Introduction
Our English word gospel comes from the Old English godspell meaning “good news.” It is a transliteration of the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον which is a combination of “good” (εὐ) and “message” or “news” (ἀγγελία). In the broad view, the “gospel” is what God has revealed to the human race regarding how we can have a relationship with Him. God has proclaimed the gospel throughout history and mankind’s response to this good news has always been the same: faith. We read in Hebrews 11:6, “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” In this same chapter are many examples of men and women who apprehended God by faith. Faith has always been the means of salvation. Thus the writer to the Hebrews wrote,
1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old gained approval (Hebrews 11.1-2).
While the means of apprehension (faith) has remained the same throughout history, the content of the gospel has not. It has changed according to what God has revealed.
The Gospel Through the Ages
The clearest definition of the gospel for our day is found in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Paul wrote,
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (1 Corinthians 15.1-5).
Therefore, the way we have a relationship with God is by believing that Christ died for one’s sins and was raised from the dead. The resurrection of Christ was the proof that He was victorious over sin and death as our substitutionary sacrifice. It’s as simple as that. When one believes the gospel he is, in the words of the Scriptures, “saved.”
The above verses may be diagrammed as below:
| 1) First proposition | Christ died for our sins | ||
| 1a) Scriptural proof | according to the Scriptures | ||
| 1b) Physical proof | and was buried | ||
| 2) Second proposition | He arose from the dead | ||
| 2a) Scriptural proof | according to the Scriptures | ||
| 2b) Physical proof | and was seen |
Paul’s gospel is a gospel of grace (Acts 20.24) and consists of the message that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. The question for every individual is, “Will you believe it?” Salvation is a choice and requires an act of will. Tragically, preachers, “gospel” tracts, and other well-intentioned witnesses often confuse the simple gospel. The gospel is that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead, period. Adding to the simple message of the gospel such statements as “invite Christ into your heart,” “accept Jesus as your personal Savior,” etc., creates confusion. The gospel message should be as simple as the Bible presents it.
John the Baptizer, Jesus, and the Twelve preached the “gospel of the kingdom” (Matthew 3.2; 4.17). This gospel was a gospel of repentance and the message was that Jesus was the Messiah-King who had come to establish His rule on the earth and fulfill the Jewish covenants (Matthew 6.9-10; Romans 15.8). It required both individual and national repentance (Acts 2.36, 38-38, 3.17-23 cf. Romans 11.25-27). Thus, this good news was that the King was present and the nation of Israel was to accept Him as the Messiah and King of Israel. That was the focus of faith.
Paul’s gospel was distinct from the gospel of the kingdom (Galatians 1.6-12; 2.1-9). Paul’s gospel was not a gospel of repentance, that Jesus was the King about to establish His kingdom on earth and fulfill Israel’s covenants. Paul’s gospel was that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. He received his gospel, not from Peter or the Twelve, but by direct revelation from the risen Christ. The language Paul used to refer to his gospel revealed that he regarded it as his own. Thus, we read of “the gospel which I preached to you” (1 Corinthians 15.1-5), “my gospel” (Romans 2.16, 16.25, 2 Timothy 2.8), “our gospel” (2 Corinthians 4.3; 2 Thessalonians 2.14), “that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles” (Galatians 2.2), “the gospel of the uncircumcision” (Galatians 2.7), “the gospel of Christ”(Romans 15.19; 1 Corinthians 9.12; 2 Corinthians 2.12, 9.13, 10.14; Galatians 1.7; Philippians 1.27; 1 Thessalonians 3.2), “the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24), “the gospel of your salvation” (Ephesians 1.13), “the gospel of peace” (Ephesians 6.15), “the gospel of his Son (Romans 1.9), “the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4.4), “the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thessalonians 1.8), “the glorious gospel” (2 Timothy 1.8), and “the gospel of God” (Romans 1.1, 15.16; 2 Corinthians 11.7; 1 Thessalonians 2:2, 8, 9).
Paul wrote the Galatians,
6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” (Galatians 3.6-8).
While faith has always been the means of salvation, the content of faith has changed through the ages. It should be obvious that since Christ had not gone to the cross and been raised from the dead, men and women prior to this event believed something different for salvation than what Paul declared as the gospel–the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins. The Gospels indicate clearly that the Twelve had no clue about the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection. In Luke, we read,
31 Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. 32 For He will be handed over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, 33 and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again.” 34 But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said (Luke 18:31-34).
Men and women are justified by faith in what God has revealed in their own time frame. Thus, we read regarding Abel,
“By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks” (Hebrews 11.4).
Implicit from the Old Testament account is that God had revealed that righteousness was to be obtained through the offering of a blood sacrifice. According to Genesis,
3 So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. 4 Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; 5 but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell (Genesis 4.3-5).
Why did God not accept Cain’s offering? Because God had revealed that to come to him one had to offer a blood offering (Genesis 3.21). Cain chose to disobey and disbelieve God. He wanted to come to God and be accepted by God his own way. He refused God’s revelation. Abel, on the other hand, believed what God had said. Because he believed, he obtained righteousness.
Abraham is another example of one who was accepted by God and who obtained righteousness. Abraham apprehended God by faith. God justified Abraham because Abraham believed him. What was the content of the “gospel” which Abraham believed? According to Genesis 15, Abraham asked God,
2 Abram said, “O LORD God, what will You give me, since I am childless, and theheir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “Since You have given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir.” 4 Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” 5 And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness (Genesis 15.2-6).
The gospel for Abraham was that God would give him an heir from his own body and that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the sky. Abraham responded to God by believing him (Galatians 3.6-8). This is what faith is, believing what God says.
What about those who lived under the Law of Moses? What was the gospel for them? The Law’s purpose was never to make a person righteous. Rather, its purpose was to reveal a person’s condition before God. In effect, its purpose was to condemn. Paul wrote,
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin (Romans 3.19-20).
The Law’s purpose was to show a person his sin and his need for God. A large part of the Mosaic Law concerned the Levitical service and sacrifices. A Jew under the Law was to believe and obey God with regard to these sacrifices. Thus, a believer in those days believed in and obeyed God by going to a priest, offering a sacrifice, and believing that God had dealt with his sin by means of the animal sacrifice. That was the “gospel” and the revelation which God had given to that point.
What was the gospel in Jesus’ day? John the Baptizer and Jesus preached the “gospel of the kingdom.” According to Mark,
14 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee,preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1.14-15).
How did a person become a believer and obtain righteousness in Jesus’ day? First, it is clear that a person had to repent (cf. Matthew 3.2, 4.17; Mark 1.15; 6.12; Luke 13.3, 5). Believing the gospel meant one had to believe the good news that the Messiah of Israel, Jesus of Nazareth, had come. This gospel included the fact that Jesus was the promised Messiah and that he was about to establish the long prophesied kingdom upon earth. We also note from the ministry of John the Baptizer that one needed to be baptized in water as baptism was a sign of repentance (Matthew 3.5-6, 3.11; Mark 1.4-5; Luke 3.3, 3.12 cf. 7.29-30; John 1.33, 3.23). According to Matthew,
5 Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; 6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins (Matthew 3.5-6).
This requirement of water baptism continued throughout Jesus’ ministry and into the ministry of the Twelve following Jesus’ resurrection (see Acts 2.38). In John, we read,
1 Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were), (John 4.1-2).
Salvation under the gospel of the kingdom required that one believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah (Matthew 16.13-17; John 11.27; Acts 8.35-38, 9.18-20). This was a completely different gospel than Paul’s. Paul gospel requires that to be saved we must trust in the death and resurrection of Christ. We simply do not see this in the gospels or afterward with Peter or the Twelve.
Great confusion has resulted in Christianity from the teaching that the Church, i.e., the Body of Christ, began at Pentecost. The Scriptures teach clearly the Church did not begin at Pentecost. The early chapters of Acts reveal nothing about Jew and Gentile being equal in Christ. One will search the Scriptures in vain to find any mention of the Body of Christ by any writer other than Paul.
Only with Paul’s calling and commission did God reveal the “stewardship or dispensation of the grace of God” (Ephesians 3.2) or of the “the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20.24). Prior to Paul, no one offered salvation through faith in the shed blood of Christ nor preached that the gospel of salvation had been sent to Gentiles. The early chapters of Acts record that the prophetic program of the King and the kingdom that had been proclaimed in the Gospels was still in effect and the audience remained wholly Jewish. On the day of Pentecost Peter addressed no Gentiles. He addressed Jews, i.e., “men of Judea” (Acts 2.14), “men of Israel” (Acts 2.22), and the “house of Israel” (Acts 2.36). Peter’s message was that Jesus was the Messiah, that they had crucified Him, and that He had risen from the dead. In response to his message, his audience asked, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2.37). Peter did not tell them to believe that Christ died for their sins and was raised from the dead. What did he tell them?
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself” (Acts 2.38-39).
Whom does this sound like? John the Baptizer! Jesus the Messiah! Baptism was a requirement under the gospel of the kingdom. Again, whom is Peter addressing? Gentiles? No. Jews. Peter quoted from the Scriptures. The Scriptures little to nothing to Gentiles but everything to Jews. He specifically said that the Holy Spirit was the promise for you and your children, etc. This was prophesied by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31.31-34), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 36.22-32, 37.14, and Joel (Joel 2.28-32). Indeed, in his sermon, Peter quoted Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2.17-21) for what was then happening in Israel.
Conclusion
The content of the gospel has changed throughout the ages according to the progressive revelation of God. Salvation is gained by believing and obeying what God has revealed at the time. Today, because of the revelation of the message of grace to the apostle Paul, salvation is as simple as putting your trust in Christ’s work on your behalf–that He died for your sins and rose from the dead for your justification. Salvation today is faith + 0. Faith in Christ is not “inviting Christ into your heart” or “accepting Christ as your personal Savior.” Such “invitations” are false gospels without Scriptural basis. No one in this day is required by God to repent, to be baptized, to offer a blood sacrifice, to join a church, or to do anything else that may have been necessary in an earlier age. The gospel for us is that Christ died and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.1-4). Christ’s work is wholly sufficient and has paid for your sins. At the moment you believe the gospel and trust Christ, you can be assured that you are a child of God and that God has given you eternal life.
©1998 Don Samdahl. Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it, but it may not be sold.
Updated August 27, 2010
God bless you brother for teaching the glorious truths of the word.
Did not Paul (Acts 26:20) show the Gentiles that they should repent and turn to God, and do works suitable for repentance? And on Mars hill did he not also
proclaim that God now commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)?
While the gospel might not include repentance for salvation, repentance is still something for everyone to accomplish. Paul still taught men to repent.
How is it then that repentance is not required, but it is still commaned by God for all men everywhere?
Thank you. I modified my summary based upon you comment. Paul’s emphasis for the unbeliever is to believe the gospel (1 Corinthians 15.1-4). Repentance clearly occurs when one believes. Paul mentions repentance for the unbeliever only once in his letters (Romans 2.4). Paul’s emphasis on repentance in his letters is for believers, not unbelievers. A word study of Paul’s letters on trust, believe, faith vs. repent will demonstrate this.
