When did the Church start?

The discussion regarding 1Ti 1:16 displays the problem with many discussion regarding the Bible. We are discussing the English translation and attempting to use the current meaning of the English words in that discussion. Take a current dictionary and compare it to a dictionary from 200 years ago. Many words have ‘evolved’ in their meaning. The same, I am certain, occurred with Greek, in my opinion.

The word ‘first’, according to the references I have from Strongs is:

πρῶτος

prōtos

Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former.

G4243

πρεσβεύω

presbeuō

pres-byoo’-o

From the base of G4245; to be a senior, that is, (by implication) act as a representative (figuratively preacher): - be an ambassador.

[Larry]

Larry, - “Better translations”……Says who ?

Says people who read the text and understand it. There is no reasonable way that I can see to read that first and understand “proto” in a temporal sense. It is a sense of priority, meaning “foremost” or “prominent.” That is the only understanding that either the immediate context, history, or theology will allow.

He was the first man saved UNDER THE BLOOD ! Again IMO and based on what I have read in the Bible.

So you believe that people in the first eight chapters of Acts were not saved under the blood? And what about people before that? What were they saved by?

the Bible teaches that anyone who has ever been saved has been saved through the blood of Jesus. There is no other way of salvation. That’s why Jesus had to die.

What were they saved by ? My point exactly. What did they know ? Yes of corse all men are saved by the Blood.. If the way I worded that made it unclear, I am sorry..

I could have used better wording..But take your own words and think about it. What did Abraham do for Salvation ? He believed GOD. And what of the Jews ? They had the Law but there was no salvation in the law. They had to have animals offered for forgivness. And Peter preached in Acts that they had to be baptized.

Paul preached the Blood of Christ. And this is what I meant. As far as I can tell, He was the first to understand and preach the finished work of the cross.

No Law, No baptism no “Works meet for repentence” Although he started out that way.

Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Quite removed from

1Cr 15:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Cr 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1Cr 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;

1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Notice the word “First” here again.. How do you read that one ?

Paul preached the Blood of Christ. And this is what I meant. As far as I can tell, He was the first to understand and preach the finished work of the cross.

Acts 1-8 clearly shows differently. Peter and the apostles preached the finished work of the cross.

Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Quite removed from

1Cr 15:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Cr 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1Cr 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;

1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

How is that “quite removed” from each other? That is the same thing. To “repent and turn to God and do works appropriate for repentance” is to be saved. And notice that Paul says Acts 26:20 was the way that he was obedient to the heavenly vision. That was the message of Paul.

Notice the word “First” here again.. How do you read that one ?

In 1 Cor 15:3? It means “of first importance.” It was the primary thing, which is seen earlier in the book.

These come from two different Greek words:

1TI 1:16 - ‘first’ is translated from:

πρῶτος

prōtos

1Cor 15:3 - ‘first of all’ is translated from:

ἐν

en

Also, as Christians, I believe that the tones of discussion should be that of a civil discussion. When heated phrases which either directly or indirectly indicate that the other person is ignorant, or a fool (raka comes to mind here), then the discussion is transitioning into one involving egos, pride, etc. All of those nice things which a Christian is to avoid. I do enjoy the various classifications which can be used to indicate this, after all I am apparently a reductionist ;)

Again, just my opinion and I am open to any reasonably presented views which can change my mind. I am just amazed that a topic such as this can cause such heated exchanges when we have Christ saying: Joh 3:15 - ‘That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal live’. Seems to indicate that any heated exchanges outside of that are pretty insignificant…

1Cor 15:3 - ‘first of all’ is translated from:

ἐν

en

No, it’s protos. The “en” is a preposition. It read “en protois.”

Sorry, you are correct. but the ‘en’ modifies ‘protos’ in the 1Cor 15:3 phrase, modifying its meaning.

Thanks for pointing out my error though. I was too quick to look at research rather than being thorough.

I am sorry if I have offended you James. That was never my intention.

the ‘en’ modifies ‘protos’ in the 1Cor 15:3 phrase, modifying its meaning.

I think this would have to be demonstrated.

Marty, not at all, but thank you for your concern. I was just making a statement of personal opinion regarding discussions and tones I have seen and was seeing. Perhaps wrong. I can assure you that you did not insult me, it is pretty hard for anyone to insult me any more.

Larry, how would you want it to be demonstrated. I am not a PHD in Greek and would not attempt to do it. I am just stating what I have found in other sources regarding the scripture passage, sources which I trust. I am assuming that you disagree with their position, but I would wonder what word the preposition ‘en’ does modify in that verse from your point of view.

Jim

Larry, I must disagree that the finished work of the Cross was preached by in the early part of the Acts period.

Acts 2:22-24 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

Acts 4:10-12 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead— by this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11 “He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. 12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

Acts 5:30-31 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 8:32-35 2 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: “HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER; AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT, SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH. 33 “IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY; WHO WILL RELATE HIS GENERATION? FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH.” 34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

Even the ACts 2:36 which you cite Hodges on refers clearly to his death and resurrection. It’s not just his identity (though it is that). It is his work — crucified and raised from the dead. Hodges explanation is extremely weak, though it is expected from him. His faulty doctrine of soteriology leads him to conclude that one can be saved without repentance. Their question “What shall we do?” implies, “What is the proper response for us to this truth about Jesus died and risen again?” Peter’s answer is “Repent.” That is a command about salvation. (IMO, it is extremely unwise to cite Hodges in a positive way with respect to anything having to do with soteriology.)

To believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is to believe his person and work. You cannot separate them. His person does not save apart from his work.

Larry, how would you want it to be demonstrated. I am not a PHD in Greek and would not attempt to do it. I am just stating what I have found in other sources regarding the scripture passage, sources which I trust. I am assuming that you disagree with their position, but I would wonder what word the preposition ‘en’ does modify in that verse from your point of view.

