The "Gospel" for Today

[The Biblicist]

WRONG!

Let us look at the following verse again:

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (Jn.1:29).

The Greek word translated "taketh away" is in the "present tense."

According to the Greek experts "The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense" (Blue Letter Bible).

When John used the Greek word translated 'taketh away" he was referring to things taking place in "actual time," or the time when he used that word.

If the words "taketh away" refer to the Lord Jesus' work at the Cross, which at that time remained in the "future," then John certainly would not have used a word that speaks of "actual time."

When the Lord Jesus spoke about His "future" death here He certainly did not use the "present" tense:

"And they shall scourge [him], and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again" (Lk.18:33).

The Greek word translated "to death" is in the "future" tense and not the "present" tense. That is because at that time His death remained in the "future."

Therefore, if John was talking about an event which remained in the "future" in the following verse he would have used the "future" tense and not the 'present" tense:

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (Jn.1:29).

Now if I am wrong about what I said here then tell me EXACTLY what I said that is wrong and then tell me why it is wrong.

Thanks!

I never ever disputed your point!!!! I believe that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of "the lamb" of God Old Testament typology. I believe the cross fulfilled it.

However, that was never my point for quoting this text and YOU KNOW IT! I quoted this text to prove that the Old Testament sacrificial type "the lamb" of God was applied to Jesus Christ! -PERIOD! I quoted it to show that the gospel preaching in the Old Testament ANTICIPATED and LOOKED FORWARD to Christ coming and fulfilling the sacrificial "LAMB" that had been sacrificed since the garden of Eden. The gospel had been preached since Eden continued to be preached by "ALL THE PROPHETS" (Acts 10:43) until the final prophet came and no longer said Christ SHALL come but rather "the lamb of God" IS PRESENTLY COME - Get it?

Hence, Jesus did not bring the gospel with him but merely fulfilled the gospel which had been preached since Genesis and is clearly spelled out in types since Genesis by the sacrifice of a "lamb" and is clearly spelled out in reference to a predicted Messiah in Isaiah 53!!! Get it??????

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Did you understand the term "vicarious" when you were saved?

I certainly understood that Christ died for my sins and that is exactly what Ironside meant when he referred to the vicarious death on Calvary:

""All through those OT dispensations, the gospel was predicted, and when Jesus came, the gospel came with Him. When He died, when He was buried, and when He rose again, the gospel could be fully told out to a poor lost world. Observe, it says, 'that Christ died for our sins.' No man preaches the gospel, no matter what nice things he may say about Jesus, if he leaves out His vicarious death on Calvary's Cross" [emphasis added] (Ironside, God's Unspeakable Gift [London: Pickering & Inglis, 1908], Chapter 2).

The only thing you have to understand is that you are a sinner and Christ is the Savior from sin and trust in Him to save you from sin. Later you can become a theologion and continue to learn.

So you think that the Lord Jesus being the Savior from sin has nothing to do with the fact that "Christ died for our sins"?

1 Cor. 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

You do not understand what Paul meant when He said "according to the Scriptures." Let us look at the verse which follows:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor.15:3-4).

The OT Scriptures will be searched in vain for any testimony that the Messiah would be buried and then rise from the dead "the third day". What Paul is saying is that the evidence of these things can be found in the "types" of the OT but these truths were not openly revealed. It was not until the Lord Jesus said that "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Mt.12:40) that anyone understood that the Scriptures in regard to Jonas were a "type" of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. It was not until after the Cross that anyone understood that the OT sacrifices were a "type" of the Lord Jesus dying for our sins.

Adam Clarke wrote: "It is not said anywhere in the Scriptures, in express terms, that Christ should rise on the third day; but it is fully implied in His types, as in the case of Jonah, who came out of the belly of the fish on the third day" (Clarke, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, II, p.280).

If it was openly revealed that Christ was to die for our sins in the OT then why were those closest to the Lord Jesus, His Apostles, unaware that He must die until shortly before the Cross? The truth of the purpose of His death was indeed according to the OT Scriptures but it was only revealed in the "types."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I never ever disputed your point!!!!

Of course you did. Here are your own words:

Hebrew 4:2 destroys your tense argument

Acts 10:43 destroys your tense argument

1 Cor. 15:4-5 destroys your tense argument

Isaiah 53 as quoted and applied by Paul in Romans 10:14-16 destroys your tense argument

Acts 8:30-35 destroys your tense argument

You say that all of those verses "destroy" my tense argument.

But when I stated my "tense argument" and asked you to tell me exactly where I am in error you say that you never disputed my point.

