BJ Bear
Well-known member
Off the top of my head I don't recall their expressions, but their view has painted them into a corner such that in their view it can't be any other way. The fix was in, so to speak, when the C&A first went at it.
What if both sides are wrong in C&A debate?
- Thread starter BJ Bear
- Start date
Theophilus
Well-known member
Exactly
BJ Bear
Well-known member
So long as baptizing and teaching according to Matthew 28 is recognized as the sound doctrine, that is, there is no discipling of a person in the context of Matthew outside of baptizing and teaching, and it is proclaimed and acted upon as such everything else is out of our hands. We rest on the Lord's promises in this regard.
When I look at the quote from first Peter I think of Jesus saying the student is not above the master. Our lives in this life, like His, will be one of prayer, meditation, and temptation or trial.
Peace.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
It is a strange and illogical manner of reading Scripture, the Christian revelation, that is apart from the person and work of Christ. Reading Scripture like that will lead to a mountain of error built upon error.
For example, if a person reads that section of John according to the immediate context then he will find that the person of Christ is given things during His passion because He is the Son of man.
“26. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27. And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” (Joh 5:26-27, KJVA)
And if the person continues to read that section of Scripture according to the immediate context then he will find Jesus saying that He will raise all men. Since Jesus doesn't lie, and He isn't speaking in a parable or some other mode of figurative speech, we are to understand Him according to the common manner of speech.
And to make the matter plain regarding all men He spells it out when He continues, “28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (Joh 5:28-29, KJVA)
GeneZ
Well-known member
... 'all men' does not mean all men will be saved. Here is what you cited.
“28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (Joh 5:28-29, KJVA)
................
BJ Bear
Well-known member
And this is news in what way?
GeneZ
Well-known member
Someone here has been saying that Jesus has saved all men... That verse - (John 5:28-29) tells us that its not the case.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Hmm... that's interesting. When I did a search of the thread on the words "saved all men" without the quotes only your post appeared and my reply to it.
When I read through the thread I noticed someone asked if I was a uni***salist? And post #25 in which the topic was brought up by someone other than me. If my response to post #25 was unclear then let's put two passages on the table regarding the Son of man and see if we agree that they speak of the same person, Christ, and the same event. I say yes. How about you?
“13. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Dan 7:13-14, KJVA)
“18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Mat 28:18, KJVA)
Peace.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Sorry, I seem to have missed this post.
I don't see how there was a, "before the gospel of Christ," to reflect upon. God's answer or solution to the first sin was the promise of the Seed, Gen 3:16. A literal translation of Gen 4:1 has Eve saying in effect that she has given birth to the Lord. She had the right idea but misunderstood the timing.
If you are interpreting Mark 1:1 to be "the" beginning of the gospel of Christ then that is unwarranted in light of the other gospels which pick up the gospel long before John the baptizer is on the scene.
Peace.
GeneZ
Well-known member
Right all people. Not just Jews as it had been before.
The gospel of Jesus Christ (the Messiah) didn't exist prior to the birth of Jesus Chrst " 1Pe 1:20 " Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you."
The gospel of Christ's salvation is in constradistiction to the Word of God, which was sent to the Jews, the Patriarchs, prophets and lineage of Adam before the birth of Christ.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
That looks like a manner of speech which isn't consistent with the speech of Scripture. A literalistic example of Scripture's proclamation or use of the word gospel as the good news can be found in Romans 10.
“But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?” (Rom 10:16, KJVA)
When the promise of the Seed, the good news or gospel, was given to Adam and Eve in the garden it was literally given to all men. It was only later that God chose Abraham and his family to be the ones through whom the Messiah or Christ would come, but that didn't negate or exclude all men from the promise or gospel.
GeneZ
Well-known member
I am trying to figure out what your point is here. What have you been told that you must stress that the Gospel is unto all men? Of course it is. But, what is the reason you keep finding it important to stress it? Have you been oppressed by limited atonement Calvinists?
I have distinguished between the gospel of the Messiah and the Word of God. The messiah is a man1 Tim 2:5 etc (also see Galatians).