Comparison passages, contextual interaction, lexical studies, etc … the normal way you show anything.

“Ev” is typically used with the dative. I think it would have be shown that the en+dative means something different that the dative by itself (assuming the “en” in 1 Tim 1:16 modifies emoi).

I am not sure I disagree with other sources. I don’t know what they say. I know that Paul was not the first person saved. And I am fairly confident that 1 Cor 15:3 is about “first importance,” not “first, before I ever said anything else.”

I think context here is key, and we cannot overlook that.

The idea of the atoning work of Christ being part of the Gospel before Paul is clear:

just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Of course Isaiah 53 is perhaps the clearest portion of Scripture about the work of Christ, and was probably the most heavily studied text in the early church, IMO. Paul, I believe, is quoting or paraphrasing the Septuagint of Isaiah 53 when he wrote (I Cor. 15:3-5):

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Those “according to the Scriptures” verses probably refer to Isaiah 53. So Paul’s Gospel was not new.

The Qumran community of Jews, for example, believed that salvation was a result of God’s election and was by grace through faith.

From my book in the works:

The “Dead Sea Scroll” people sounded very much like Paul the Apostle; in Justification and Variegated Nomism Volume I, (D. A. Carson, editor, p. 394), contributor Markus Bockmuehl writes, “The Qumran psalmist acknowledges that his righteousness is the gift of God’s righteousness, pre-ordained from all eternity.” For a good summation of Essene belief regarding justification, see Bockmuel’s chapter, pp.381-414.

The Jews also understood baptism as a ritualistic symbol, but also understood that it was the inner cleansing that occurred before baptism that purified one (like Peter says in I Peter 3:21).

Of John’s baptism, Josephus writes:

For Herod had put him (John the Baptist) to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behavior.

Jerry,

All I can say is that that is pretty reductionistic. The idea that Jesus died for sins is clear all the way through the gospel, and this teaching in Acts can hardly be different. The death of Jesus makes no sense apart from sin. You quote 1 Cor 15:3 as a proof text, but surely you know that it says he died for our sins according to the Scripture. Paul was appealing to the OT, which certainly predated the salvation of Paul. Furthermore Acts 2:38 specifically identifies repentance for forgiveness of sins as the response to the death of Jesus. Acts 2:24 connects his death with the defeat of death which was caused by sin. Acts 4:12 talks about salvation, but salvation only makes sense in terms of sin.

John 1:29 says that John preached Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Matt 26:28 says that christ’s blood was being poured for the forgiveness of sins. In Acts 3:19, in the context of teaching on Jesus death, the forgiveness of sin is promised. John 3 is clear that that the death of Christ brings freedom from judgment which comes because of sins.

So the idea that people did not know that Jesus died for sin has no basis in the Bible so far as I can see.

My basic position is:

1TI 1:16 - ‘first’. The meaning is that of chief sinner (1Ti 1:15 or foremost, as you indicated in message 45). Alternatively, that he was the ‘first’ of the ‘great’ sinners to be saved. ‘First’ reflecting the extent/greatness of the long suffering of Christ.

1Cor 15:3 - ‘first of all’. This does not indicate that he was the first saved, but the importance of his message of Christ’s death for our sins.

Not sure if any disagreement exists. If your problem is the use of “ ‘first’ of the ‘great’ sinners’ to be saved”, then I am open to removing or modifying it to more clearly reflect the other approaches stated. I believe the ‘disagreement’ arose from a simplistic approach I took regarding the reflection of the difference between ‘first’ translations in the two verses, and the omission I made initially stating just ‘en’ rather than the correct ‘en protos’ for 1Cor 15:3 (which you pointed out in message 55).

If there is still a disagreement, please let me know.

LOL….“reductionist”….I have noticed the recent employment of this word bomb in the arsenal of the Calvinists and Reformed. It reminds me of the use of the term “cessasionist” by charismatics or those sympathetic to charismatic doctrine (insert Piper and so on).

These are tactical weapons that seek to cast a negative light on theological opponents through the use of negative labeling.

Reminds me of a method I once read by a man named Alinsky :)

James, I don’t think we disagree that much. My disagreement was more with Marty H on that issue (I think it was him).

Jerry, I won’t continue to go into more detail since I have given ample Scripture to demonstrate the point, but suffice it to say that it seems you have a salvation that no one needs. If people don’t know sin is the problem, they have no need to be saved. The only reason Jesus died was for sin, and that is made clear from the OT to the gospels, to early Acts right on through. Nothing in Acts 2:38 says these people already believed that Jesus was the Messiah. They may have, at the moment, come to faith and then asked what the appropriate response was. That is the way it works.

Wow, we are biting off an awful lot here! We’d have to give ourselves full time to answer all the directions we are heading.

But let me call attention to some errors, I believe, in logic.

First, we do NOT know what the early church preached. We only know a TINY PORTION of what was said. I see no verse that says that the early church did NOT preach Christ’s death as an atonement. It is very likely that Luke has summarized a few statements from sermons that lasted hours. The same is true with the teachings of Jesus.

We can only be SURE of what is recorded in Scripture, but the Scriptures are ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that what we have is only a portion (John 21:25, Acts 2:40, Luke 3:18).

So the most that can be said is that there is no record of such and such in early Acts. This is an important point.

Second, Luke made assumptions about what his readers would interpolate from earlier or later chapters. The Bible has much “ellipsis” of thought. We could argue that the idea of atonement was assumed by the Jews.

David Flusser (Jewish Sources in Early Christianity) points out that the Jews of the first century typically believed that the death of the righteous atoned for the sins of the people. This belief goes back to the Apocryphal book of IV Maccabees.

That’s why Caiaphas’ prophecy was not that big a deal to those who heard it in John 11:49ff

Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

Another logical issue is about Paul saying that Christ rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures. The idea that this is paraphrased from Isaiah 53 is not defeated because of the “third day” issue. The entire phrase need not necessarily be based in the OT. The “third day” could easily be an added idea to “rose again”; but whatever text Paul was referring to, it had to have its source in the OT.

