The "Gospel" for Today

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Jerry Shugart, Dec 3, 2011.

  1. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  2. plain_n_simple

    plain_n_simple
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    5
    I believe that is right, and is the foundation. Yet the gospel continues from there and is so much more.
     
  3. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    plain_n_simple,

    Are there any other facts besides the ones which Paul mentions at 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 which must be believed in order for a person to be saved?

    Thanks!
     
  4. plain_n_simple

    plain_n_simple
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    5
    The word "if" we hold to the belief. "If" is a big word. Confess Jesus.
     
  5. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    The clause "if ye keep in memory" is a first class condition:

    "By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain..."

    In the Greek a first class condition "Is considered the 'Simple Condition' and assumes that the premise (protasis) is true for the sake of argument. The protasis is formed with the helping word ei ('if') with the main verb in the indicative mood, in any tense; with any mood and tense in the apodosis."

    In this case the main verb is "ye keep" and it is in the "indicative mood."

    "The first class condition indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. The normal idea, then, is if--and let us assume that this is true for the sake of argument--then...." (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 690).

    Of course those who truly believe the truth will always believe it:

    "The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth; For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever" (2 Jn. 1-2).
     
    #5 Jerry Shugart, Dec 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2011
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,112
    Likes Received:
    206
    Half truth! The gospel was preached from the foundation of the world (Jn. 1:29) by all the prophets (Acts 10:43).

    What he is confused about is PROGRESSIVE REVELATION. The same gospel was preached unto them as well as unto us (Heb. 4:2). The essence of the gospel is "good news" about a promised Messiah as our only hope of salvation from sin and death.

    Who that Messiah would be is a matter of PROGRESSIVE REVELATION until revealed by John the Baptist (Mk 1:1-4).

    HOW he would die for sins was a matter of PROGRESSIVE REVELATION until it was revealed on the cross.

    WHEN he would come and die was a matter of PROGRESSIVE REVELATION until John the Baptist revealed it (Mk. 1:1-4)

    "The beginning of the Gospel" (Mk. 1:1) refers only to its beginning in the sense of COMPLETION in time and space rather than in preaching which had been since the foundation of the world (Jn. 1:29; Acts 10:43).
     
  7. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what other half is missing?
    Let us look at the verse which you cite:

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

    Surely you do not think that the reference is to the Lord Jesus' work at the Cross since the Greek word translated "which taketh" is in the "present" tense.
     
    #7 Jerry Shugart, Dec 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2011
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,112
    Likes Received:
    206
    I would not simply say "predicted" as that implies it was not being preached as the way of salvation prior to the life of Christ! It was being preached since the garden of Eden (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Heb. 11:4-5).

    I cite that text, it is one example of how Christ was preceived in type from the garden of Eden - "the lamb of God" when taken into other scriptures using the same type:

    Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

    Both passages are found in the writing of the same author - The apostle John.

    In my opinion this is exactly what made Abel's offering more acceptable than Cain's (Heb. 11:4-5).
     
  9. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    The subject of this thread is "The 'Gospel' for Today."

    With that in mind please answer my question:

    Was H.A. Ironside right when 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).

    John the Baptist was not quoting any OT prophecy about Christ but instead he was talking about what Christ was doing right then and there:

    "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 "which taketh" is in the "present" tense so it is obvious that the Baptist was not referring to the Cross.

    The Lord Jesus was NOT slain from the foundation of the world but instead in the first century. Here is the correct translation of the verse which you quoted:

    "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain" (Rev.13:8; NASB).

    We can see at another place in the Revelation that John uses the phrase "from the foundation of the world" and there is applies to when "names" were not written in the book of life:

    "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is" (Rev.17:8).
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,112
    Likes Received:
    206


    False! The gospel did not come with him but preceded him. What came with him was merely the FULFILLMENT predicted but preached prior to his coming (Heb. 4:2 "the gospel was preached unto them as well as unto us")




    False! It was preached to the world from the garden of Eden by all the prophets (Acts 10:43).



    What does he think Isaiah preached clearly in Isaiah 53 over 700 years prior to the coming of Christ?

    Isa. 53:4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
    5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
    6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

    Both Philip and Paul recognized Isaiah preached the gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:30-37; Rom. 10:16).