As to your Rom 10:16 allusion, it cites Is 53:1 which is acknowledged to be a prophecy of the Messiah, showing that his gospel would be by faith.
As to the etymological usage of the word "gospel" εὐαγγέλιον, it is not limited to Christ, as it is found in 3 passages in the Old Testament LXX, 2 Samuel 4:10; 2 Samuel 18:22; 2 Samuel 18:25. Yet it is principally associated with Christ.
As for the promise of the seed in the garden, did Adam really represent "all men"? I suggest not, at least not in the very beginning, but eventually he did come to represent all men from the time of Noah. Adam was originally a very special homosapiens, a "son of God" LUKE 3:38, and so a homosapiens in direct communication with God, where by all accounts he was not the only biological man alive (as a fact there were many such men outside the garden of Eden - Gen 1:26, 6:2). Adam was the first believer, and of the "sons of God" lineage (see Gen 6:2) as were his descendants, and also the first fallen man, but a man always in communication with God. He remained a believer, even if also a sinner. So the promise was not originally given to the "dogs" as the Jews termed those natural men who were not "sons of God" and living outside the Garden of Eden and not yet in communication with God. Later on, in the time of Noah, after the flood, God decided that all men were to be equal without distinction before him. In Gen 9:5,6 God presumes all men to be equal by the command not to kill other men. Even after that Adam and his line were always, and continued, the spiritual progenitors of the world. The descendants of Noah who spread over the earth were all of the Adamite line (sons of God) but they were now accounted equal to other men.
Going back to Rom 10:16, it seems to be clear that Paul is referring to the gospel of Christ specifically.
As for the promise: it was given to Adam and then Abraham, and I find that because it came by faith, and not works, and because all men were equal before him from the time of Noah, then it was inescapably a promise to all men, i.e. all the descendants of Noah, spread throughout the world, and everyone they spread the knowledge of God to - not just the Jews. And as a fact many men who were not Jews did have a knowledge of God.
So I agree that the Jews were not the only recipients of the promise but the ones through whom the promise was fulfilled.
Last edited:
BJ Bear
Well-known member
It is the witness of Scripture, both the Tanakh and the NT. They are they which testify of Jesus Christ, the one through whom all things came into being, etc., 1 Cor 8:6.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
You have, but not In a way that is consistent with the way Scripture speaks. The good news of Jesus Christ, has existed from the garden of Eden. Peter is not saying that the gospel or good news of Jesus Christ did not exist prior to His incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation.
Yes, context matters.
That is an out of context reading and interpretation which is not the intended meaning of the passages and is not *the* Christian interpretation.
How do we know? Scripture tells us so whether we start at Genesis or at Revelation and work "backwards." I'm going to use the gospels as the starting point of an explanation and work backwards.
Jesus opened the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures, the Tanakh, and what they were to testify to. Luke 24:44ff.
What did they write? They wrote of the gospel to and for all men. This witness includes the genealogy of Christ in the gospels all the way back through Adam to God. In other words, Genesis testifies of Him just as He said.
It works out the same way if a person starts in Genesis, for example, Eve was the mother of all living. (This excludes the other category of men you referred to.) After the promise was given in the garden some genealogical records are listed. A person of some detail is Enoch who trusted in the promise. See Hebrews 11:5-6.
All men are equal in the sense that all are descendants of Adam and Eve, who sinned. “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;” (Act 17:26, KJVA)
Ok, but the way that is written it may not include, or may be misunderstood to not include, the gospel of Jesus Christ being to and for all men, starting with Adam and Eve. “29. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Act 17:29-31, KJVA)
The Savior saves.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Or to emphasize the practicality of doing so, if a person doesn't understand the gospel then they will not have the key to properly understand a lot of Scripture.
The Savior saves. Alleluia!
GeneZ
Well-known member
Again? No answer.
WHAT is the witness?
Say what you mean with a completed concept. You keep presuming others can read your mind.
Express the full thought, please. Don't have me fill in the blanks.
And,,,, in today's world? The Gospel has gone out to all men. The fact that some argue agonist it,. mean they have heard!
When the disciples went out no one outside of the circle of Jerusalem knew the Gospel.