 

[The Biblicist]

Of course you did. Here are your own words:

You say that all of those verses "destroy" my tense argument.

But when I stated my "tense argument" and asked you to tell me exactly where I am in error you say that you never disputed my point.

Because your "point" was NEVER my point. Because your "point" was never challenged by me. Because your "point" was never my purpose for quoting John 1:29! Do you even read my posts in full????????

My point for quoting John 1:29 was to point out the TYPE which is derived from Genesis from whence the sacrificial TYPE began! I NEVER denied the present tense application to Christ? You built that straw man argument out of your own imagination.

 

[The Biblicist]

I certainly understood that Christ died for my sins and that is exactly what Ironside meant when he referred to the vicarious death on Calvary:

""All through those OT dispensations, the gospel was predicted, and when Jesus came, the gospel came with Him. When He died, when He was buried, and when He rose again, the gospel could be fully told out to a poor lost world. Observe, it says, 'that Christ died for our sins.' No man preaches the gospel, no matter what nice things he may say about Jesus, if he leaves out His vicarious death on Calvary's Cross" [emphasis added] (Ironside, God's Unspeakable Gift [London: Pickering & Inglis, 1908], Chapter 2).

So you think that the Lord Jesus being the Savior from sin has nothing to do with the fact that "Christ died for our sins"?

It appears you don't read my posts in full OR you simply want to make up silly arguments????? Did you not read my quotation of Isaiah 53 and the repeated bold underlined vicarious words he PREACHED (Isa. 53:1 "our report" = Rom. 10:14-16)??????????????

How can you deny the Old testament prophets PREACHED (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2) a vicarious gospel???????????????????????????

The vicarious gospel was preached in TYPE and preached in word by the "all the prophets" before Jesus Christ came and that is why it is "according to the scriptures"

Neither the instrument of death (the cross) or the "burial" or "resurrection" were essential to the pre-Christ vicarious gospel message. These things were the consequence of PROGRESSIVE REVELATION. NOW they are essential becuase NOW they are revealed truths that provide EXPLANATION as to "HOW" it was accomplished. Hence, to deny these things NOW repudiates the very hope of the gospel.

I think discussing anything with you is hopeless as you simply pick and choose what I say and then what you pick and choose you present it in direct contradiction to what I said IF you would only read and comprehend the WHOLE evidence presented.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Because your "point" was NEVER my point. Because your "point" was never challenged by me.

So my "tense argument" was never challened by you despite the fact that you said the following?

Hebrew 4:2 destroys your tense argument

Acts 10:43 destroys your tense argument

1 Cor. 15:4-5 destroys your tense argument

Isaiah 53 as quoted and applied by Paul in Romans 10:14-16 destroys your tense argument

Acts 8:30-35 destroys your tense argument

I have already presented these words from you which prove that you did indeed challenge my point! And you just IGNORE them!

Why do just IGNORE every single thing that proves your error?

 

[The Biblicist]

So my "tense argument" was never challened by you despite the fact that you said the following?

I have already presented these words from you which prove that you did indeed challenge my point! And you just IGNORE them!

Why do just IGNORE every single thing that proves your error?

Boy are you one confused dude!!!! I never challenged your argument about tense in regard to John 1:29. I challenged your argument about tense in regard to your quotation of Ironside! So get them straight in your head!

I never quoted John 1:29 to make any point about the tense used in that verse but about the TYPE used in that verse to show that the TYPE originated BEFORE Christ came to fulfil it.

You are one confused individual! And yes the following verse destroy your argument about Tense in regard to Ironsides position:

Hebrew 4:2 destroys your tense argument

Acts 10:43 destroys your tense argument

1 Cor. 15:4-5 destroys your tense argument

Isaiah 53 as quoted and applied by Paul in Romans 10:14-16 destroys your tense argument

Acts 8:30-35 destroys your tense argument

 

[Jerry Shugart]

How can you deny the Old testament prophets PREACHED (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2) a vicarious gospel???????????????????????????

The vicarious gospel was preached in TYPE and preached in word by the "all the prophets" before Jesus Christ came and that is why it is "according to the scriptures".

How can you deny what is said here:

"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven" (1 Pet.1:10-1).

Here Peter is saying that the prophets searched diligently in an effort to determine what the prophecies concerning Christ's suffering did signify but it was not revealed unto them. Even the Twelve Apostles, those closest to the Lord Jesus, did not realize that He was going to die (Lk.18:31-34) or be resurrected (Jn.20:9). They certainly did not know the "purpose" of the Cross, that "Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Pet.3:18).