By divorcing Acts and these other passages from their Jewish culture and correlates, Ryrie and many many others underestimate the understanding and unrecorded assumptions of the Jewish people.

Here is the documentation:

Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, (p.59) writes:

Since the age of the Hasmoneans, Jews had believed that the saints who died to sanctify the name of God atoned for the sins of Israel. The story of the mother and her seven sons in the Second Book of Maccabees acquires a greater significance in the Fourth Book of Maccabees, where their death is seen as an atoning sacrifice. In another Jewish source, Midrash Sifre, the idea is expressed that the killing of the Children of Israel by the Gentiles atones for the former’s sins.

It is reasonable to assume that during the Roman period this idea was applied not only to Jesus, but also to all those who were executed by the authorities. Even Jews who did not accept Christianity evidently believed that Jesus, like the other martyrs of the Roman authorities, had atoned for the sins of Israel.

Ed,

“First, we do NOT know what the early church preached. We only know a TINY PORTION of what was said. I see no verse that says that the early church did NOT preach Christ’s death as an atonement. It is very likely that Luke has summarized a few statements from sermons that lasted hours. The same is true with the teachings of Jesus.”

I know that you of all people will understand when I say that is circular reasoning. You can not disprove a negative. But you can work with the positives you have to come to an understanding.

1st of all… I have said and I will say again that had Peter known that Jesus had died on the cross to pay for our sins he would not have preached baptizum for remission…

Would not have done it. To do so would be to say the Blood is not enough. And that is not acceptable. Do you not agree ?

With all due respect to each and every one of you, I think you are reading Paul’s gospel back into the book of acts.. When you know good and well Peter was rebuked for saying “NO” when Jesus told him what was to happen. That Peter gave up in dispair when Christ died on the cross and returned to fishing.

I believe I have far more grounds to say Peter did not know . Far more, Than you can find to say that he did know that Jesus died for our sins.

Start in Matt and read through Acts without reading Pauls gospel into it. You may be surprised at what you DON“T find.

1Cr 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;

Theres that word FIRST again.. Larry, Feel free to tell us again how the bible don’t mean what it says and how you believe the people that wrote your lexicon were more inspired or at least less apt to make a mistake than those who put together the KJV. How all those who’s hands and minds that have been involved in handing down YOUR version of the translation of this word though they could have been budists or muslims or whatever are more acurate.

James..I am not trying to say that Paul was the first man saved and I’m not trying to say that this passage tries to say he was…

I am trying very hard to say that Paul was on his way to commit more murders. That he was HAPPY to do so. That he has no wish or will to change.. And that the Lord Jesus Christ came to him !

But all that aside.. The above passage..The idea of salvation through the finished work of the cross was given to us by Paul…… And that is what I mean when I offer that I believe that the “Church” started with Paul…

Larry, first of all, I did go into much detail when answering the verses which you quoted. You have a chance to respond to my comments but you did not respond.

Because I don’t have time, and I don’t think this is controversial at all. The idea that the no one preached that Jesus died for sins until Paul is simply outside the bounds of credulity. I have given ample scriptural evidence that really needs no argument. It is prima facie.

Where did I ever say anything about a salvation that leads you to say that I have “a salvation that no one needs”? You need to be specific if you want make these types of accusations against me. I have said over and over that the heart and soul of the gospel which Paul first preached was the fact that Christ died for the sins of the believer but anyone reading your comments would assume that I never said anything about the Lord Jesus dying for sins.

As you know, I was referring to your charge that the gospel of Christ dying for sins wasn’t preached until Paul. If sin isn’t the problem, then no one needs salvation. Your comments that Peter, for instance, did not preach Jesus dying for sin (apart from being exegetically and theologically unsustainable) means that no one needed the salvation Peter was preaching because their sin wasn’t being dealt with.

Again, the OT and the gospels and Acts is clear about the purpose of Jesus’ death.

Larry, Feel free to tell us again how the bible don’t mean what it says

I think the Bible does mean what it says. That’s my point. What it says is that Paul was the foremost example of God’s grace to all who believe because of his great sin against God. That’s what the word means, and it’s what the context says.

BTW, I can’t help but note that you fail to mention that the same word is used in v. 15, where it is translated “chief” in the KJV, meaning he is the foremost or worst of sinners.

and how you believe the people that wrote your lexicon were more inspired or at least less apt to make a mistake than those who put together the KJV.

I don’t think they were. The Scriptures were inspired, not the authors per se, and certainly not the lexicons. They may be less apt to make a mistake because of four hundred years of further study with which God has graciously blessed the church. But I imagine that in 1611, the word “first” means exactly what it does today, and exactly what I am arguing for. It simply is a lesser used definition that creates confusion for those who don’t study it out.

I think it is perhaps you who is misunderstanding. First, you are defining an English word when Paul used a Greek word. Paul did not use the word “first.” He used the word “protos.” You should be defining the Greek word “protos” as it is used in context, rather than the word “first.” Second, even if you define the English word, you see that one of its meanings is “ranking above all others, as in importance or quality; foremost.” That’s Paul’s point. It has nothing to do with order. So I think you assumed a definition for a word, and didn’t look it up.

It is patently unbiblical to say that Paul was the first person in time who was saved. That simply has no basis whatsoever in Scripture.

How all those who’s hands and minds that have been involved in handing down YOUR version of the translation of this word though they could have been budists or muslims or whatever are more acurate.

Not sure what this even means. I am appealing to the context of Scripture and the standard meanings of the word involved. All you need to do is look it up. However, this is not the forum for a discussion of Bible versions, so please refrain from that discussion here.

[Larry]

Larry, first of all, I did go into much detail when answering the verses which you quoted. You have a chance to respond to my comments but you did not respond.