And also in Acts17:
Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30, 31 NKJV)
Is not Paul teaching repentance as part of the gospel?
Ron G
Paul did not emphasize repentance in terms of the non-believer. In his letters he used it once (Romans 2.4). Paul’s emphasize repentance for believers. Study the number of times Paul expressed repentance (1x) verses “believe,” “faith.” Obviously, one must repent (change one’s mind) to become a Christian. But Paul did not emphasize it. He told the unbeliever to believe his gospel. If one one believes, one repents. It’s a matter of perspective.
Hi Don,
I’ve been asked about whether Paul was gave the church its instructions for evangelism in Romans 1:16, “to the Jew first…” Would it be right to purposely reach the Jewish community before going to Gentiles, or is this a misunderstanding of what this verse teaches? From your teaching, the Jerusalem-Judea-Samaria process of the Great Commission applies to the Gospel of the Kingdom. But if it doesn’t apply to the Gospel of Grace, what did Paul mean in Rom. 1:16?
Thank you for your help!
Mike
Mike,
For sound interpretation we must always note when and to whom the Scripture was written. Romans was written during the Acts period. In Acts, Paul went to Jews first. When they rejected his message he turned to Gentiles. This occurred three times (Acts 13, 18, 28). Acts closes with the rejection of Paul’s message by the Jews in Rome. Imprisoned in Rome, note Paul’s words in Ephesians 3.1: For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles. The Lord Himself imprisoned Paul to focus his ministry upon Gentiles. The Lord had told Paul the Jews would not believe him (Acts 22.18). From this point onward, we see Paul focusing on Gentiles, not Jews first.
Thank you, Don.
Since the Gospel of John was written after the Acts period, and after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, did Apostle John then come to accept Israel’s national rejection of Jesus, and therefore (finally) embrace the Gospel of Grace?
Are we able to tell whether his gospel was therefore written to Jews and Gentiles alike? If not, how can we make sense of the Gospel of Grace being the only valid Gospel (proclaimed as early as Acts 15:11), yet then have John be inspired to write a Kingdom-oriented Gospel even as late as 85 AD. As one generally reads the Gospel of John, it seems to be directed toward a broader audience that does not assume one understands Jewish tradition and culture. It seems rather absent of (earthly) Kingdom teachings while being filled with heavenly/eternal perspective and emphasizing belief in Jesus + 0, like Paul.
It also makes sense that he would emphasize eternal life over Kingdom life, if he had to be resigned to the fact that Israel had indeed officially (but only temporarily) rejected their Messiah.
Thanks again SO MUCH for your teachings and insight. You have helped me immensely!
Mike
Mike,
Why do you think John was written after 70 A.D.? See Colossians 1.25. Paul wrote he was God’s minister to “fulfill,” “complete” (πληρόω) the Word of God. Paul completed the canon. Ergo, the canon was complete by 67-68 A.D. All the gospels were written for Jews for they concerned Jesus’ earthly ministry and promises to the nation (see Romans 15.8).
Thank you for challenging my assumption on John being dated after 70 AD!
I am now revisiting how the Gospel of John should be dated, and am currently reading Daniel Wallace’s take on it: Written Pre-70 AD, but to let the Gentile Churches in Asia Minor know how they felt about Paul’s Gospel, which perhaps goes well with the time John spent living in Ephesus.
Done out of a response to Peter in 2 Pet. 1:15, “Indeed, I will also make every effort that, after my departure, you have a testimony of these things” ©NET, Wallace surmises that John also wanted to comfort the Gentile churches over the death of Apostle Paul. He points out the many explanations, interpretations, and asides which would be unnecessary if the audience were Jewish (cf., e.g., 1:38, 41, 42; 5:2, etc.).
But I will hopefully come to a solid conclusion soon on both the dating and recipients of John.
Mike
Mike,
A lot of assumptions in Wallace’s view. It assumes Paul was dead. Peter wrote to Jews, not Gentiles. Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles especially in light of Galatians 2.7-9 and Romans 11.13. While it is in the realm of possibility that John may have had Gentiles in mind, it is equally or more plausible he was writing Jews who did not know Hebrew or Aramaic, those “scattered abroad” as Peter and James wrote (1 Peter 1.1; James 1.1). I believe the heart of the problem with views such as Wallace expresses is that he believes Peter and the Twelve ministered to Gentiles. They didn’t. Wallace does not understand Paul’s unique ministry. This misunderstanding provides fertile ground for a host of unbiblical notions.
Hi Don,
I recieved the following in response to my saying that the Jew first and then Gentile of Romans 1:16 no longer applies In this age of grace. Can you help me with the Greek?
“Okay, so you’re saying that the Gospel WAS the power of salvation to all who believe, to the Jew first and also to the Greek, now it isn’t?
If the part of this verse that says; “…to the Jew first…” no longer applies, then grammatically logically, the part that says;
“for it is the power God unto salvation…” also no longer applies.
You cannot separate the two principles contained in this verse.
The Greek tense used is one that is perpetually true, so in the same way that the Gospel of Christ is ALWAYS the power of God unto salvation, it is ALWAYS to the Jew first.
This is a non-negotiable.
The scripture can’t be broken.”
Blessings,
RonG
RonG,
Paul wrote the Romans the gospel “is” (present, active, indicative) the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes (present, active, participle). The record of Acts is that Paul approached Jews first, then went to Gentiles. That historical fact continues to be true. The idea the gospel today must go to Jews first is not true. Paul ceased going to Jew first after Acts ended.
Truly a great site! I have read all of the articles & have used some in my own teaching.
But never with out giving reference to you. I would like to know if you are writing new
papers, and if so will you post them.
God bless,
John H. Gregory
johngpsa911@gmail.com
Thank you for your kind words. I think this year I’ve written an article on Esther and Handel’s Messiah. I’m working on another now which I hope to finish in a few days.
This is deep stuff. Though difficult to grasp it’s the clearest I’ve found. I too am beginning to change my view on the dates for John’s writings but I don’t like opening doors for the Prets.
Though off subject this question relates to the deep stuff remark above…..A bible teacher from way back once made the statement that has stuck with me……paraphrase…..The Lord will return when the number of saved equal the number of fallen angels. The reason for this is that we (saved) are to ‘judge’ them and like a line of captured enemy behind a chariot, each fallen angel will have a corresponding Christian Soldier next to him or something of the sort……the preacher was probably a military man….wink wink.
Joe,
For Preterism, early dating of Revelation is essential. Without it, the entire system collapses. This is not so for Futurism. Revelation can be dated early with no impact. I have no idea about saved=fallen angels. Could be true but seems fanciful. No Scripture to support it.
Hi Don,
You wrote:
“Faith in Christ is not “inviting Christ into your heart” or “accepting Christ as your personal Savior.” Such “invitations” are false gospels without Scriptural basis.”
I can’t agree more with you. Thanks for saying it in your website. Many “Christians” are being deceived by this; they believe they are “saved” by saying a “sinner’s prayer” some time in their life when they have yet to experience genuine spiritual birth and become “new creation” in Christ, with a new nature that loves and obeys God resulting in radical changes in their lives. Perhaps this contributes to the weakness of the church? a mixture of saved and unsaved folks creating problems… I read somewhere the stats can be as high as 50% of church members/attendees are unsaved. What do you think?
Kim,
I think for most churches the percentage would be much higher. The gospel is rarely preached in most churches.
How true! I come out of darkness. Then our Lord gives me a lot of exposure to many who are preaching another Jesus. I memorized James 1 and tried and tried to be a Christian. After 35 years of being tossed to and fro by the sleight of men, which today is to my benefit. I will never ever again mingle the ministry of Jesus, Peter John and James with the thirteen personal intimate epistles that the apostle Paul wrote from the revelation of Jesus Christ. I am a Simple man from Skynard to Jesus who was fully God and had to become fully man to know how we suffer temptation. Man the anticipation of His blood sweat tears onto the 5 scars of grace that defeated the 5 I will’s from the devil. Devil spelled backwards is lived. Lucifer lived in the pureness of God’s magnificent kingdom, got prideful and was thrown to the ground. “Defeated Foe” When Lucifer came after God the mystery that was hid (sealed) in God before the foundation of the world is His twofold plan and purpose for the counsel of His own will. In the beginning God created the heaven and earth, which Santa Claus – (move the n to get satan who will endure the feast of maggots ) has polluted His kingdom worse than the smelliest sewer that we have to sometimes smell. Israel will be redeemed on the earth and we gentiles (all nations) any individual alive on this corrupted globe believes the true story of the cross. I am crucified with Christ; never the less I live; but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh; I live by the faith of (from) the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. Faith in is where they are introduced to the sinner’s prayer. It becomes the individual’s faith. The world asks a lot of why this and why that in God’s infallible written Word. My question is to the next skeptic are stiff necked preachers who continues to teach lies for none other than filthy lucre. (TBN) The Blasphemous Nation – Jan and Paul are dead! Paul died the very same day Paul Walker died in His burning Porsche. Prosperity gospel will endure the likes of maggots eternally where the worms do not die. Here is to Benny Hinn. I am coming to one of your crusades to offer you a poisonous cocktail that will not hurt you. Are you ready Benny to be exposed to Mark 16? Yes, you all are falsely performing miracles that was only specifically given to the 12 chosen. Yes, they could drink poison and live. My cocktail is going to invite you eternally to your new maggot crusade. Who is your audience now Benny? Oh no maggots and more maggots! Shame on you for using our Lord’s name in vain to live like Holly Weird! Believe it or not Benny I do pray for the bondage the devil has so many of you celebrity preachers in. Why would a God who is without sin write in this manner in Paul’s 13 epistles. Did you know that once you believe of the faith in Christ you are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise? We are blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavens. We are complete in Christ. We are baptized (inducted) into His death. Our Conversations are in heaven. Jesus gave Paul his unity of His spirit. One body, one spirit, one faith, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one baptism, and one God and Father who is above all, and in you all. How do we begin to measure the gift from God which was wrought in Christ? “Impossible to measure” “simple to believe” Paul did not write Hebrews. Hebrews was written by someone who knows all about Israel – a priest of a holy nation. Paul never mentions any of the words, which you will find in Hebrews. better (12x) priest (34x) promise (17x) sanctuary (17x) perfect (12x) blood (20x) covenant (12x) no other book uses the word new covenant which is what is being described throughout Hebrews. We are positioned in the heavens, complete in Christ – waiting for His glorious appearing – they (remnant of Israel is waiting to receive a kingdom – waiting for a city – going to receive a better covenant, Here is the ultimate. Why would God tell me that I am complete in Christ and nothing can separate me from the love of God. Then in Hebrews that God preserved without the author being known would write in Hebrews 10:26 If we willfully sin after receiving the truth – there remains no more sacrifice for sins. God is not a liar – man is. If this was pertaining to the gentiles. Would anybody receive sacrifices for there sins? No! God does not contradict His Amazing true Word. NOTICE THE FIRST WORD IN THE BOOK OF HEBREWS – none other than “God” We do when we thing in anyway we are spiritual Israel. Do not mix fire to gasoline. Better, yet do not mix God’s twofold plan that he purposed for His pleasure according to the counsel of His will. Rightly divide the Body of Christ which is our eternal home and Israel’s home is the New earthly Jerusalem is the remnant of Israel and the twelve tribes of Israel. The owner of this website is a bulls eye to God Genius Plan. I did not post scripture. Look in Gen, Jer, Mark, Col, Eph, Phil, and you will find my paraphrases in the 1611 authorized version of the KJV. Lonnie is batting a thousand, so Lonnie keep hitting the home runs as the questions come – in. Probably not the best of seasoning with grace – just the bold truth!