Roger M. Raymer writes: "Concerning this salvation (cf. 'salvation' in vv. 5, 9) the prophets...searched intently and with the greatest care their own Spirit-guided writings. They longed to participate in this salvation and coming period of grace and tried to discover the appointed time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing. The pondered how the glorious Messiah could be involved in suffering" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament [ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983], p.842).

Of course as usual you say nothing about the fact that the Lord Jesus' Apostles did not even know that He was going to die until shortly before the Cross.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Boy are you one confused dude!!!! I never challenged your argument about tense in regard to John 1:29. I challenged your argument about tense in regard to your quotation of Ironside!

Please tell me where you challenged my argument about tense in regard to my quotation of Ironside.

Thanks!

 

[The Biblicist]

How can you deny what is said here:

"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven" (1 Pet.1:10-1).

They were only searching to find out about the "TIME"- period! They understood the message and preached it but did not know WHEN the Christ would come. You have to be willfully blind to ignore Isaiah 53 spells out the vicarious atonement in words a wayfaring fool could not miss.

Of course as usual you say nothing about the fact that the Lord Jesus' Apostles did not even know that He was going to die until shortly before the Cross.

The cross, death and resurrection were part of PROGRESSIVE REVELATION. However, they believed in the Christ of the pre-cross gospel as preached by Christ in John 3:16 and by John the Baptist in John 3:36 as "the lamb of God" (Jn. 1:29). John baptized only those who made that confession with repentance of sin (Acts 19:4). Hence, all the apostles made such a confession of sin and faith in the coming Messiah or John would not baptize them as his was a "baptism of repentance."

They understood they were sinners and Christ was the Savior (Jn. 6:68-69).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

They were only searching to find out about the "TIME"- period!

WRONG!:

"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ..."

They were searching "what...the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ."

They understood they were sinners and Christ was the Savior (Jn. 6:68-69).

You said that the vicarious gospel was preached in the OT:

he vicarious gospel was preached in TYPE and preached in word by the "all the prophets" before Jesus Christ came...

But you never answered why the Lord Jesus' own Apostles did not even know that He was going to die until shortly before the Cross.

 

[The Biblicist]

WRONG!:

"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ..."

They were searching "what...the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ."

Sure just leave out the very part of the verse that contradicts your conclusion "what................"

Either you cannot read very well or you are a deceiver! I will fill in what you purposely omitted from the text - "Search WHAT, or WHAT MANNER OF TIME" this grace (gospel) should come when they testified "BEFOREHAND."

When did they prophesy it should come unto you? ANSWER: "beforehand"

What were they searching for? ANSWER: "MANNER OF TIME.....and the glory that should follow"

You said that the vicarious gospel was preached in the OT:

- No! God's Word through Isaiah said it clearly and repeatedly!

But you never answered why the Lord Jesus' own Apostles did not even know that He was going to die until shortly before the Cross.

Try something new for a change! Read the rest of my posts. If you will finish reading it you will see I did answer your question and did give an explanation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Either you cannot read very well or you are a deceiver!

If a person does not agree with your views of the meaning of Scriptures they either cannot read very well or they are a deceiver!

Let us look at the verse again:

"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ..."

Do you not know what the word 'or" means? Evidently not.

They were searching what the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ OR what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ.

the vicarious gospel was preached in TYPE and preached in word by the "all the prophets" before Jesus Christ came...

But you never answered why the Lord Jesus' own Apostles did not even know that He was going to die until shortly before the Cross.

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK,

Do you think that the eunuch understood the vicarious sacrifice of the Lord Jesus or do you think that he understood that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? Or both?

The Scripture says that he understood that Christ was the Son of God.
I imagine that he didn't know too much more than what is presented in 1Cor.15:1-4. That is the basic gospel "by the which you are saved," and it does not present the vicarious atonement of Christ.

"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?
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" (Acts 8:36-37).

So what do you tell an unbeliever when you present the gospel of Christ to them?

Thanks!

I tell them the gospel. Briefly, that Jesus came to save sinners (like you). That the wages of sin is death. That is the penalty of sin. Eternal separation from God because of my sin. But Christ came and paid the penalty for that sin. On that basis, and because he rose from the dead, one can be saved.
That is brief, very brief.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am finished discussing anything with you. If a person does not agree with your views of the meaning of Scriptures they either cannot read very well or they are a deceiver!

Good! Because I am tired of being consistently accused of not answering your questions when in fact the answers are provided and you simply do not continue reading my post!