Because I don’t have time, and I don’t think this is controversial at all. The idea that the no one preached that Jesus died for sins until Paul is simply outside the bounds of credulity. I have given ample scriptural evidence that really needs no argument. It is prima facie.

I completely agree, Larry.

I’m a life-long dispensationalist who graduated from a dispensational Bible college and seminary, and I’ve never heard of the views espoused by Jerry. I did a little checking and came across a web site that explains these perspectives:

http://www.dispensationalberean.com/berean.html

Not only do the Acts 28 Dispensationalists teach that the body of Christ could not have existed before Paul was saved; they also believe that much of Paul’s early doctrine (which is found in his Acts epistles) is different from the later doctrine found in his Prison epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians). Consequently, these brethren also believe that Paul’s early doctrine was different from the doctrine contained in his Pastoral epistles (1&2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon).

Unbelievable.

Sometimes these types are called hyper-dispensationalists. They, among other things, often deny the necessity of water baptism. They believe that church truth comes only from Paul’s epistles, and exclude everything else (including general epistles and Revelation) as the basis for church belief and practice.

I am not sure if Jerry fits into that category or not. But what he is espousing is very similar to that, if not identical.

[Greg Long] I’m a life-long dispensationalist who graduated from a dispensational Bible college and seminary, and I’ve never heard of the views espoused by Jerry. I did a little checking and came across a web site that explains these perspectives:

http://www.dispensationalberean.com/berean.html

Not only do the Acts 28 Dispensationalists teach that the body of Christ could not have existed before Paul was saved; they also believe that much of Paul’s early doctrine (which is found in his Acts epistles) is different from the later doctrine found in his Prison epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians). Consequently, these brethren also believe that Paul’s early doctrine was different from the doctrine contained in his Pastoral epistles (1&2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon).

Unbelievable.

Clever use of a scandalizing term to create a negative view of any and all who might hold to this. On the other hand there are those of us who don’t agree with it but do understand its theological construction and reason and why some hold to this…but then…even that might be unbelievable! :)

Marty said:

1st of all… I have said and I will say again that had Peter known that Jesus had died on the cross to pay for our sins he would not have preached baptizum for remission…

Would not have done it. To do so would be to say the Blood is not enough. And that is not acceptable. Do you not agree ?

No, I do not agree. Emphatically no!!!! I do agree there are verses that suggest he required baptism as a response, but I understand Peter using baptism as a symbol of repentance (as I pointed out previously in I Peter), and I have also pointed out how the Jews would have understood this.

I believe saving faith includes repentance (of which baptism is the symbol) and personal trust in the work of Jesus as the Messiah (Savior— the one Who saves). On the baptism issue, I have written an extensive paper (probably too long for practical use in this discussion), but someone might want to peruse it at this link: [URL=http://put_url_here] http://www.highlandpc.com/studies/baptism.php[/URL]

I have also sought to point out how that both the OT, some of the preaching of Jesus (even him being pointed out as “the Lamb of God” by John the Baptist; this is a very clear implication of sacrificial atonement and would have been clearly understood in that way) and the Jewish culture of the first century anticipated atonement. I am saying there is no reason to believe Peter did not preach the same, given all these backgrounds. Like is estimated for the Sermon on the Mount (of which we have about 11 mintues), Peter probably preached an hour or two. WE can build on the positive statements (as you mentioned), but we need to be careful presenting the positive statements as exclusive or complete truth. This is not the whole of what Peter preached, but what is recorded is truly part of what he preached.

I may be stubborn, but I still assert that the New Testament assumes a Jewish background, even more so when addressing a Jewish audience. And that background is first and foremost the Old Testament, then the teachings of John and Jesus, and then the cultural/theological viewpoints common to the day.

Although admittedly not as emphatically emphasized as in Paul’s writings, the teaching of an atoning Messiah is present in all of these and should thus be assumed as understood. I have provided a brief but complete set of evidences to suggest my point is valid. If it is doesn’t convince you, then I don’t know that I could add anything that would.

[Jerry Shugart] Larry, I am sorry that you do not have the time to answer the points which I have made in regard to your assertions.

Nothing to be sorry about. It’s a matter of priorities and interest for me.

No, Larry, the gospel of grace states that the believer is “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Ro.3:21).

And what other means of justification are there?

So the Baptist was referring to the Lord Jesus’ “present” actions of bearing sins and not to something that was to take place in the future.

In what sense was Jesus “bearing sins” by walking down the road toward John?

[Jerry Shugart] You still have not been able to point to a place in the early Acts period and say, “See, there we can see the ‘gospel of grace’ preached.” And the reason is simple. That gospel was not preached until the Apostle Paul was converted.

So what was the ground of justification prior to Paul? If salvation by grace wasn’t preached then what was? Salvation by what? The gospel of what?

Now to answer your question

I have omitted what follows because it doesn’t seem to answer the question. My question is, If people aren’t justified by grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, then what were they justified by?

Where can we find anyone in the early Acts period telling anyone that they are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

Again, I think Acts 2, 3, 4, as well as other passages testify clearly to this. I don’t think doing a concordance study is a good way to study. You have to look at the concepts and the theology. The fact that “grace” isn’t used is similar to the old tired argument that because John didn’t use “repent” that it is not necessary for salvation. Only a very limited view of Scripture can sustain such a view. The Scriptures are consistent on this, I think.

Salvation is always by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It cannot be separated from Christ’s death and resurrection which is the only ground of justification.

I have already answered this. Please read post # 67 on this thread, a post which was addressed to you.

Post 67 is addressed to Ed. Perhaps you mean 68, but that doesn’t have a good explanation. Jesus healing people is not taking away sins. Sins are not taken away by healing. They are taken away by death. Furthermore, the sin of the world was not taken away by Jesus healing select people. That doesn’t seem to hold water.

In His grace,

Jerry

Larry, it is beginning to not be worth my time to continue to discuss these issues with you. You say that you have no time to address my points but at the same time you find plenty of time to continue to attempt to establish points which you want to make.