Don, I’ve often wondered how any church can be effective or pleasing to God if so many of the pew warmers are unsaved/unbelievers. We are not to be yoked with them or pray with them. Church is for the growth and equipping of believers. Yet, many say we cannot forsake the assembling together as per Hebrews 10:25. Does this verse which written to Jewish believers, apply to us today concerning Sunday church services? I
Craig,
Paul wrote Romans 16.17, 2 Thessalonians 3.6, and 1 Timothy 6.3-5 about this matter. We should not forsake assembling but it is better to have a small group who believe correctly according to Paul’s doctrines than a large body who believe error.
Hi Don, you wrote:
“Why did God not accept Cain’s offering? Because God had revealed that to come to him one had to offer a blood offering (Genesis 3.21). Cain chose to disobey and disbelieve God. He wanted to come to God and be accepted by God his own way. He refused God’s revelation. Abel, on the other hand, believed what God had said. Because he believed, he obtained righteousness.” This is a common interpretation.
I would like to offer a different view.
In light of Leviticus chapters 2 and 5, especially Lev. 5:11 the Word reveals either animal offering or grain offering was acceptable to the God of Israel. The Lord was so gracious that if the poor could not afford a lamb, they could bring two turtledoves or young pigeons; if they still could not afford the birds, they could bring some fine flour with no oil nor frankincense as a sin offering… I had tears in my eyes when I read Lev 5:11. The Lord is so accommodating. This tells me that God rejected Cain’s offering not because Cain did not offer an animal but because Cain offered out of an obligation, without faith.
Abel’s sacrifice was offered in faith and was accepted. Please note that
Abel and Cain had different occupations, Abel, keeper of the sheep; Cain a tiller of the ground. Vital is the matter of faith, not a bloody animal nor fruit from the ground.
I would appreciate your feedback on this interpretation. Thank you.
Kim,
The Scriptures have nothing good to say about Cain. Cain was not under the Mosaic Law so it cannot be applied to him. A blood offering was the basis of redemption. God made provision for the poor under the Law but that was long after Cain. Furthermore, Cain was not poor. Hebrews 11.4, reads, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” Abel’s sacrifice was “more excellent” because it was a blood sacrifice. Abel approached God by faith in offering it. Cain revealed he had no faith by rejecting the blood sacrifice and offering vegetables. Faith is believing what God has revealed. Cain rejected God’s revelation.
i am raj kamal from india .paul all so teach in The kingdom of god ,gospel that saves (Acts 19:8).what meaning ? pls ans
what is different between kingdom of god and kingdom of heaven? and what meaning Matthew 13 ?
Raj,
Paul focused upon the things the Jews knew. In Acts 19.8 his audience was Jews. His task was to convince them Jesus was the Messiah, the rightful King. The kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven can be the same depending on the context. The kingdom of heaven always speaks of the earthly kingdom anticipated by the Jews. Most of Jesus’ parables dealt with the kingdom of God. He spoke in parables to hid truth to those who had hardened their hearts.
are you bro belive “Hyperdispensationalism ?and your teaching is “Hyperdispensationalism pls say?
Raj,
I try to avoid labels and prefer to think I teach the Scriptures. Judge for yourself.
thanks for your reply.thats means what use for 4 gospel for church ? jesus teaching no belivers ? means what use jesus teach ? pls exp .and pls say any book name for this teaching.
Raj,
The gospel today is the gospel of grace (Acts 201.24). One is saved today by believing Paul’s gospel (1 Corinthians 15.1-4). Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom. That gospel focused upon His identity (cf. Matthew 16, John 11), not His finished work.
bro what does meaning of matt 16;18-20. what church ?
4 gospel
Hebrews–
James–
1 Peter-
2 Peter
1 John–
2 John
3 John–
Jude–
Revelation- this all books does not use for church ?now
i am not against your teaching.i am from india no more proper bibleteach.so i want learn to you. so pls answer.and your teaching very new for me and our church and my country
Raj,
Paul stated ALL Scripture is God-breathed and profitable (2 Timothy 3.16) so we must use all the Scriptures. However, while all Scripture is for us, not all Scripture is TO us. Jesus ministered to Jews under the Law in His earthly ministry (Romans 15.8). Jesus ministered to the Church, the body of Christ, in His heavenly ministry through His revelations to the apostle Paul. The “church” of Matthew 16 was Jews who had believed Jesus was the promised Messiah–true Israel. The word ἐκκλησία simply means an assembly of people. Its meaning must be determined by its context. The Church, which is His body, did not exist until Paul. Please see my articles, The Church (the body of Christ), Paul’s “Mystery”, Why Paul?, etc.
thanks bro this question answer,
Hebrews–
James–
1 Peter-
2 Peter
1 John–
2 John
3 John–
Jude–
Revelation- this all books does not use for church ?now and i will read for you say article thanks
Raj,
The audience of these books was Jews (James 1.1; 1 Peter 1.1). The books are profitable (as Genesis-Malachi) as they are Scripture (2 Timothy 3.16) but they are not TO us. Paul alone wrote to Christians for he was the apostle of the Gentiles.
No one in this present age of Grace is required to repent?? .?. I am a believer, saved by Grace but I also believe a person must repent… Not that works are required but that you caint just accept your Gift of eternal life and then just continue living the same old way… Am I wrong?
Theresa,
Paul spoke of repentance for believers, not unbelievers. There was no one more adamant that believers should live holy lives than Paul. He used repentance once in his letters with reference to unbelievers (Romans 2.4). Paul emphasized belief as opposed to repentance for unbelievers. Repentance is implied but not emphasized as it was for John the Baptist and Peter.
Hello, Don. You wrote, “Paul’s gospel was that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. He received his gospel, not from Peter or the Twelve, but by direct revelation from the risen Christ. The language Paul used to refer to his gospel revealed that he regarded it as his own.”
Are we merely to accept this proposition by faith? (that Paul had a direct revelation from Christ). Or just because he said it’s true? I’m still unsure why we a priori accept Paul’s experience as true. Are the teachings of Jesus no longer relevant to Christians? Paul seems to have thought so. He never referred to the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, only to the instructions he received in a vision and subsequent “revelations.” I understand you believe that Paul is the “Founder of Christianity,” but looking around at the brand of Christianity practiced today (following Paul) is depressing. You contend that the teachings of Jesus were exclusively for the Jews and that Paul’s “revelations” and writings are what Christians should follow today. It seems that your theology constrains you to come to this conclusion. The flip side of the coin is that Paul corrupted the message of Jesus of Nazareth right from the start. Ask any reasonable Christian if they follow the teachings of Jesus or Paul. I have, and most reply “both.” But you can’t have it two ways. Your reasoning that God implemented a “new” gospel with Paul is based on early church tradition, it seems to me.
Roger,
Well, what is the basis for accepting anything as true? Why accept what is in the Gospels? Why accept what is on the TV news? 99.99% of what we see or hear we cannot independently verify. Descartes was driven by total skepticism, hence, cogito ergo sum. But this dog just won’t hunt. It is hopelessness. My theology derives from what the text says, not vice versa. I think we’ve been over this territory. Peter verified Paul–not that it was needed. Paul’s life verified him. Timothy, Luke, Ananias, and countless others verified Paul.
You wrote, “99.99% of what we see or hear we cannot independently verify.” What? Of course we can — and do all the time. Maybe I missed your point.
So, you’re right; we disagree. I’ll let the matter rest. I wonder how Christianity would look today if we based it on Jesus’ teachings in the synoptic gospels? No need to respond. Just wondering.
Roger,
How Christianity would look if we based it upon the synoptics is largely how it looks today. For 90% of the churches 90% of the time the message is from the Gospels. If teaching from the gospels was consistent, salvation would be based upon keeping the Mosaic Law, water baptism, and faith. Jesus also declared if one did not forgive, He would not forgive. It would also be almost entirely to Jews with only a few Gentile exceptions. The teaching from the gospels is DO and live. The teaching Paul received from Lord was LIVE and do. Without Paul there is no identification with Christ, no Rapture, no Church, the body of Christ, no salvation by faith alone, etc. As to the 99.99%, think about it. Of the hundreds of news stories every day, how many of them did you witness? How many can you verify independently. For most of us, the answer is “none.” We accept the authority of the report by faith.
Hey Doc.
In Gal.1:6 Paul says “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel”.Then in vs.7 he says “Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Isn’t he talking about the gospel that Peter preached since he said “which is not another “, and if so, isn’t Paul saying they preach the same gospel?
Tommy,
Galatians was written a few years after the Jerusalem Council (51 A.D.). There, they agreed Paul’s gospel was the only gospel. Apparently, some did not accept this and were still trying to add the Mosaic Law to Paul’s gospel (cf. Acts 15.1, 5). See my article, The Great Hinge. Eventually, Paul lost all of Asia to these people and this began the perversion of Christianity which we have now in full flower.
Hi Don, are you certain (Genesis 3.21) is the proper reference in the paragraph regarding Cain’s offering? I don’t see the correlation there. Thanks!
Derrick,
God established blood offerings by killing animals to make coverings for Adam and Eve. The clothing covered their nakedness and shame. The blood their sin.
I see it now. Thank you, brother!
Hi Don, after reading Raj’s questions above, I believe I can empathize to an extent with his ambiguity. In particular, with the statement that all of the bible is not written TO us. I’m beginning to understand which parts were to us but I feel that I sometimes struggle with what to do with the parts that were NOT written to us. And quite honestly, I feel it’s an important topic that, if expounded upon, would go a long way in putting all of this together and truly making it intelligible. In reading other comments throughout your articles, other sites, and personally discussing it with friends, it’s evident that many seem to either be new to Pauline doctrine/rightly dividing/dispensationalism), they are not aware of it, or they think it’s blasphemous. Why do I feel that I see this so clearly yet multitudes upon multitudes, including pastors and churches worldwide for centuries, seemingly overlook these passages? How/why do they avoid or talk their way through the “contradictions?”
I also would love to know how your studies and the application of the Scriptures have impacted your life in a practical, day to day manner. How has it changed your prayer life? Do you pray differently and how has it changed your interaction and ministry with people offline? Thank you!