    John the Baptist was not quoting any OT prophecy about Christ but instead he was talking about what Christ was doing right then and there:
     
  11. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,112
    Likes Received:
    206
    You are simply wrong for many reasons. Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Isaiah 53 with Romans 10:16 simply repudiate your translation choice and interpretation. Your position assumes some other way to the Father when Christ explicitly denied there was any other way but through him and said this BEFORE the cross, BEFORE Pentecost (Jn. 14:6). Your position demands ANOTHER gospel before the earthly ministry of Christ, another way of salvation OUTSIDE OF CHRIST. Hebrews 13:20 defines the New Covenant as the "EVERLASTING COVENANT." Your position denies there are some BEFORE THE WORLD were not "chosen in Christ" but saved OUTSIDE of Christ another way. Paul says there is only ONE gospel and any other gospel is "ANOTHER GOSPEL" accursed and he says his gospel is "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES" - Old Testament Scriptures.

    Your position necessarily demands there is a third kind of human being existing between Genesis and Acts besides those "in the flesh" versus those "in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:8-9).
     
  12. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are wrong and you prove that you do not have a basic understanding of "tenses." Or if you do you do not respect the tenses in the Bible. 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).

    In this verse the events are set in the "present" tense. The greek words translated "seeth" and "coming" and "saith" and "taketh away" are ALL in the "present" tense. But according to you John is saying that the words "taketh away the sins of the world" are speaking about things that will happen in the "future"!

    You prove that you are willing to stand reason on its head so you can cling to your mistaken ideas. Noted Bible expositor Alfred Edersheim writes:

    "That the view here given is that of the N.T...appears from a comparison of the application of the passage in St. Matt. viii. 17 with that in St. John i. 29 and 1 Pet. ii. 24. The words, as given by St. Matthew, are most truly a N.T. 'Targum' of the original. The LXX. renders, 'This man carries our sins and is pained for us;' Symmachus, 'Surely He took up our sins, and endured our labors;' the Targum Jon., 'Thus for our sins He will pray, and our iniquities will for His sake be forgiven.' (Comp. Driver and Neubauer, The Jewish Interpreters on Isaiah liii., vol. ii.) Lastly, it is with reference to this passage that the Messiah bears in the Talmud the designation, 'The Leprous One,' and 'the Sick One' (Sanh. 98 b]" (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971], Book 3, Chapter XIV, p.488).

    Of course I do not expect you to consider what a man like Alfred Edersheim has to say about this. You would rather continue to believe that something that is spoken of as being in the "present" tense is about something which will not happen until sometime in the future.
     
  13. plain_n_simple

    plain_n_simple
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    5
    I believe we start threads with questions so we can:

    A) answer them ourselves after someone attempts to

    B) draw an answer from someone and then correct them

    C) prove how smart we are to others
     
  14. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    "And Philip began at the same Scripture (Isaiah 53), and preached unto him Jesus." The result was that the Ethiopian Eunuch got saved. However, Philip did not have a NT with him, only the OT scroll of Isaiah. But from that scroll, and his knowledge of Christ, he preached unto him Jesus.

    The vicarious atonement surely is an important doctrine. However, it is not one that I fully understood until well after my salvation. So, the answer to your question is no.
     
  15. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?

    "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!
     
    #15 Jerry Shugart, Dec 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2011
  16. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,112
    Likes Received:
    206
    If you will look at my original argument I never based my argument upon tense but upon the use the type "the lamb of God." This was taken from the Old Testament sacrifice and it is was first instituted in the garden. The present tense simply gave the application to the ant-type anticipated since the garden of Eden.

    Acts10:43 and Hebrews 4:2 and a host of other scriptures I have provided demonstrate you are wrong.

    "To him [Christ] give ALL the prophets WITNESS that WHOSOVER BELIVETH IN HIS NAME SHALL RECEIVE REMISSION OF SINS"

    "The gospel WAS PREACHED unto them as well as unto us...."
     
  17. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    You need to get a book on grammar and study what it says about the "tenses."

    On another thread you say that a Greek word in the "present" tense refers to things which happened in the "past" and now you say that in this instance the "present" tense refers to something that will happen in the "future."
     
  18. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,112
    Likes Received:
    206
    You need your head screwed on right! Can't you read English??? I told you that my quote of John 1:29 and the reason I presented did not have anything to do with the tenses. I don't deny the tense. I don't deny the present application. I gave that text not because of the tenses but because of the use of the type "the lamb of God." The type PRECEDED its present application the the man Jesus Christ in John 1:29. Get it?

    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
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,112
    Likes Received:
    206
    Did you understand the term "vicarious" when you were saved? Did you have a theological working knowledge of the atonement when you were saved? Most people do not understand it when they are saved that is why we read the command "teaching them...." comes after receving the gospel.

    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.

    However, more importantly can you deny that Isaiah did not preach it and Paul did not say Isaiah preached the gospel he preached (Rom. 10:14-16; Isa. 53:)

    Isa. 53:4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
    5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

    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;
     
    #19 The Biblicist, Dec 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2011
  20. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     

Share This Page

Loading...