Where do you find anyone before Paul ever teaching that a person is saved by grace?
I never said that Paul was the first to preach to the Gentiles. The gospel which Peter preached to the Jews was the same one which was preached to the Jews (see Acts 10:37). At Galatians 1 Paul speaks of the gospel which he preached to those in the churches which he founded and he says that he received that gospel from the Lord Jesus for the express purpose to preach it among the Gentiles:
[/INDENT]Paul called the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles "the preaching of the Cross" and Peter's semon on the day of Pentecost will be searched in vain for any mention of the "purpose" of the lord Jesus' death upon the Cross or any mention of the "word of reconciliation."
If Peter was given the commission to preach the "word of reconciliation" and the fact that "Christ died for our sins" at Pentecost then why didn't he?
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
I do not know about you, but I certainly knew of the teaching that Christ died and was resurrected and was Israel´s Messiah and the Son of God. However, I did not understand that anyone was saved by grace and the source of that grace until I understood what Paul wrote here:You seem to believe that unless the word "grace" is used, then grace has not been proclaimed. That is a strange requirement.
Paul´s words there were addressed to those who were already saved.So I guess Paul once again is in error when he says in Romans 10:
If that is true then give me just one example of anyone doing that BEFORE Paul. At Galatians 1 Paul speaks of the gospel which he preached to those in the churches which he founded and he says that he received that gospel from the Lord Jesus for the express purpose to preach it among the Gentiles:So of course people before Paul taught that salvation was by grace.
"If the gospel he preached among the Gentiles was the same gospel which he preached among the Jews then why would he need to go to Jerusalem in order to consider its relationship to the gospel which he had preached earlier in the company of some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29)? Of course there would be no reason for him to do that if the gospel which he earlier preached with other apostles was the same one that he was preaching to the Gentiles.
Here is one of the things which Paul did when he went to Jerusalem:He did not go to Jerusalem to address the relationship between his gospel and theirs, but as to the question of whether the gentiles had to follow the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus.
I never said that it did. On the other hand, the church at Jerusalem did continue to be zealous of the Law (Acts 21:20).gospel that he was preaching in Acts 2 and 3 said nothing about following the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus.
Again, I never said that following the Law had anything to do with receiving salvation.they taught the Samaritans in Acts 8 there was nothing about keeping the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus. Peter said that at the beginning they simply believed in Jesus.
Where did Peter ever preach that on the day of Pentecost? Of course here Paul refers to the death of Christ because he says the following:why don't you address Romans 10:9-10 where Paul states his gospel in the most gospel oriented book in his letters and doesn't mention the death of Christ or why he died.
He did not go to Jerusalem to address the relationship between his gospel and theirs, but as to the question of whether the gentiles had to follow the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus. Peter's gospel that he was preaching in Acts 2 and 3 said nothing about following the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus. When they taught the Samaritans in Acts 8 there was nothing about keeping the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus. Peter said that at the beginning they simply believed in Jesus.
Now why don't you address Romans 10:9-10 where Paul states his gospel in the most gospel oriented book in his letters and doesn't mention the death of Christ or why he died.
Where did Peter ever preach that on the day of Pentecost? Of course here Paul refers to the death of Christ because he says the following:
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Ro.10:9).
Do you deny that some were being saved when they believed the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son Of God (see 1 John 5:1-5)?
Do you deny that some were saved when they believed the "good news" that Christ died for our sins?
If your answer is "yes" then you should realize that some men were saved by the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, while others were saved by the "good news" that Christ died for our sins.
Since the word "gospel" means "good news" then it is evident that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period because some men were saved by believing a gospel while others were saved when they believed another gospel.
Of course you just ignored what I said about some being saved by the"good news" that the Lord Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (1 Jn.5:1-5) while other people were saved by the "good news" that Christ died for our sins.You and Danoh have convinced me that mid-Acts dispensationalism has no Biblical foundation whatsoever.
Of course you just ignored what I said about some being saved by the"good news" that the Lord Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (1 Jn.5:1-5) while other people were saved by the "good news" that Christ died for our sins.
Common sense dictates that the "good news" in both instances were different gospel messages so therefore it follows that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.
I can understand why you want no part of this argument.
At the same time I wish you the best in all of your service for the Lord.
In His grace,
Jerry
Then That would make Paul a false prophet, or make Jesus a liar. Jesus is "the Last Word" from God, and brought no new formerly unwritten doctrines but came to fulfill what was already written by all the prophets from the beginning of creation and to reveal what was hidden in them, from the beginning, about Himself.I think that what is meant is that it was Paul who first received these doctrines from God. Then through Paul the other Twelve learned these truths.
Jerry
I have often heard the name Charles Ryrie, but I have never heard him mentioned as the authoritative voice on the subject. There can be no doubt that he is the best known modern teacher on the subject. But if you really want to understand dispensationalism, read the books written in the nineteenth century by J. N. Darby and his close associate, William Kelly.
I studied under Dr. Ryrie. He was an excellent writer and for his era was as clear on the topic as ant and was the most cited classic dispensationsalist. Darby and Kelley are also highly regarded proponents of dispensationalism in the era prior to Ryrie, Walvoord and Pentecost.
Hal Lindsey's books launched a popular revival of the view, but Ryrie, Walvoord and Pentecost were the most referenced theologians of the post 1970s.
I had Walvoord for eschatology. He was encyclopedic in his knowledge.
"The Assyrian" sounds like a Dexter villain.
Sure, sounds interesting.
Sure, sounds interesting.
Sure, sounds interesting.
Sure, sounds interesting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?