I am not trying to establish my points. I am not even really trying to argue them. It’s just not that interesting to me to put a lot of time in. I actually think they are beyond the need for argument, and I have seen nothing from you to dissuade me from believing that. Which is, I suppose, why I am pushing this a bit. I am trying to get you to answer my questions to help me understand exactly what you are saying. It honestly makes no sense how you can say that the gospel in early Acts was anything other than a gospel of grace. I don’t get that at all. So when you say I am not addressing your points, it is at least in part because I don’t even understand exactly what point you are trying to make. The closest I can come to is thinking that you are saying that because Acts 1-whatever don’t use the word “grace” that the gospel wasn’t of grace in those chapters.

As for time, I am not going to take the time to do the exegesis any more than I have. I think I have given enough information to show that the death and resurrection of Jesus was preached in early Acts, in the context of salvation. In fact, any message of salvation that does not include his death and resurrection seems periously close to denying the penal substitution and imputation by faith.

Salvation was always by grace through faith but that wasn’t made known until Paul.

This doesn’t make much sense to me.

You do understand what is meant when he says “but now…it is made known,” don’t you?

What is the “now” referring to? Isn’t it referring to the time after Jesus compared to the time of Law before Jesus?

The word “grace” cannot be found in any of those passages. You expect us to believe that the “gospel of grace” was preached in those chapters just because you say that it was. The word “grace” cannot be found in any of those verses but you can trick your mind into believing that the “gospel of grace” was preached in those chapters.

I anticipated this response and that is why I said you can’t do Bible study only with a concordance. You are looking for a word, not a doctrine or a concept.

But I don’t expect anyone to believe that gospel of grace was there because I say it is. that’s the reason I referenced Scripture. I think it’s there because it is the only way of salvation there is. There is no other way of salvation than grace, and the message of Peter and others in early Acts bears that out.

You act as if there is no Scriptual evidence as to what was preached to the Jews during the early Acts period but that is not the case.

I haven’t counted, but haven’t I referenced more of the early Acts period than you have. And I think the message preached to them included the fact that Jesus died and rose again for sin. That’s my point. Those passage testify to the fact that Jesus died and rose again for sins and salvation is through him because of that. I think you are underestimating the clarity of the OT about the Messiah.

And here we find out exactly what Paul was preaching in the synagogues, and it certainly was not the “gospel of grace”:

So what was it?

According to your theory those who believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God, also believe in His person and His work. But you fail to understand that Peter believed that He is the Christ, the Son of God (Mt.16:16) at a time when he did not even know that He was to die so therefore he could not have possibly believed in His work.

You are confusing things here. I am talking about post-resurrection teaching. However, there is evidence in the gospels that the work of Christ was an object of belief, at least with Nicodemus.

Look again, my friend. post # 67 is addressed to you.

Not that it’s important, and perhaps the numbering is messed up due to a deleted post or something, but you start post #67 with this: Ed, I said the following: I am not Ed. I am Larry. Post 68 is addressed to my comments. (You may have different numbering because of a deleted post. Not sure).

But I addressed your comments about John 1:29 and you didn’t respond. To say that Jesus took away the sins of the world by healing people seems a very truncated view of sin and salvation. I don’t think John was thinking of healing when he said ” Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world.” I suppose it could be, but that seems very strange to me.

Jerry wrote:

The words “taketh away” are translated from the Greek word airō and one of its meanings is “to bear.” So the Baptist was referring to the Lord Jesus’ “present” actions of bearing sins

I agree that the meaning could be “to bear.” But Jerry, I don’t understand this phrase “Jesus ‘present’ actions of bearing sins….” How was Jesus bearing sins when John the Baptist called Him the Lamb of God?

Jerry wrote earlier:

Ed, you continue to argue that the OT taught the “gospel of grace” despite the fact that not even the prophets who spoke about His sufferings did not know what those sufferings signified. You also fail to acknowledge that those closest to the Lord Jesus when He walked the earth did not even know that He was to die. But at the same tine you argue that they knew from the OT that He was to die for the sins of unbelievers. Don’t you see your own error in logic?

We can also know that Paul makes it plain that the gospel of grace was not preached in the OT because he says “but now the righteousness of God apart from law is revealed”:

I’m sorry Jerry to not have addressed this earlier. There is so much going on with this thread! But I am loving it. I may not agree with a number of your viewpoints, but discussing these things with you has been a real pleasure.

I think you misread me a little. I am saying that:

(1) The Jews understood the concept of atonement and believed that the godly who died did so for the sins of the people. I quoted Flusser (although a Jew and not a Christian, Flusser is the ultimate authority; he passed away a dozen years ago, but he started what is now known as the Jerusalem Perspective) to demonstrate that this belief was held commonly at the time of Jesus.

(2) Most Jews (like the apostles) focused upon the political, earthly rule of the Messiah. Although some Jews did postulate two Messiahs (one who would atone, another to reign), I will agree that this was not in the mind of the Apostles.

(3) You have nabbed me on a point. Let me correct myself: I believe John the Baptist and Caiaphas were speaking prophetically; in the case of John, he may well not have understood “the Lamb of God” prophecy (if you will permit me to call it that).

What I have said does seem to be illogical, I’ll grant you that. That’s because, however, I have not made my point clearly. I am saying that BEFORE WE GET TO ACTS 2, the pieces of this puzzle were, in fact, put together by Peter and the others.

Discipleship within Judaism involved mostly MEMORIZING the teachings of one’s rabbi. That was the focus. The reason that Matt, Mark, and Luke are so close (synoptic) is not because of some missing Q manuscript, but because the apostles memorized and recited together. The teachings of Jesus were very much in circulation in even the church of the Upper Room.