Derrick,
The answer of why some see right division and some don’t is because most of Christendom is bound up in tradition. They are no different from the Jews of Jesus’ day. If you want to understand this better, I recommend Cornelius Stam’s book The Controversy, now renamed Holding Fast the Faithful Word. For me, nothing is more practical than theology. Nothing is more wonderful that seeing things clearly. Nothing is more wonderful than to seek and then find. The more clearly I understand the Scriptures, the greater God becomes in my life. My gift is teaching and writing. I am able to exercise this gift more effectively with clearer understanding of the Scriptures. As far as prayer is concerned, I pray differently as a result of understanding Paul is our apostle. His prayers are models for how we should pray as Christians.
It’s probably not a coincidence that you recommended that title. I read the Berean Searchlight and just several days ago, I noticed a reference to it. Thank you brother for your gifts and thank you Lord!
Good article … I been defending paul gospel for a well. Its so sad that pastors do not see difference between Paul vs Peter; they do not Rightly divide the word of God 2 tim 2 : 15 kjv when they do they will see things differently, yet they don’t want to expect things that are different. My email address is kjv1611rebelostephen@gmail.com
Stephen,
Thank you for the encouragement.
You keep defending esteves…. People will not like you for it, they will think your crazy or even get angry, but its only by the Gospel Paul was given by revelation, we stand. 1 Cor 15:1-4, and Galatians 1.
Hi Don,
Your site and the way you present the word of God is really a blessing, it takes away so much confusion.
I have a question though, something I came across recently.
It’s a question I saw online about 1 corinthians 15. It says in the first few verses, ”according to the scriptures”, and the question is ”according to which scripture?”.
Which scripture do you believe paul is reffering to?
Thank you, Don
Brandon,
Thank you. Few Scriptures discuss the Messiah’s death and His work of redemption in the OT and were not understood until after Christ’s death. See Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, 16.10. God took care to shroud these passages in secrecy for the particulars of man’s redemption had to be concealed due to Satan’s opposition. Satan clearly did not see Christ’s death on the cross as the means of his defeat and man’s redemption.
Hello Don,
I have a question regarding the thief on the cross and his salvation. You mentioned that in John 3 the “water” Jesus refers to is baptism. How is it that the thief on the cross obtained salvation without water baptism since it was a requirement under the gospel of the kingdom?
-Luis
Luis,
Obviously, the thief had lost the opportunity for water baptism. But the Lord saw his faith. God reserves the right of exception. He did not minister to Gentiles in His earthy ministry but did respond to the Roman centurion and the Canaanite woman. See my article, Two Remarkable Healings.
Is Dr. Ironside in error????
Jerry,
In his book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, Ironside denied several things he himself had taught. If you want a good account of Ironside’s duplicity, read Stam’s The Controvery aka Holding Fast the Faithful Word. One can see how great men made themselves small.
Don,
I found this page on prayer in the grace age. It is interesting. And there are specifically things we can pray on that I don’t always think of. Here is the link. Thank you. Grace and peace to you.
http://www.matthewmcgee.org/prayer.html
Bobbi,
Matthew McGee has done some fine work.
Hi Don
Faith in Christ is not “inviting Christ into your heart” or “accepting Christ as your personal Savior.” Such “invitations” are false gospels without Scriptural basis.
That Christ may dwell in your hearts …. (Eph. 3:17) How then does Christ dwell in our hearts without these invitations?
Frank,
This passage is a result of salvation, not how one is saved. It speaks of Christ’s control of our lives after one is saved. One is saved by believing the gospel, that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.1-4), not by “inviting” Christ in one’s heart.
Hello Don, Is the church the body of Christ referred to as male and is the kingdom church referred to as female. Cannot find any teachings and this question also comes from Vernon. Thank you.
Vanessa,
Christ is male. We are part of His body. The kingdom “church” is His wife/bride. So, in this sense, there is male/female in the picture of salvation. That is about all I can say.
Don please clear up my confusion. I thought the bride of Christ was Israel, the land and people in it. Above you say that the ” kingdom church is the bride of Christ.” Is this Israel? If not then how can the church, the body of Christ, marry Himself. Aren’t we, the church Paul founded, the groom? If the church that Paul found is the bride doest that make God our father in law and not our Father?
Donna,
I used the word “church” in a general sense, not as the Church, the body of Christ. Substitute the word “congregation.” The word “church,” ἐκκλησία, just means a group of people, an assembly, a congregation.
Does not the Kingdom of God belong to the Jews and others who have survived the 70 th week of Daniel?
Does the Body of Christ, the believeing Church inhabit the Kingdom of Heaven (the New Jerusalem)?
Also, please expound on what we (the believers) do when we sin. I know for a fact I sin every day, but I will not allow sin to rule my life. Matthew McGee says “we should never ask God for forgiveness.”
I am very slow and it’s hard for me to keep things in mind because I have a certain problem called, Korsakoff’s Dimentia”.
.. This condition results in actual holes or separations in the “white matter” of the brain which does not allow much information to be retained; save for only a short time. it should not be confused with having a selective memory.
It”s a consequence of my behavior that I deserve.
I bookmark a lot of what you teach but some of it I can’t.
This is so I don’t have to keep asking you the same things over and over again. It bothers most people.
Elena,
Paul does not spend much time on this. He basically wrote believers to correct sin and to encourage us to live lives consistent with our salvation. He encourages us to let the Holy Spirit control us. When we sin, he wrote we are to repent. We do not ask God for forgiveness. Why ask for something God has declared we have? That is insulting to God. That is why 1 John 1.9, which most of Christendom says believers should practice, makes no sense. It was written to Jews under the kingdom program, not to members of the body of Christ. We clearly have to recognize our sin and acknowledge it. Then we must repent and allow the Holy Spirit to control us. But the great, wonderful, glorious news is that God has forgiven us (Ephesians 1.7, 4.32; Colossians 1.14, 2.13). He is in the business of changing our “want to” to conform us into the image of His Son (Romans 8.29). As for the kingdom question, believing Jews and Gentiles who have survived the Tribulation will enter the kingdom. OT believers will be resurrected and enter the kingdom and the 12 will occupy their thrones (Matthew 19.28). It is not clear where the Church, the body of Christ, will be during this time. By the time of the new heavens/earth, it appears both Israel and Church will come together.
Hi Don,
Acts 15:7 says “And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.”
The words “Gentiles (plural)” and “by my mouth” suggest that Peter also preached to the Gentiles. How does one answer this?
Thanks,
Vernon.
Vernon,
Peter was recounting his experience in meeting with Cornelius and those in his household (Acts 10.7, 44-48). We have no record Peter ever went to other Gentiles. The account in Acts 15 confirms this.
Hi Don,
Hi Don,
My second question is what did Paul mean when he said in Rom 16:7 “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”
If Paul was the first, how could they be “in Christ” before Paul?
Thanks again,
Vernon.
Vernon,
While the phrase “in Christ” is almost exclusively used by Paul, it is used 2x by Peter: 1 Peter 3.16 and 1 Peter 5.14. Thus, being a member of the Church, the body of Christ is not absolutely congruent with being “in Christ.” Paul used the phrase to refer to believers before him and before the creation of the body of Christ. Paul wanted to recognize Andronicus and Junia as two who had become believers outside his ministry and before him.
Hi Don,
Great site. My question is what were the apostles preaching for the 17 years that Paul was preaching the gospel of grace to the gentiles. The obvious answers are clear but how is this backed up with scripture. (other then Galatians 2/Acts 15)
Thank you for all the work you put into this site.
Jamie
Jamie,
Based upon the testimony of the early chapters of Acts to chapter 15 they continued to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom. They hoped Israel would repent. There is a tension here between reality and possibility. The die was cast at Stephen’s stoning but God’s judgment did not fall until 70 A.D. This is clear from Paul’s salvation and commission shortly after this.
If one habitually sins afta believing, is his salvation secured or its nt jxt possible 2 continue insin after bin saved?
Daniel,
All of us sin after salvation. The question really becomes how one views this. No true believer will continue in sin. He will be miserable.
Hi Don, I have been a follower of “doctrine” for quite a while now and this is the first time I have written. I really appreciate the numerous articles you have written and especially how much knowledge you have regarding the grace gospel. I just wanted to say thanks for sharing what the Lord has shown you, it has been a great help to me and to our Bible study. God bless you.
Gary,
Thank you for your kind words. They are especially refreshing and encouraging since I just received a comment from a reader consigning me to the Lake of Fire for eternity.
Lol at the Lake of Fire comment. Don even with all whats going on we can still laugh. Thank you, that made us laugh. Loved it.
Vanessa,
Thanks. Isn’t it wonderful God instilled us with a sense of humor? It is a saving grace in a fallen world.
Don, thanks for sharing how insensitive people can be. I feel sorry for those who are unable to rightly divide God’s Word. There was a time much earlier in my walk with the Lord that I had no understanding that the gospel that Jesus taught along with the Twelve, and we can’t leave out John the Baptist, all taught a gospel that was different the gospel the apostle Paul taught.
Let’s pray that the individual who dealt with you so harshly will find help and believe I Cor.15:1-4 for their salvation. There is definitely hope, it’s there for us buy faith is required.
Thanks so much for sharing Don, we love you!
Typo in last paragraph… “At the moment you ‘put’ believe the gospel and trust Christ, you can be assured that you are a child of God and that God has given you eternal life.”
Should remove the word ‘put’ from sentence.
Thank you for all you do!
Brian,
Thank you! Always appreciate readers catching errors.
Hi,
I love you materials. Thank you so much! I appreciate your dedication and hard work preparing info to share with the world.
Do you happen to have a recommendation for a tour to Israel? I am looking to travel and learn from a like minded tour guide.
Thank you greatly for all you do!
Debbie,
Thank you. I don’t know of such a tour. Les Feldick used to offer such tours. You might want to contact them and see if they can make a recommendation.
Don thank you for your clear teaching!
Question: My pastor will not accept the difference in the gospel of the kingdom and Paul’s gospel. Should I stay there and oppose him or just leave and not cause a split?
yours Uncle Bert
Bert,
Thank you. What does your pastor preach about how one is saved? Does he proclaim one is saved solely by believing Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead? If so, does he maintain this is what Jesus and the Twelve told the Jews regarding how to be saved? And if so, how does he explain Luke 18.31-34 and John 20.9? Does he maintain the Scriptures are wrong?
It is ‘hid’ from him. If words have meaning how could it be otherwise?
hey Doc,
how would you approach someone who believes that there is a heavenly mother?
thanks,
Christina
Christina,
The issue is what is the source of authority for believing in a heavenly mother. The Bible never teaches this. This is a same matter over all such questions: what do the Scriptures say?
they reference REv 22:17, saying the “bride” is a literal women! They also say, ELohim means “Gods” and relating that to God the Father and god the Mother. They also say in Genesis when it says let “US” make man in “our” image, they’re saying “us” is God the Father and god the Mother. They think that because it says we need man and women to create life, that God’s image is that same man, so there has to be a women! it’s crazy how they interpret the bible. They bring up so much stuff that is just strange fire and they seriously believe it! They also said Jesus already came back….in 1948 and they got this info from one of their founders! smh…The enemy is really planting some confusion in this religion.
