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

This requires a dispensation change for Israel.

Read the context with reason and logic and understand that the Abrahamic covenant promise of salvation to all is the subject under discussion. He has made the point that the law, which could save no one, was added as a temporary addendum to the Abrahamic covenant for the purpose of discipline for Israel, but it did not disannul the eternal Abrahamic covenant. This promise in this covenant is the reason God must bring salvation to the gentiles through faith. The law is no longer the operative principle. It has been replaced by faith. It is written to Galatian gentile Christians who had been hoodwinked by Jewish law keepers into thinking they must keep portions of the law of Moses to be saved..

I must post this because it proves what I am saying;

Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after (the Abrahamic covenant promise), cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise (else you have earned it): but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The promise is the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, which is salvation. V14.

Gentiles are saved, not because God made a promise to us, but because he made a promise to Abraham concerning us.

1) We are not part of the second covenant, which is all about Israel. 2) We are not Israel. 3) We are not Israel's replacement 4) nor do any of the promises made to Israel apply to the Body of Christ. 5) There is overlap when it comes to the covenants made with Abraham because God intentionally made him the father of both groups, Israel and the Body, 6) but when it comes to Israel in particular, their covenants are conditional, 7) legalistic covenants that are antithetical to a dispensation gospel that is based entirely on grace alone, apart from works.

1) We are not part of the second covenant, which is all about Israel. - We, the church with a Jewish foundation Ep 2:20, are partakers of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant. I showed that to be true in Rom 15.

2) We are not Israel. - I would be the last man to ever make such a claim that the church is Israel.

3) We are not Israel's replacement - Nothing could be more true.

4) nor do any of the promises made to Israel apply to the Body of Christ. - You have not given enough thought to this proclamation. Think about this the next time you take communion. The promise of blessing to the nations come through the Abrahamic covenant. This is the point of Ga 3.

5) There is overlap when it comes to the covenants made with Abraham because God intentionally made him the father of both groups, Israel and the Body, - Abraham is not he father of the church, he is the father of faith, at least that is the way I see it by looking through a glass darkly.

6) but when it comes to Israel in particular, their covenants are conditional, legalistic covenants that are antithetical to a dispensation gospel that is based entirely on grace alone, apart from works. - The only covenant that is conditional and temporary is the Mosaic Covenant. The Abrahamic, Ge 12, the Palestinian, Deut 30, the Davidic, 2 Sam 7-Ps 89, - the New Covenant are all unconditional covenants that requires God to complete and are eternal with those to whom they are made.

7) legalistic covenants that are antithetical to a dispensation gospel that is based entirely on grace alone, apart from works - If it were grace alone, then there would be no condition of faith. The truth is that salvation is by God's grace through the faith of the hearer who is in need of salvation from his sins. Faith in the gospel of Christ is the condition for men to be saved.




Let me know what you think of the foundation the author has laid in that first chapter.

I lack about 20 minutes being through it.

 

[Revmitchell]

The faith did not replace the law. There is no scripture that says this. Faith has always been the principle component. In fact faith first has always been the principle component in redemption.

 

[tyndale1946]

The faith did not replace the law. There is no scripture that says this. Faith has always been the principle component. In fact faith first has always been the principle component in redemption.

Romans 3: 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

I'll only buy that if its only the FAITH OF CHRIST!... Our faith is willy-nilly... Brother Glen