Good! Because I am tired of the scriptures I give being consistently IGNORED when they directly refute your whole position as does Isaiah 53 - Good!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Apostle Paul said the following about the gospel which he preached:

"I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor.15:1-4).

H.A. Ironside, in his day a well known and respected dispensationalist, said the following about the "gospel" which we are to preach today:

"All through those OT dispensations, the gospel was predicted, and when Jesus came, the gospel came with Him. When He died, when He was buried, and when He rose again, the gospel could be fully told out to a poor lost world. Observe, it says, 'that Christ died for our sins.' No man preaches the gospel, no matter what nice things he may say about Jesus, if he leaves out His vicarious death on Calvary's Cross" [emphasis added] (Ironside, God's Unspeakable Gift [London: Pickering & Inglis, 1908], Chapter 2).

Is Ironside correct?

Apart from being a dispensationalist, as Christians we must proclaim his death and resurrection until he comes again. Leaving out Calvary is a large oversight. So, in this sense yes you are not preaching the full Gospel of Christ unltess you preach about Jesus death on a cross. I don't know what he means by vicarious.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Scripture says that he understood that Christ was the Son of God.
I imagine that he didn't know too much more than what is presented in 1Cor.15:1-4.

If he understood that "Christ died for our sins" then why do you think that the Apostles did not even know that the Lord Jesus was to die until shortly before the Cross?:

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things" (Lk.18:31-34).

Thanks!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Apart from being a dispensationalist, as Christians we must proclaim his death and resurrection until he comes again. Leaving out Calvary is a large oversight. So, in this sense yes you are not preaching the full Gospel of Christ unltess you preach about Jesus death on a cross.

Thinkingstuff, I agree with you. However, on the day of Pentecost Peter preached an uninterrupted sermon which can be found beginning at Acts 2:14 and ended at Acts 2:36 and evidently a "gospel" was being preached because men were saved when they believed what he said.

But nowhere in that sermon did Peter ever say a thing about the purpose of the Cross-- that "Christ died for our sins"?

Do you know how that can be explained?

Thanks!

 

[The Biblicist]

If a person does not agree with your views of the meaning of Scriptures they either cannot read very well or they are a deceiver!

You purposely omitted the very words that would contradict your use of the text. Look at your post! If that was not an intentional omission than how did it occur?

 

[The Biblicist]

If he understood that "Christ died for our sins" then why do you think that the Apostles did not even know that the Lord Jesus was to die until shortly before the Cross?:

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things" (Lk.18:31-34).

Thanks!

I answered this in the very post you accused of providing no answer. I will simply repost it here:

"The cross, death and resurrection were part of PROGRESSIVE REVELATION. However, they believed in the Christ of the pre-cross gospel as preached by Christ in John 3:16 and by John the Baptist in John 3:36 as "the lamb of God" (Jn. 1:29). John baptized only those who made that confession with repentance of sin (Acts 19:4). Hence, all the apostles made such a confession of sin and faith in the coming Messiah or John would not baptize them as his was a "baptism of repentance."

They understood they were sinners and Christ was the Savior (Jn. 6:68-69)."

Pleeeeese read what I said above carefully and thoughtfully before responding to it.

Look at the gospel preached by John the Baptist in John 3:36. This is the same gospel that Peter, James and John embraced by faith from the preaching of John before entering into the "baptism of REPENTENCE"! This is the same gospel preached in John 3:16 by Christ that was foreshadowed in types (Jn. 3:14).

The pre-cross gospel is the same gospel preached by Isaiah in Isaiah 53:1. Paul identifies the gospel preached by Isaiah in chapter 53 as the gospel that God sends out preachers to preach (Rom. 10:14-16).

This is the same gospel preached to the Enuch by Philip in Acts 8:30-35.

Salvation before clear revelation of the cross and burial and resurrection were accomplished in time and space was not dependent upon understanding those aspects. Now it is, because they are REVEALED and spelled out.

Salvation has to do with understanding you are a sinner and Christ is the savior and repentance of sin and faith in Him as Savior obtains eternal life. Before the revelation of the cross there was no necessity to include the cross as part of the gospel. However, after the full revelation of the cross it is part of the revealed gospel.

The gospel has been preached in its essence since the garden but that essence has been expanded with progressive revelation all the way up to its actual fulfillment by Christ on the cross and resurrection. Salvation was only dependent upon receiving the current revelation at any given time. The essence is spelled out in Genesis 3:15 in believing the promise of a coming "seed" that would defeat what Satan did in the garden of Eden.