Christina,
One has to completely twist the clear reading of Scripture to arrive at such views. Lots of deception out in the world. The stage continues to be set for the advent of the Beast.
Christina – elohim is translated gods. It’s probably translated that way becuase Elohim is translated God. The word “elohim” is plural it appears to be used consistently for the inhabitants of the spiritual realm like man inhabitants the earthly realm. God is elohim no other elohim is God. The words and grammar that surround the use of elohim determine if it’s being used for “The God” or other spiritual beings that aren’t him.
1 Samuel 28:12-14 The king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a god (elohim) coming up out of the earth.” He said to her, “What is his appearance?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.” And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage.
Samuel was definately no “god” … but he was dead and a spirit .
Matthew,
The noun “Elohim” is plural and can refer to God, for He is a plurality in one, spirits, human and angelic, and rulers, judges. God Himself is unique, Deuteronomy 10.17. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h430/kjv/wlc/0-18/#lexResults.
At the Jerusalem counsel why didn’t Paul reveal to them the secret of Christ’s death and resurrection for our salvation. Wouldn’t that have been part of Paul’s message that the church in Jerusalem didn’t know. But it wasn’t discussed at the counsel. Thanks, I have learned so much from your teaching.
Mike,
Hard to say. Maybe he did privately. What one must keep in mind constantly in considering Acts is two things: 1) It was written to Jews to explain why the kingdom of God did not come to earth and why God chose Paul and 2) It is not a doctrinal book. It is a historical book. Church doctrine comes only from Paul’s letters.
Dear Don ,
Having had convinced somebody about faith alone salvation as revealed to Paul in contrast to Peter’s; he was so touched he exclaimed,…” How is the whole lost multitude in Christendom going to be reached with this both rich and hard to find information?
I answered, ” Supposedly, there is going to be a Reformational operations in the near or farther future.” He and I came to that conclusion after having had considered that this truth is highly confined and is moving at a very slow pace through this people – packed world such that it appears what is required is mass sensitisation other than man to man procedure. What is your take on this? Do you think the few enlightened ones are indebted to employ highly effective measures to break through as much as possible?
One thing I don’t understand, (sorry I will be frank), is that we, the few enlightened on this knowledge, with you in the forefront, we supposedly do not necessarily work together to map out plans and strategies of how to reach multitudes and achieve goals. It seems we are satisfied with each one of us working individually in setting goals and achieving them in sending information to the people. How effective would this be? Would we say it is necessarily not our burden to ensure as many people as possible hear of this truth?
Sorry in case I may have gone too far.
Thanks for your attention.
Bahati,
The sad truth is that God’s salvation has always been understood and claimed by a small minority. God’s grace, love, and mercy are endless but most do not want it. See Isaiah 1.9. The Lord said but few find salvation (Matthew 7.12-14). All we can do is be individually faithful and proclaim His truth for today that salvation is by faith alone, believing Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.1-4). God knows His own and will never let anyone be lost who desires His salvation. Paul gave us our marching orders in 2 Corinthians 5.19-21.
Sir,
I am a serious student of God’s Word and I am convinced that what you are teaching about the GRACE and about the Apostle PAUL, WERE ACCURATE. Before I discovered this site, in one way or another I taught similar doctrine, i.e., saved by grace, about the body which is NOT the bride, Judas is NOT saved and the pre-trib rapture, just to name the few. (by the way, I am from Manila, Philippines) BUT the Church which i am currently affiliated teach OTHERWISE, this is my dilemma right now…I am about to be kick-out from my denomination, (preparing for my exit though). I am just asking you, can I use your material so that I can continue my crusade, just like what you are doing, So that whatever it takes this doctrine will save some?
Kudos!
Juancho,
Your experience is not unusual. Most demoninations and churches do not understand Paul’s apostleship or doctrines. You are more than welcome to use my materials. My new book may also be helpful. Thank you.
Agree with you 100%. Preach it every Sunday. What about people who attend legalistic or blended gospel churches. They will hear the message of the death burial and resurrection for the most part around Easter from the 4 gospels not Paul’s epistles. If they believe are they saved?
Keith,
Anyone who believes 1 Corinthians 15.1-4 is saved. One must believe rely on this alone, no works.
I’m very grateful that the Lord has directed me to your website. I’ve been liberated! Everything clicks now! It’s like the story of the ancient Greek who declared “Eureka!” after discovering water displacement… but much better! I am spreading the true Gospel of grace EVERYWHERE. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 all the way! Grace to you, Don!
Brian,
Your response is the reason I write. May the Lord continue to enlighten and bless you.
Don, I know you’ve addressed this question briefly in a comment section. I’ve been trying to find it. Many evangelicals are confused as to Romans 10:9-10 regarding salvation. Whenever I state the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, I’ll often get some defensive remarks from people stating that we must believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths before others. In fact, quite a few evangelical churches in my city, and on the local radio, proclaim this by citing Romans 10:9-10. How do I respond to this?
Brian,
One has to understand Romans 9-11 in context. This section concerns Paul’s case about Israel. His primary point is to demonstrate to Jews that salvation has always been by faith but that Israel has missed this great truth. What Paul is stating by “confess and believe” is a figure of speech for the act of faith. So “mouth” and “heart” are used symbolically. In this context, “confess” is “agreement.” Paul did not say confession was to be before men, i.e., public. Public confession, i.e., profession, would introduce the element of works into salvation. This is contrary to everything Paul taught elsewhere. In Romans 10.11 he sums up the point and in Romans 10.13 we have “calling” parallel and equivalent to “believe.” The clearest statement of the gospel is 1 Corinthians 15.1-4. This should be the go-to passage for everyone sharing the gospel. Why men avoid it is troubling. Human nature always wants to pervert the clarity of God’s word.
You said: “Prior to Paul, no one offered salvation through faith in the shed blood of Christ nor preached that the gospel of salvation had been sent to Gentiles. ”
But in Acts 10 (the very first case of Gentiles being sealed by the Holy Spirit from God) we see that Peter preached the exact same gospel that Paul later defined in 1 Cor. 15.
Acts 10
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
There it is… 1 Cor 15 1-9 right there in Acts 10. Peter was the first to preach “the gospel” defined by Paul:
1. Christ died on “a tree”
2. Him God raised up the third day
3. Shewed Him openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God
James,
Four points: 1) Acts 10 is after Acts 9. Peter went to the Gentile Cornelius after Paul was saved. 2) Peter proclaimed Christ’s resurrection on the day of Pentecost. That was not new. But the significance of Christ’s resurrection for Peter was that Christ was alive and could still establish the kingdom of God on earth if the people repented. Peter did not tell them Christ died for their sins. He told them to repent (from the sin of murdering the Messiah) and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. 3) Peter, and those with him, were stunned that these Gentiles were saved. Peter had not even finished his message. And they were baptized which was required for salvation under the gospel of the kingdom. 4) The primary reason for Peter’s mission was that God would use it 14 years later at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter came to Paul’s defense when he remembered that God had saved Gentiles apart from circumcision and keeping the Law. He went on to declare that from that point forward Jews had to be saved like Paul’s Gentiles (Acts 15.11). See my article, The Great Hinge.
1 point.
Paul didn’t go to the gentiles after being saved in Acts 9. … .. Paul went straight to the Jews. No gentiles. And Paul preached the Kingdom gospel to those Jews in Acts 9.
Peter is still the VERY FIRST person to EVER preach the Gospel… (the exact same gospel defined later by Paul in 1 Cor 15)… to gentiles. That was the whole purpose of the dream to Peter in Acts 10. Gentiles were made clean by God….in the dream…. thus Peter preached to the first Gentiles and those gentiles were the very first gentiles to have ever been baptized by the Holy Spirit….EVER … without even needing water baptism.
James,
Paul did not preach the kingdom gospel in Acts 9. We have no record Paul ever offered the kingdom to Israel. He proclaimed Jesus was the Son of God (Acts 9.20) but the gospel of the kingdom was that if Israel would repent, God would establish His kingdom. Peter said, “Men and brethren, you know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe (Acts 15.7). The “us” were the Jews associated with the Twelve. This did not include Paul. While Peter proclaimed Christ’s resurrection to Cornelius, he had no understanding of the significance of the work of Christ, His death and resurrection. The significance of Christ’s death and resurrection for our sins was not revealed until the Lord revealed it to Paul. Paul stated he received this gospel directly from the risen Lord (Galatians 1.11-12). It was not known before.
Wouldn’t it have been a violation of Christ’s command to not go to the gentiles?
Violation of a direct order from God Himself…?
Paul didn’t violate Christ’s command of avoiding gentiles even after he was saved in Chapter 9.
The only place we find where Christ’s apostles seemingly violate Christ’s command and go to the gentiles is after Peter’s dream of God making gentiles clean. That’s it. That’s the starting point. It’s Peter after the angel visit and dream.
God withdrew his direct command to avoid gentiles in Acts 10.
Peter was remembering this Acts 10 event in Acts 15.
James,
When God established the Abrahamic Covenant He decreed that all Gentile blessing would have to come through Israel. This was the prophetic plan. Jesus’ instructions to go to “all nations,” (Gentiles) in Matthew 28.19 was based upon this plan. He also gave them instruction about the order of evangelism: Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost part of the world (Acts 1.8). This is what they did. But we also see that Israel refused to repent. Peter made it clear in Acts 2-3 that if Israel repented, God would sent Christ to establish His kingdom on the earth. Fulfillment of the prophetic plan depended upon Israel’s repentance. Gentile blessing depended on this also. So we see in Acts 8.1 that the Twelve had still not moved outside Jerusalem, even in the face of terrific pressure based upon Christ’s command in Acts 1.8. In Acts 7, it became clear Israel would not repent. They stoned Stephen. The die was cast. So, it appeared that God was boxed in. He could not bless Gentiles according to the prophetic plan because Israel would not repent. But in chapter 9, God saved Saul. God commissioned him as “the apostle of the Gentiles” (Romans 11.13). Thus, God moved outside of His prophetic plan and created a new, previously unrevealed plan to bless Gentiles. This is why God kept Paul separated from the Twelve. God’s new plan was the Church, the body of Christ, and God revealed all doctrine which concerns the Church to Paul alone. Paul is to the Church what Abraham, Moses, and the prophets were to Israel. Paul became proxy Israel in concert with the Abrahamic Covenant. The Twelve knew none of this and this is why they had the big dust up at the Council of Jerusalem. Paul wrote in Galatians 2.2 that he had to explain his gospel to them. That is what the word ἀνατίθημι means. Had they know Paul’s gospel, had they been proclaiming it, Paul would not have had to explain it. Indeed, there would have been no need for a Council. The Twelve never had a ministry to Gentiles and we have no record that Peter ever evangelized another Gentile after Acts 10. It was a one-time event God set up so that Peter could aid Paul 14 years later at the Council. And Peter recognized Paul was right and they were wrong and made the tremendous decree in Acts 15.11 than reset the whole salvific program concerning Israel.