Today its no longer the same. Now we must defend what all have heard (Gospel) agianst thosae who fight it.
Last edited:
No. It is not realistic to suggest that anyone could have believed in Christ before his birth. All one can say is that the prophecy existed and that certain people like Abraham looked forward to its fulfilment.
I disagree that you are the arbiter of what is Christian. Adam and Eve is a spiritual story, not a carnal story. That's the impression I have firmly got. It is not a biology lesson. Consider that the earliest Adam could have lived is the 5th or 6th millennium BC. Human remains have been found dating way back, long before his time.
I fear you are reading Genesis too carnally. It is designd to be read spiritually. "Mother of all the living" means "living in the context of being spiritually alive." When it says "Adam being a living being" it means a spiritual being. God's breath is God's spirit.
It says Enoch pleased God. It does not say he not trusted in this promise.
I think you are being unrealistic if you think that anyone outside of the scribes or patriarchs or very educated men knew anything about the promise for most of history. Do you really suppose God viewed people as righteous depending on whether they had knowledge of a prophecy in an obscure scripture that most people would never had heard of, let alone read?
All men are not equal and neither are they born equal. They are only equal in certain respects: all will face judgement. They are also equal in Christ vis-a-vis the Spirit for there is one Spirit. The Canaanites were never of the same value to God as the Israelites. You are relying too much on modern ideas of egalitarianism.
The gospel of Christ did NOT exist before his birth. Only the prophecy of the gospel did. What existed was God's revelation in his Word, in the law and in the prophets and in the writings, and in creation per Roms 1 & 2.
God saves: 1 Timothy 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4. See also Jesus's remarks about the Father giving him his disciples. God saved people long before Jesus came in the flesh.
Last edited:
BJ Bear
Well-known member
I am mystified by the questions and comment above. Previously, you wrote:
Answer: it is the witness of Scripture.
That implies there was understanding and agreement prior to my response.
Not to be funny, but it is *the* witness of Scripture. It is through the proclamation of the gospel according to the immediate context of Scripture that some people will realize that they have been reading Scripture in a necessarily alien context which leads to the piling of error upon error. An example of this occurred in the thread with regard to John 17. Another example to which all Christians should agree, but don't, are the out of context interpretations of Romans 9.
Every Christian should fall on their knees and thank God that Jesus was sent to save sinners, the Savior saves.
No. As a newbie I was a prolific but indiscriminate reader, listener to Christian radio, and attender of churches. If it was out there I was ready and willing to read or listen to their stuff, without knowing or caring which group the writer or speaker was associated with, as well as that of others which I came across that had an interesting or catchy title, was, "popular," on the airwaves, or was being preached at the church I was visiting.
It took a while, but I eventually realized the authors and speakers didn't really get it and I tossed or destroyed all of their works that I had accumulated except for lexicons and a Strong's Concordance. I used to pray daily that God would help me to understand His word and that He help me forget what I had read in those books.
It was only after I determined what to receive as canonical, basically the sixty-six books (If not for the chaos in Christendom that long process could have probably been avoided.), and had a firm grasp of the gospel that I started reading Luther, the ANF, select NPNF and eventually some others.
Back to your most recent reply.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is the objective true good news of the person and work of Christ to and for all men that is proclaimed in Scripture from Genesis through Revelation.
It might appear that way to some who run in particular circles, but I can tell you as an adult convert that there are still people as clueless or ignorant as I was, otherwise, I would not have been insulated from it.
That is a demonstrably false statement. A few examples of why it is demonstrably false are that the gospel has been proclaimed since Genesis 3, the Holy Spirit went into exile with the Israelites, the LXX was translated outside Jerusalem, the common folk who came to Jerusalem during the passion went back to wherever they were from and told of the goings on in Jerusalem, etc.
I guess you know that is not what the risen Lord commanded His baptized disciples and is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Why not just trust that what God says is true and apply the law to the unbeliever? He will, sooner or later, recognize that it is true, even of him, since he lives in this world and it is written on his heart. And then immediately apply the gospel of Jesus Christ for all men, for him, to him so that he will come to say and believe this is true for me.