Jerry, when you say that “Paul makes it clear….” he is not talking about the Gospel, but the demonstration of God’s righteousness at a point in time, namely, Calvary. God’s character for forgiving repentant OT believers could be declared unjust (no adequate penalty had been paid). But God cleared His reputation at Calvary.

The Gospel, Paul says, is “according to the Scriptures.” What Scriptures are those if not the OT?

God bless you, bro., and have a Happy New Year!

[Jerry Shugart]

[Larry] To say that Jesus took away the sins of the world by healing people seems a very truncated view of sin and salvation. I don’t think John was thinking of healing when he said ” Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world.” I suppose it could be, but that seems very strange to me.

Larry, please see the above post addressed to Ed where I explain John 1:39.

It honestly makes no sense how you can say that the gospel in early Acts was anything other than a gospel of grace.

We can compare the following verses in order to understand that there were two different gospels preached during the Acts period. Here Paul explains the circumstances surrounding the event when he received the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles:

”But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus” (Gal.1:15-17; NIV).

Here when Paul received a gospel from the Lord that was intended for the Gentiles he went “immediately into Arabia” and he did not consult with any man. But notice the circumstances surrounding his meeting with the Lord Jesus on the road to Dasmascus:

”And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do…they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus” (Acts 9:5-6, 8).

Then he went immediately into Damascus (and not Arabia) where he consulted with other men and then preached a gospel to the Jews (Acts 9:19-22).

This cannot be referring to the gospel he preached to the Gentiles because after receiving the gospel which he was to preach to the Gentiles he immediately went into Arabia. So the gospel which was preached to the Jews (and was preached to them on the day of Pentecost) was different from the one which Paul preached to the Gentiles.

In His grace,

Jerry

Jerry, I think the “healing” idea is quite a stretch, IMO. The Jews did debate over what the Messiah’s name would be, and the “Leper Scholar” was one (of several) suggestion in the Talmud. But associated with the physical healing was also spiritual healing. The LXX of Isaiah 53 uses hamartia (sin) for the Hebrew “iniquities.” And, even if it was only understood as physical, I believe it was during his death that Christ provided for BOTH (I believe that the healing accomplished in the atonement will begin going into effect during the Millennium).

Do you personally believe that Jesus took up our infirmities (bore them) before the cross? The Jews may have believed otherwise, but are we not to assume that John was speaking prophetically and thus truly?

Here are some things I think are firm, but I am unsure where you stand:

1. Nobody has every been saved through the agency of anything other than faith. This is argued by Paul in Romans 3-5. The content of what they believed is tough, and I’ll give you that. But I do not believe that the agency of God’s grace has ever been baptism or OT sacrifice. I believe it has always been faith (this does not mean that others who were saved understood this, necessarily).

2. The Gospel and Acts are narratives; the epistles are didactic and hortatory. They are apples and oranges. When you have a written treatise on a subject, you have many details to work with and a flow of detailed thought to follow. When you have a 2 minute summary of a 60 to 120 minute lecture, you cannot expect that to equate with a written treatise.

Jerry, even if you are right about two different Gospels (and I can see your thinking has some valid points), it seems a little pretentious to build an entire doctrine based on seeming omissions from narrative books. A theory, I could see. Acknowledging a possibility, yes. But I think the foundation is a bit weak for a conviction, IMO. Especially with the backgrounds I have lightly documented. I think you need to give more credit to the OT and the early church’s understanding of the same, esp. after Jesus 40 day teaching ministry and the advent of the Spirit’s baptism.

3. Paul certainly did have a unique ministry; on that, we agree in principle. Galatians 2:6-7 does not PROVE anything in this discussion, but, IMO, it implies that Paul was preaching, at heart, the same Gospel that Peter HAD BEEN preaching. It is what my position would expect to hear. That’s my take, but I state beforehand that the text cannot actually prove it, just implies it (IMO):

As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.

Whatever your view on this, it does seem that Peter and Paul had a coordinated ministry of some sort, but the same message. And the message is what Peter HAD been preaching. I know it could be argued that Peter learned the Gospel from Paul, but IMO (for what it is worth), that seems an unnatural strain. But I am in the realm of opinion.

The whole present tense stuff is a stretch, IMO. Most of the narrative in Mark, for example, is present tense. Prophecy often speaks of events in the present tense, so certain that it is as good as accomplished (even though it is future). I will agree that in his very coming, Jesus BEGAN the work of redemption. Thus He was the Lamb of God from His conception.

Some Reformed people believe that Jesus’ entire life was part of the atonement. Perhaps you agree with them on this point?

God bless you, brother.

In the gospel of Matthew it is certain that Isaiah 53:4 is applied to physical healing and therefore it is not in regard to any benefit flowing from the Cross:

The first part of the statement I agree with, but not the latter. This ties into the Romans 3:25-26 we spoke of earlier. All of God’s gracious healing and salvation flows from the Cross. Time in not relevant to God; Jesus Christ is “the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.” The benefits of the cross applied to some even before the cross. It was later, at Calvary, when God was vindicated for forgiving (and, I would add, healing). So I have to disagree with you on this.

“That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.’ “

This verse is obviously correct, but please note that it does not say This COMPLETELY AND ONLY” fulfills; it was, rather, a typical example of the fulfillment of this passage, but Jesus had not yet actually (in time and space) taken our infirmities. Sort of like the Lord’s Supper: Jesus instituted it as though his death were already past.

Isn’t it clear that Isaiah 53:4 is referring to something other than any benefits that flow from His death? In order to accept your theory we must believe that the Baptist knew that the Lord Jesus would be crucified and His death would bring forth a taking away of sin but at the same time those closest to the Lord Jesus did not even know He was to die until shortly before the Cross. Are we to believe that the Baptist kept his knowledge secret from many of the Apostles, men with whom he had contact? That seems very unlikely.

Well, Jerry, I am trying to correct myself, but you won’t let me. I am NOT saying that John understood the crucifixion, etc. I am saying that he prophetically called Jesus the “Lamb of God” and that this information would have been passed on orally to the believers before Pentecost, as would the other teachings and incidents of Jesus’ life.