Peter may not have known the significance of what he preached to the gentiles in Acts 10, but what he preached was absolutely was the gospel defined later by Paul! You will not convince me otherwise.
And Paul did preach the Kingdom gospel in Acts 9. The Kingdom gospel was repent AND proving the identity of who Christ is; Jesus is the Son of God (the “who Christ is” message).
Two verses in Acts 9 prove this fact: Acts 9:20 and Acts 9:22…. both are the “who Christ is” message.
Nowhere in Acts 9 did Paul preach the new gospel he later defined in 1 Cor 15 (the “what Christ did” message). That message was first preached in Acts 10 by Peter, even if Peter didn’t realize what just happened. It’s the ONLY message that a gentile MUST hear before believing and receiving the Holy Spirit. Acts 10 is 100% proof gentiles heard the new gospel “what Christ did” message and believed it, thus, they received the Holy Spirit. The exact same message we are to believe so we can be saved.
The 1 Cor 15 gospel per Acts 10:
1. Christ died (Acts 10:9 –> 1 Cor 15:3)
1a. for our sins (Acts 10:43 –> 1 Cor 15:3)
2. God raised Him up the third day (Acts 10:40 –> 1 Cor 15:4)
3. Shewed Him openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God (Acts 10:41 –> 1 Cor 15:5-8)
4. Commanded to spread the Word (Acts 10:42 –> 1 Cor 15:1 & 9-11)
These facts are indisputable.
James,
When Peter declared in Acts 10.43, “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins” he declared what had been proclaimed earlier in the gospels. Believing “in His name” meant believing who Jesus was, the Messiah, the Son of God, not that He had died for their sins and rose from the dead. So Peter did not proclaim Paul’s gospel to Cornelius. What was proved at this meeting, however, was that one could be saved apart from works, which was completely shocking to Peter and the Jews with him. That fact was clearly forgotten by the time of the Council since God had to remind Peter of it. If Peter understood Paul’s gospel, why the argument? And why did Paul have to explain his gospel? These facts are indisputable!
I misquoted the first part in my last post.
1. Christ died (Acts 10:39 –> 1 Cor 15:3) **** not Acts 10:9, keyboard missed the 3.
I’ll just have to respectfully disagree with you. You don’t see Paul’s gospel in Acts 10 whereas I do.
It’s not really a salvation issue, Paul’s gospel is well defined, but in the case of those gentiles… somehow…. with what you believe, those in Acts 10 are the only gentiles to ever receive the Holy Spirit by only hearing the “Kingdom” gospel without first being baptized in water (and without being Jews)…
James,
The Acts 10 event was bigger than the salvation of Cornelius and his household. We have to understand that what happened there was critical to to what would occur 14 years later. Without that event Peter would never have supported Paul. If Peter had not supported Paul, God’s plans to save Jews through Paul’s gospel would have been severely thwarted. Few recognize just how astonishing Peter’s statement in Acts 15.11 was. It overturned 1,500 years of Jewish theology. And even though Peter made this declaration, the believing Jews in Jerusalem were thoroughly committed to the Mosaic Law. How powerful their influence was is clear from Paul’s account of Peter and Barnabus’ behavior in Galatians 2.
Doctrine/James, Acts 10:47 says they spoke in tongues. I don’t see tongues as part of I Cor 15:1-4. Peter didn’t know what was going on. He was astonished and suggested water baptism. Obviously Peter was being used by the Lord. Peter was confused. Peter would have to have had a command of the gospel of Grace to declare it. Peter made no such declaration. Peter was simply the vessel to carry support for Paul in Acts 15.
Tongues is still just a sign to “unbelievers”. Maybe there were unbelievers present during the event in Acts 10 to further enforce what was happening there? To save even more present that hadn’t believed immediately… I know, argumentative… speculation.
My point is that Gentiles (in general) are not indwelt/sealed with the Holy Spirit unless first hearing “the gospel” as defined by Paul in 1 Cor 15, and then believing it. That’s exactly what I see in Acts 10. It makes perfect since to me. That’s also how Ephesians 1:13 doesn’t become a lie… Acts 10 is a written, recorded, physical manifestation of Ephesians 1:13 and 1 Cor 15… The site owner “doctrine” disagrees. Ok.
Now was Peter being used by God, not just for Acts 15 support to Paul, but other things? Absolutely! We agree here. Was God’s Grace through faith alone shown in Acts 10? I think so. Some may argue that his “alms to the people” may have been a “work” preceding his Faith. Well, I’m not God so I can’t speak for Him. I think His Grace was shown though.
James,
Cornelius and company spoke in tongues to show Peter and the other Jews that they were true believers. The text states the Holy Spirit “fell upon” them and that the gift of the Holy Spirit was “poured out” upon them. This is what had happened to Jews on the day of Pentecost which was what God had promised Israel. This is why the Jews were so astonished. It also explains why Peter baptized them. As for tongues today, Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 13 that they have vanished along with all the other sign gifts–gifts of knowledge, prophecy, healing.
Gifts? During the church age? For believers to use as a witness to unbelievers? My experience is that someone speaking in tongues today does nothing but make unbelievers scoff. Aren’t gifts for Israel? Isn’t an interpreter required?….but I digress.
Could the episode with Peter simply have been a miracle at the time for the purpose of support for Paul’s gospel in Acts 15? I know argumentative…speculation.
Joe,
Yes, the larger purpose of Peter’s evangelism to Cornelius was to show Gentiles were saved by faith alone so Peter would support Paul at the Council.
Don, was the martyr Stephen saved by the kingdom gospel or Paul’s gospel?
Craig,
Stephen was saved under the gospel of the kingdom.
Do you believe that all major Christian religions are accursed because they preach a different gospel than Paul?
William,
The curse is against individuals, not churches or denominations.
Thank you. I just see so much strife and corruption in some of these major denominations that teach salvation is not by faith alone. So what is the curse that these induviduals receive? Thanks again.
William,
The logic is that if one proclaims a different gospel from Paul’s one is not saved. Thus, the curse is eternal condemnation.
Don, I want to get your input on something. I want to do a You Tube channel/page where I put: (On the You Tube screen) 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 Corinthians 15:3-4 (The underlying title reads: The Gospel) I could either do the screen with standard black word font and a white background or reverse it with white word font and a black background. I know I could do the entire 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 text, but I want to get to the immediate gist of the Gospel. If anything it could compel people to read it in its entirety. I want to do this because surprisingly I haven’t found a succinctly stand alone worded Gospel You Tube Screen presentation. It’d be like a neon sign of truth! Your thoughts?
Brian,
Sounds like a great idea. Go for it! If you do decide to put in the entire text I would make one suggestion. Most translations do a poor job of translating verse 2. A more accurate rendering is “through which you are saved, if you possess that message I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. The stumbling block is the translation of κατέχω. The KJV translated it as “keep in memory.” Other translations render it “hold fast” or “keep holding fast.” This makes it sound that salvation can be lost. The best rendering of κατέχω in this context is “possess.” This sense if further explained by the remainder of the verse—“unless you believed in vain”—that is, “unless you really didn’t believe.”
Don, as you and others know, the popular satanic ideology of universalism continues to grow. Influential people like Oprah Winfrey, Barak Obama, Tony Robbins, etc., have promoted this heresy. It seems that on one end of the satanic ideological spectrum is atheism and the other end is universalism. With lordship salvationism/calvinism, arianism, and other heresies in between. It’s tragic that a large segment of humanity prefers to stubbornly believe that ‘all paths lead to ultimate bliss’ as opposed to carefully examining the major disparities of the popular religions/ideologoes. And even among ‘christendom,’ it’s sad that most adherents reject the true better way of the Gospel of grace as given to the Apostle Paul to give to us. After spreading the gospel in my local area I see how we true believers really are a small minority and seem to be fighting an uphill battle.
Brian,
Yes, what you say is true. A great deal of deceit exists and it is getting worse. Satan hates mankind and wishes to destroy us or force us to worship him. He has deceived the world about his existence and he promotes the idea of the brotherhood of man and that we will all go heaven in order to lull the vast majority from what the Scriptures teach and that God will judge and the reality of hell. A fellow recently wrote me that God will save everyone and denied that we have free will. He refused to recognize we are accountable before God and that we can choose either for or against God. It is sad but truly we are few, just as Jesus stated in Matthew 7. The gate is narrow but wide enough for all who wish life.
Jesus died for the sins of ALL of mankind. Paul clearly states this in Romans 5. Mankind is reconciled by his death, so that we can be saved by his life. The “saving” happens when we believe (and rest) in the work of Christ. He has done His part. It is finished. Our part is to believe it, and when we do we get His life and are baptized (dry) into His body. If we stop at the “reconciliation” then it looks like all are saved (universalism). If we move on to the “life” part, then we realize that not all have the Spirit.
So simple, yet so profound.
Don, thanks for all that you do here. Your writings have crystallized this for me. I read at least one of them each day. You are a voice for truth that cuts through all of the nonsense going on in the religious world. Paul was the same in his time.
Cpb,
Thank you!
I would like to know where the Bible says that the sole authority for Christians is by the Bible “alone”? That the teaching of the Apostles was handed down to us by scripture alone and that the Gospel has not been handed down via oral teachings also. Thank you.
Karel,
The Bible is the Word of God. It is the record of direct communication and instruction by God. See 2 Timothy 3.16.
Thanks for the reply. The problem I have with 2 Timothy 3:16 is twofold. Firstly, in the previous verse 15 Paul is saying And, from your infancy, you have known the Sacred Scriptures, which are able to instruct you toward salvation, through the faith which is in Christ Jesus. Correct? Timothy in his infancy would only have had access to the Old Testament Scriptures. Is the OT “alone” therefore sufficient for salvation, reproof, correction and instruction for every good “work”? I cannot find the word alone there. How do we know that the 27 books of NT are inspired (and not 30 books or 25?) How and when was this decided?
Karel,
God has saved individuals in different ways depending when they lived. Essentially, they were saved by obeying what God had revealed at the time. Timothy was saved as other OT believers or by believing the gospel of the kingdom. After the Council of Jerusalem only one way remained to be saved: Paul’s gospel. See my article, The Great Hinge. Various criteria determined the books that became our NT. The legitimate books were recognized early but were not formally canonized until later. The Lord revealed to Paul that he would complete the Scriptures (Colossians 1.25). 2 Timothy was the last book of the NT (Paul died about 67-68 A.D.). The following may provide more insight: http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-how-we-got-the-new-testament.htm.