I am also saying that most Jews embraced the idea of the righteous dying to atone for the sins of the people (as per Flusser) before Jesus was even born, and so would have understood Jesus death as for our sins (atoning for the sins of the people). But please note, I am saying that Jesus’ disciples did NOT expect Him to be among the righteous who would suffer martyrdom for God.

It is not that they did not expect Jesus to die for our sins (they did not expect this), but the reason they did not expect this is because they did not understand that Jesus would die (period!).

What “entire doctrine” am I making? Only that the “gospel of grace” was not preached on the day of Pentecost. The facts are clear. When Paul received the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. When he had an encounter with the Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus and after that preached a gospel to the Jews he went immediately to Damascus. This is a serious problem for those like you who say that only one gospel was preached during the Acts period.

You are right; my term “entire doctrine” sounds more major than this issue really is. So I stand corrected. Let me say that I do think your conviction (and I think I am right about calling it a conviction) has an argument from silence for its basis (i.e., that Peter did not apply what most Jesus already believed about martyrs to Jesus, namely, the death of the righteous atoning for sins) and that the Gospel Paul preached was, in effect, a different one from what Peter preached.

I am not saying that you have absolutely nothing to go on for such a view, but I do believe using such a perspective as an interpretive paradigm is not justified. Of course I could be wrong (which is why this but an opinion to consider).

As far as the Damascus thing and the desert experience, I place a lot of value on that experience. I won’t go into my views on it, I’ll just say they differ from yours (and probably most). I do believe Paul was the one to explain that Jew and Gentile believers are in one body and equals before God (and all that Colossians and Ephesians stuff).

But do I have you right? Did Paul instruct the other apostles in the Gospel of the Grace of God? And then Paul went later to those same apostles in Acts 15 to find out if what he was preaching was right? That doesn’t make sense to me. If they are getting it from Paul (and the above mentioned Galatians 2:7 passage suggest Paul and Peter were preaching the same Gospel), then why would Paul run things past them?

Even if we are failing to persuade one another, brother, at least we are defining our views better. And that’s the idea of “Iron Sharpening Iron.” Thanks for the sharpening!

Jerry,

Yikes. I think we are not doing too well understanding one another.

By saying that the atonement provides the basis for healing in the Millennium, I am not saying that it ONLY provides for healing then. I guess I should say that it is during the Millennium that healing is more fully realized. Being a Progressive Dispensationalist, I believe that the kingdom began to break forth with Christ’s first coming, so the healing Jesus brought is a first fruits.

I am of the persuasion that the Isaiah 53 atonement is one event that took place that fateful weekend near Passover. I do not see it as strung out throughout the life of Jesus.

Regarding Matthew’s use of the Isaiah phrase, the use of the OT by NT authors is an extremely, extremely complex issue. You may or may not agree with that assessment, but that’s my view. I really do not think Matthew is saying that the verse in Isaiah was completely or even mainly fulfilled by Jesus’ healing, but that would be another long thread. It is obvious that you disagree, at least on this point.

Did the Apostle Paul not go immediately into Arabia after receiving the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles? And did he not go immediately into Damascus after His earlier meeting with the Lord Jesus on the Damascus road and then preached a gospel to the Jews?

Yes and Yes. He preached a basic gospel to the Jews and a developed (and I want to add the word, “adapted”) Gospel to the gentiles.

I have already demonstrated that when Paul received a gospel that he preached to the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. On the other hand, when Paul met with the Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus he immediately went to Damascus where he started preaching a gospel to the Jews. So common sense dictates that the gospel which he preached to the Jews was not the same gospel which he preached to the Gentiles.

I don’t see it that way. It is one thing to preach that the Messiah has come, that He gave His life a ransom for many, and that he rose again. All of this was stated in one place or another before Paul was ever converted.

It is another thing to preach that same Gospel with its many rich details, including that gentiles did not need to first become Jews to be saved. But that does not mean two separated Gospels. I might call that two distinct levels of depth or detail.

Paul received the Gospel directly from the Lord, but I do not believe that it’s main skeltal substance was different from the Gospel Peter preached on Pentecost and afterward. The basics are “according the Scriptures,” thus before Paul. That is not to say that the revelations God gave Paul did not further develop the Gospel and reveal the mysteries of the church. I think they very much did.

As far as the Greek words, the word John uses is typically translated “take away.” John’s word emphasizes the result of Peter’s word. Christ bore our sins, thus taking them away; the high priest would lean into the scapegoat (thus signifying the transfer of sin and creating a substitute) picturing the idea of “bearing.” As the scapegoat was released into the wilderness, this pictured the removal of sins on Yom Kippur. Those words work together nicely, IMO.

I don’t know how much more of this either of us can take before we wear out (thanks, bro.), but I do want to concede that what you believe IS possible. I don’t think it is very likely, but I want you to know that I respect your perspective even though I disagree with it.

Larry, please see the above post addressed to Ed where I explain John 1:39.

I still find that unconvincing as a comprehensive answer for a lot of reasons, not the least is which in John 1:29 there is no evidence of Jesus’ healing anyone of anything. Isa 53 may include physical healing, but that is only part of it. To “take away the sin of the world” has ethical and moral implications, not physical.

We can compare the following verses in order to understand that there were two different gospels preached during the Acts period. Here Paul explains the circumstances surrounding the event when he received the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles

If we take your verses as you suggest, how do we avoid having Paul preaching a false gospel (along with the apostles) until he went away?

It seems to me that the NT is consistent, that there is only one way of salvation—by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That was preached from the beginning of Acts until today. To suggest that Paul or Peter or the others preached something other than a gospel of grace still makes no sense.

Let point out a couple of problems:

1. Paul’s visit to Arabia: Most likely to preach to the Gentiles there in the Nabatean kingdom. There is no evidence that he received a different gospel to preach.

2. Paul’s use of “immediately”: His point is not timing so much as sequence, as is seen in the text. He went to Damascus and then to Arabia. He did not go to Damascus, Jerusalem, and Arabia. He went “immediately” from Damascus to Arabia without any stop in Jerusalem. His point is neither about having a different gospel. In fact, in Gal 1, he condemns those who preach another gospel. He went to Arabia because that is where the Gentiles were. He did not go to Jerusalem because that is not where the Gentiles were.

3. Paul’s point in Galatians: His law-free gospel or gospel of grace was under attack. Paul points out that he didn’t get it from other men (those in Damascus or Jerusalem) but from Christ himself. Now, why would Paul have to make that point? Because his gospel was the same gospel that was preached in Damascus and Jerusalem by the apostles and others. They were accusing Paul of simply copying Peter and the rest. How could they make that accusation if Paul was preaching a different gospel? That doesn’t fit together.

Remember that neither Acts nor Galatians are intended to be a comprehensive history. But there is nothing to suggest that his time with the disciples in Damascus included learning a different gospel than what he later preached. That just isn’t in the text.

Lastly, I return to my question that I don’t think you have answered yet: If Peter and the others were not preaching a gospel of grace in early Acts, what gospel were they preaching? And how is it not a false gospel since salvation is always by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?

You have teaching that Jesus’ death was for forgiveness of sins. You have teaching that Jesus died and rose again. You have teaching that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation. But you do not seem to put these things together. You have a bunch of little piles of verses that you have not correlated, it seems to me. I haven’t seen any convincing argument that the salvation message of early Acts was anything other than grace.

Jerry, of course Peter and Paul had to persuade Jews that Jesus was the Christ. The Old Testament predicted the Christ would bear God’s wrath and die for sins. Peter and Paul preached that Jesus died and that He was the Christ. This is the same gospel. There is no other. It seems very simple to me. I couldn’t be more unconvinced of what you have been asserting.

Larry, on the day of Pentecost Peter used the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus to prove that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Jew’s promised Lord and Christ, summing up his gospel message the following way:

Yes, and told them that they needed to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. These were unbelievers he was speaking to who received his word, were baptized, and added to the church. I don’t see this distinction you are trying to make. He has explicitly preached Jesus’ death and resurrection, used it to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, and called on the Jews to repent and believe for the forgiveness of sins. I don’t know how it could be any more a gospel of grace unless he had specifically used the words (and he may indeed have).

Your whole objection seems to be based on the fact that Luke’s summary record doesn’t use the word “grace.” But again, the idea of “grace” is a concept communicated through many means, and that grace is abundantly evident in early Acts.

So this is still confusing to me. You admit that Peter preached the death and resurrection of Christ, and that the death and resurrection of Christ is the basis for forgiveness and salvation, but somehow that isn’t a gospel of grace. What is it? A gospel of what?

However, it was not the “gospel of grace” because the heart and soul of that gospel is the revelation that the believer is “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ” (Ro.3:24).

So Peter and the apostles preached that people were justified some other way?

I don’t mean to be obtuse here, but you don’t seem to be answering this question.

You cite John 1:12, but to “believe in his name” is the same thing Paul preached in many places. So how is John’s different? Furthermore, you cite 1 John 5, which was likely written long after Paul’s writings. So was John and Paul preaching competing gospels? Again, I am not seeing your distinctions here.

There is no doubt that Jesus’ identity was a key factor. Heb 1:1-3 appeals to this very fact as the reason why his death and resurrection save people. His death and resurrection save because of who he was. You can’t believe in one without believing the other after it took place.

If you are right and they needed to submit to the rite of water baptism in order to be saved then they obviously were not saved by grave through faith apart from works.

They didn’t have to submit to water baptism to be saved.

One cannot preach the “gospel of the kingdom” without mentioning the kingdom and one cannot preach the “gospel of grace” without mentioning that the believer is saved by grace apart from works. And that was never mentioned on the day of Pentecost.

But “kingdom” and “grace” are two entirely different things and function in different ways in the phrase. Furthermore, I am curious as to what you base your assertion on that grace was never mentioned in the Day of Pentecost. Given that we only have a very select summary of what Peter said, one that can be read in a matter of minutes compared to what was surely a much longer address given by Peter, what is your evidence that grace wasn’t mentioned?

Furthermore, why do the Galatians accuse Paul of merely repeating what Peter and the others had told him? Why did he have to verify that he got his gospel from the Lord Jesus and not from the ones at Jerusalem.

Furthermore, if Ironside was right that, “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,” wasn’t Peter preaching another gospel for which Paul would say he is accursed?

These are not small matters. They obviously have no affect now since these things are long since gone, but it does seem to go to the heart of the gospel itself.

Your idea is ridiculous. According to you they understood the principle that the the believer is saved by grace apart from works but despite this they asked Peter what they must do to be saved and he answered, “Repent and do the work of baptism” to be saved!

Ridiculous? I suppose the overwhelming predominant position of the church for 2000 years might be ridiculous, but it is nonetheless what has been believed.

I imagine their question stemmed from the conviction that this Jesus who they killed and who rose again was the Messiah to whom they needed to submit, and so they asked what the proper response was. Peter didn’t tell them to do the work of baptism however. He told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The baptism was because of their forgiveness most likely, or possibly because baptism and conversion were so closely linked. In any case, they received the word first, and then were baptized.

You are so confused that I do not think that you can consider anything objectively at this point.

I think I am fairly objective (though I admit I might not be the best judge of my own objectivity). But my confusion stems from you and your lack of answering. And you still haven’t answered the question.

If Peter and the others were not preaching a gospel of grace, what kind of gospel were they preaching? A gospel of what?

Jerry, all these sources that you cite…Ryrie, Walvoord, Chafer, Clarke, Anderson, Ironsides—do they agree with your position on this issue?