I still cannot see the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ taught in the Bible. Re 2 Timothy 3:16 an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is “profitable” (Greek: ophelimos), that is, helpful. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is “sufficient”. As you point out, in the council of Jerusalem the Church itself used its own authority to determine that Gentiles need not be circumcised. They were not consulting a Bible. I think authority also lies with the oral traditions of the Church 2 Thess 2:15. Studying Christian history I have seen that there was much disagreement among early Christians as to which books should be in the canon. This was finally decided and accepted univerally by the Church by the end of the 4th Century. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth as per 1 Timothy 3:15?
Karel,
2 Timothy 3.16 states all Scripture is God-breathed. Oral traditions have no such authority. Only the Bible is God-breathed. While the canon was formally set in the 4th century, the books that compose the NT were recognized as Scripture long before then. Peter declared that all Paul’s letters were Scripture (2 Peter 3.15-16). At the Council of Jerusalem, Paul, an apostle chosen directly by Christ, argued that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised and keep the Law for salvation. Paul received his gospel directly from Christ (Galatians 1.11-12). Peter and the Twelve were also chosen by Christ. Peter, with his apostolic authority declared Paul was right.
‘All’ scripture is God breathed, yes. But really cannot see ‘only’ scripture is God breathed or authoritative. In fact the contrary. 2 Thess 2:14 Paul says And so, brothers, stand firm, and hold to the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. Also 2 Tim 1:13 Hold to the kind of sound words that you have ‘heard’ from me in the faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the “pattern” for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as “profitable” for Timothy’s ministry. Regarding the canon, many if not most early Christians said the book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?”
Karel,
What Paul meant by “traditions” were those things he taught which we find in his letters. I’m not going to argue with you. If you want to believe oral tradition has as much authority as the Scriptures you’re free to do so. But which oral traditions to follow? Do they have equal authority? Who decides? There are good reasons why we have the Bible we have and many have written about the criteria for which books were included.
Thanks for your reply. My point is that I just cannot see that the doctrine of sola scriptura passes it’s own test. I just cannot see the the word ‘only’. This is a big problem for me. I think that an oral tradition which is separate but of equal value to scripture was meant to be passed on from the original apostles. This oral tradition would have included teachings on infant baptism, the seven sacraments, apostolic succession, bishops, the priesthood, the primacy of Peter and even monogamy for example. It would also include the interpretative authority of an “authoritative Church” equipped with a leadership. This makes me think Catholicism and Orthodoxy have a stronger case especially when I read the Church fathers. I rest “my case” and thanks again.
Karel,
A massive amount of heresy and false teaching exists in the writings of the Church fathers. Paul wrote that all Asia had deserted his doctrines. The Didache, perhaps the earliest surviving extra-biblical document, does not mention Christ’s atoning work, the Holy Spirit, the indwelling Christ, salvation by faith alone, etc. Nothing of Paul is in it. By the early 1st century Christendom was largely apostate and the things you mention—infant baptism, seven sacraments, apostolic succession, priesthood, etc. are contrary to Paul’s teachings. In other words, they are false teachings. Paul commanded believers to not associate with those who taught different doctrines from him. Tread carefully.
Tradition(s)
In second grade I remember one kid telling another that eating his baloney sandwich was a mortal sin (it was a Friday back in the 50’s) This was in south Texas which was then and is today predominately Catholic . What’s funny is that a few miles away in Mexico a local bishop had declared eating meat on Friday not a mortal sin to a Catholic. Driving over the bridge to Reynosa made it okay.
I’m assuming no-meat-Fridays was/is related to the belief that Christ was crucified on Friday. How, exactly, does 3 days and 3 nights with a sundown on Saturday resurrection make Friday the day of crucifixion??—-another tradition (Sunday begins at sundown on Saturday)
Joe,
Religion always wants to add something to what God has declared. One cannot get 3 days/3 nights in the heart of the earth with a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection.
If i remember correctly the reason was to help out the fishermen . apparently people were not eating fish so the church made friday a day to eat fish. The rest is tradition blown out of proportion
Don, many teach that the gospel is repent and believe. Then there are others who say repentance is not part of the gospel. Can you explain what role repentance plays?
Craig,
This is an example of making difficult what is simple. Paul said “believe” not repent. In order to believe, one must recognize one is a sinner. In order to believe, one must want to change. Thus, “believe” accomplishes “repentance.” Why add something unnecessary? If only preachers would understand the pure, clear gospel!
Don, as you’ve stated before, this should be a very basic Christianity 101 truth. But satanic deception has been very effective in confusing and brainwashing people. Ray Comfort and others stubbornly persist with the ‘repent and believe’ teachings while also giving a false definition of true Biblical New Testament salvific repentance. I’ve been derided in Ray Comfort’s you tube video comments for stating the true definition of ‘metanoia-metanoeo.’ It’s sad and ridiculous regarding the level of arrogance and ignorance I’ve received. And Comfort even tries to rub it in by posting ‘False Conversions’ videos which attempt to mock or attack those who oppose the lordship salvationism heresy. I pray he wakes up before it’s too late.
Brian,
The problem with all this is that such people do not understand Paul. At the most basic level, they do not understand the gospel or the work of Christ. It is noteworthy that in the Statement of Faith on his website he makes no mention of Christ’s resurrection with regard to our salvation. All one has to do is see how many times Paul used “faith” as opposed to “repent” to see this. No one should be in Christian ministry who does such shoddy work.
Don, what is the best way to explain to someone that there is no 2nd chance after death for salvation. I have used Hebrews 9:27 but not getting anywhere as people put their own spin on this verse.
Craig,
Where would anyone get an idea of another chance after death? It is not taught in Scripture anywhere. Read Luke 16.19-31.
Don, how do I explain the part where Jesus preached to the spirits in prison? Who were these spirits and what did he preach?
Craig,
The most likely interpretation is these were the spirits of Genesis 6, the fallen angels and the giants. The “preaching” was not the message of salvation but the message of victory and judgment.
I tried using Luke 16 but many say it’s a parable. There are cults like Mormons that believe the gospel of Christ will be preached after death to those who didn’t hear it in this lifetime
Craig,
Parables never give specific names, e.g., Lazarus.
Don, while watching the Fox News coronavirus coverage, a tragic commercial with Franklin Graham came on. He basically gave a false convoluted gospel to millions of people watching. He said things like ‘ask Jesus into your heart,’ ‘make him your Savior and Lord,’ etc. This he said after assuring people they have nothing to fear. It both saddened and angered me. He did not mention the full death, burial and resurrection of Christ as specifically stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. Franklin Graham has a very large global reach now, arguably due to his father’s legacy. And ‘Yes,’ he’s very sincere about helping disaster and disease victims globally, but he persists in proclaiming a false Gospel. I don’t know if it’s due to ignorance, confusion, or defiance. In the meantime, I’m more compelled to keep spreading the true Gospel EVERYWHERE. Whether it be locally or on Twitter, You Tube, etc. Eternal destinies are at stake.
Brian,
Franklin Graham is a good man but like most believers and most pastors they have no clear understanding of the gospel. They want to add something to the clear, simple message such as “inviting Jesus into your heart,” “accept Jesus as your personal Savior,” “receive Christ,” etc. The gospel is so simple but confused by the traditions of men. Keep up the good work.
Don, I’ve also heard from many evangelicals that there’s a difference between sonship and discipleship. They contend when debating lordship abortionists in particular that all true believers have sonship, but not all are disciples. As only a minority of believers are disciples. And they say that lordship salvationists/calvinists fail to grasp and confuse the two categories. How do you respond to this?
Brian,
Since Paul never used the word disciple, the discussion both meaningless and unBiblical It’s not a term for the Church. Paul told believers to imitate him.
Doesn’t Paul quote a hymn or love song to zeus (by cleanthes) in Acts 17, suggesting we are all sons of zeus? So why should anyone devout follow Paul? It would seem Paul is violating a sacred command to have “no other gods before Me.”
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/17-28.htm
Elijah,
In order to answer your question, please tell me how one is saved? What must be believed?
I totally approve of that singe question being asked every time. It’s a qualifier. Once that question is successfully answered it’s okay to move on. Otherwise, what difference does it make? I believe if a person isn’t saved, he/she is not lead by the HS and is incapable of understanding, learning, comprehending etc. First things first.
Answer BTW—-1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Don, many people are now disputing the difference between believing from one’s “head” vs. one’s “heart.” Specifically, whenever the James scripture about ‘even the demons believe’ is brought up. I’ve noticed that many non-dispensationalists who fail to understand to whom James was written to like to use this tactic. Is the “head” vs. “heart” debate mainly semantical and misunderstood by most evangelicals, or anyone else.for that matter?
Brian,
I do not know the particular arguments being made but saving faith is an act of the will. The demons know who Christ is but they do not trust Him. The demons are the spirits of the giants, who have died. The dead do not have an opportunity for salvation. For saving faith, one must recognize one is a sinner in need of salvation and believe Paul’s gospel, that Christ died for one’s sins and rose from the dead. If one does this one obtains forgiveness and eternal life. Simple. What is the argument?
Don, I think you nailed it. It’s basically an intellectual belief vs. A saving faith.
Don,
I desire an emphasis on the subject of “repentance”. I understand very well as it is explained below, but I feel this topic needs deeper discussion.
Repentance
Does not mean “turning from one’s sins”
Does not mean “feeling sorry for one’s sins.”
It means “changing your thinking, your thought processes”
To the Jew:
Repentance was a requirement for their salvation
To the Gentile:
Repentance is a result of salvation
Biblical repentance is not “turning from one’s sins” and it is not “feeling sorry for one’s sins.” These are religious definitions, and we are unconcerned regarding church tradition and denominationalism. We need the Bible’s definition of “repentance,” not some religious authority’s opinion. After all, God’s Word carries the most weight in eternity!
Genesis 6:6 says, “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” Did God repent of sin? Was God turning from His sin? Did God feel guilty because of sin? God is GOD, and He has no sin, so obviously “repentance” does not refer to turning from sin or feeling sorry for sins. When God had repentance, He had a change in thinking, a change in mind. God began to think about man differently, now that man had become worse and worse in his rebellion against Him. Biblical repentance is simply a change in the way you think about something: you view it a different way than you previously did. Let us look at other examples in the Bible.
By the way, it is interesting to note that the Greek word for “repent” (metanoeo)—which is used throughout the New Testament—literally means, “a change in mind; a reconsideration.” You can see the prefix “meta-,” which means, “change” (such as in our English word “metamorphosis”).
Repentance is changing your thinking, your thought processes, having a renewed mind brought on by the indwelling Holy Spirit as your read and study and believe the Bible rightly divided (Romans 12:1,2; Ephesians 4:23; Colossians 3:10). Repentance will cause you to think differently, and the change in lifestyle will follow. Remember that Biblical repentance is not “turning from your sins” and Biblical repentance is not related to penance or penitence. Repentance was necessary for salvation for Israel in time past, but it is not necessary for salvation today (it is a result of salvation). Hopefully, you have a better understanding of repentance as the Bible defines it. We all need to change our thinking—throw away the denominational definitions we have been taught for so long, and rely on God’s definitions that will last all eternity!
“Is repentance necessary for salvation today in this Dispensation of Grace?” And the answer is NO! NO! NO! So what about Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized…?” That was spoken to Jews, the entire nation of Israel, not us Gentiles (Acts 2:14,22,36). Furthermore, Acts chapter 2 was in the Dispensation of Law, separate from our current Dispensation of Grace. Before Jews could be saved in Christ’s earthly ministry, they needed repentance (Matthew 3:3; Luke 13:3-5; Acts 2:38; et al.). Today, repentance is a result of salvation. When Paul told the Philippian jailor how to be saved, Paul said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved…” (Acts 16:31). Paul did not say, “Repent and believe,” but merely “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”
So, based on the understanding above, as repentance involves the change of thinking it may be a lifelong process since change of thinking happens each time something new is learned and that learning is a lifelong process.
In fact my point is that we need a thorough discussion on tgus topic.
Thank you so much Don for all your marvellous work.
We two here in Darwin Australia have spent the morning testing your article and found it to be biblically true.
We are very grateful to you to be swimming in clear water on this topic.
Christian regards
Annette
Oh by the way Don, following on from this article ……
my one point of query would be…
if we are required to believe only in the death and resurrection of Christ, the Son of God, for our salvation, then I feel the doctrine of the Trinity should not be included, as it is by the majority of churches, as a salvation belief.?
sorry to be a fly in the ointment
Annette
Annette,
The scribes were right that only God can forgive sins. Jesus declared He had the authority to forgive sin and proved it by healing the man with palsy. So while 1 Corinthians 15.1-4 is the specific gospel of salvation, Christ’s deity is implied.
Don, didnt know where to post this question.
A KJB advocate wrote in a christian group: “When you are studying the Greek, you are not studying the Bible, but one man’s opinion of the Greek words.”
Thoughts?
Craig,
Such a comment reveals a complete lack of understanding of the text and how we have our Bibles. It is as if he is saying the original text was written in King James’ English.
Hi Don,
Just wondering if you have an article on The Lord’s Supper/Communion ritual and how that fits into the 2 gospel scheme?
many thx Annette
Nettie,
I don’t have an article but Paul revealed the significance of and how the Lord’s Supper is to be observed by the Church (1 Corinthians 11.23-34). Interestingly, Peter, James, John, and Jude never mentioned it in their letters. By the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, there was only one gospel (it was settled at the Council of Jerusalem—see The Great Hinge).
thx Don
Is Paul saying he received the knowledge of the Last Supper from the Lord Jesus himself?
Annette,
Yes. Everything Paul wrote he received directly from the Lord Himself except when he explicitly stated he didn’t, e.g., 1 Corinthians 7.25.
Don, I hear a lot of Christians say: “Repent and believe in the gospel.” I know that from faith comes repentance. but people seem to put more emphasis on ‘repent’.
Craig,
Paul does not emphasize repentance, primarily I think because that was the focus of the gospel of the kingdom and Paul wished to distinguish his gospel from it. Paul’s emphasis was “believe.” But obviously, to believe means one has to change one’s mind, which is what repentance is.
Don,
Just want to thank the Lord for you, your website, your books, and your New Testament that just came out. Just got it and your introduction to the gospels as well as your introduction to Paul’s letters are just a great explanation on understanding how to rightly divide the word of God. Teachers like you and Les Feldick are rare these days and just want to let you know how being used by the Lord in these last days are. For someone like myself who about eight years ago God began to open my mind to understand dispensational teaching which led me to Les and then your website, it is truly a great blessing.
I pray that Les and his through the Bible daily tv ministry and your website will stay available until the Lord meets us in the air, our blessed hope. As you conclude in your New Testament Bible doctrine version,
“Paul’s gospel of grace 1Cor. 15:1-4, this is grace, faith plus nothing!”
Jim,
Thank you for your kind words and prayers.
Don, there are some who believe that we get a 2nd chance to hear the Gospel after death. I’ve shared with them the scriptures that says its appointed once for man to die, then comes the judgment and also today is the day of salvation. Yet they remain unconvinced. Are there any other scriptures that shows salvation is only for this lifetime? I’ve even shared what Joshua said about choosing whom you will serve this day.
Craig,
More importantly, there is zero Scriptural evidence for a second for salvation after death. These people have deceived themselves. All the Scriptures indicate that once one dies, judgment awaits.
Don, what’s the best way to answer someone who says just believing the Gospel is too easy and therefore is not scriptural
Craig,
I assume such a person thinks salvation must be achieved by works if one will not stand on God’s gift. Romans 4.1-5 is a good response.
Hi Don,
I have all 4 of your books! Hope you write more!
Can you add your thoughts on this verse and what if in anyway does it allude to Christ dieing for our sins?
Matthew 20:28 (KJV) Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Gwa5fish,
Thank you. Hope they will be a blessing to you. Jesus told His disciples several times He was going to die, rise from the dead, and fulfill what the prophets had foretold. Here he added He would give His life a ransom for many. They understood none of this. These kinds of statements were too cryptic to be understood. When John the Baptist declared that Jesus was the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world did he understand what this meant? I do not think so. The most He probably understood was that Jesus would solve the sin problem somehow, but how was not known.
Don, the fact that the Rapture passage of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 briefly reiterates the gist of the Gospel (v. 14) seems to have been sadly overlooked or ignored by many in Christendom. At least for me, 1 Thessalonians 4:14 is a great assurance/verification lynchpin verse like Ephesians 1:13.
Don, I’ve written about this in another thread, but sadly many of the You Tube channels ‘free grace’ proponents are mocking the fact that just by believing Christ’s death, burial and resurrection for our sins a person can be saved. They’re arguing that this gospel truth must also include believing in eternal life/security, otherwise believing in the death, burial and resurrection by itself for our sins can’t save anyone. They fail to rightly divide the Word and rely heavily on the Gospel of John. Yes, eternal life/security results from trusting in Christ’s death and resurrection for our sins, but that is not technically a part of the saving Gospel message. Sadly, even many of the alleged ‘free gracers’ are splintering into factions and attacking each other. I’ll post the sequence of Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:14 and get attacked for it because I’m “leaving something out.” We’re a very small minority indeed.
Brian,
It’s amazing that people want to make the simple complex and add to the Scriptures. They simply refuse to believe God. They know better.
Don, I had a ‘disagreement’ with a Hebrew Messianic Torah music ministry on You Tube. I posted the Gospel and he/they responded with a mixed message of “great verses but don’t forget to follow the law as the Messiah Yeshua told us to…” I then replied with Romans 6:14; Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:24-25; Galatians 5:14, and he/they persisted in arguing. It’s very sad how satannically deceived these ‘sincere’ Judaizers/Galatianists are. I withdrew from the debate because he/they are close minded and unwilling to accept the truth. It’s not about getting the last word. These judaizers will have to answer ultimately to God for their stupid pride
Brian,
Yes, sad. Sounds like this person rejects everything Paul wrote. They reject the God whom they think they follow. No different from the Jew of Jesus’ day. Blind.
Hi Don,
I’m still loving your web site. The 2 gospel hermeneutic has become crystal clear.
One query though.
When it says that Paul was persecuting the church of God, which church is it talking about? It can’t have been Christian assemblies? – although that’s what most commentators say.
Annette,
Thank you. The confusion is due to poor translation. The noun translated “church” is ἐκκλησία, which means a group of people. How it should be translated depends on context. For instance, ἐκκλησία occurs three times in Acts 19, Acts 19.32, 39, 41. It should be translated, “mob,” “court,” and “crowd.” In your example, what Paul was saying was that he persecuted the group of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah. The Church, the body of Christ, began with Paul, not in Acts 2, which most of Christendom believes. I have put together twenty proof from Acts demonstrating how it is impossible for the Church to have begun at Pentecost.
Don, Mormons of course have a different take on John 1. They believe that the Word means the Gospel and not so much Christ himself. Is there any way to show how their interpretation does not fit?
Craig,
John 1.14 says the Word was made flesh.
Don:
Your doctrine.org emancipation from the Grace Gospel’s 2,000 year shroud of willful denial
by the “Kingdom Gospel” apologists, is truly edifying. Apart from Paul’s letters, I have found
nothing in my long life that liberates and opens grace like your website. There’s an English
poet from two centuries ago with words that might be of interest to others who have been
blessed by your authorship.
Arthur William Edgar.O’Shaughnessy (1844 – 1881) penned: Ode (We are the music makers)
in 1873. It included the following:
“But on one man’s soul it hath broken,
A light that doth not depart;
And his look, or a word he hath spoken,
Wrought flame in another man’s heart.”
BUT WAIT! There are those of us who
have been enlightened by doctrine.org
that in retrospect might applaud a more
apropos statement, such as follows:
“But on Don Samdahl’s soul it hath broken,
A light that doth not depart and his pen with a
Word he hath chosen, wrought joy to a grace
Believer’s heart.”
O’shaughnessy’s man with the illuminated soul is fiction. However, your enlightenment of
the Grace Gospel will carry the believer into eternity. Don, I look forward to the Bema Seat
when our Creator-Redeemer the Lord Jesus Christ, announces your name !
Larry,
Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and His love for us is fully revealed in Paul’s letters. We are truly blessed. While we really cannot conceive of the glory that awaits those who trust in Him Paul gives us the greatest insight and urges us to be faithful and obedient. True freedom is freedom from the old nature, sin, and death. May God continue to enlighten and bless you in His marvelous grace!
Don, should Romans 10:9-10 be used when witnessing? Les Feldick says it is the Gospel, but i see that it omits that Christ died for our sins. I feel like by using Romans 10 I’m only giving a partial gospel. Am I wrong?
Craig,
I try and keep things as simple as possible. 1 Corinthians 15.1-4 is the clearest and simplest expression of the gospel for salvation.
Don, I’ve recently read some material on ‘The Law of Attraction.’ It basically states that ‘like energy attracts like energy.’ It’s often associated with Buddhism/Universlism/New Age dogma. However, the proponents such as the James Allen, Bob Proctor, Wayne Dyer, Tony Robbins, Oprah Winfrey, etc., also cite Judeo-Christian scriptures such as Proverbs 23:7, “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” As well as Paul’s New Testament teaching that “You reap what you sow.” Yes, the true Gospel of Salvation is very clearly stated by Paul, and refutes any degree of satanic universalist ‘multiple paths’ deception, but there does seem to be some truth in that doing good one receives good results, and of course, doing bad one will receive bad results. I know it’s another example of satan using half truths to fool naive humans. I’m sorry for posting this in your Gospel article section, but millions of sincere seeking people continue to be easily deceived and fall for this satanic utopian universalism lie. I almost did before discovering your website. Sadly, ‘The Secret’ and other popular books, movies, charlatans, etc., continue deceiving people of all backgrounds on the internet and elsewhere.
Brian,
Satan’s theater of deceit has many acts and scenes. God is faithful. If a person wants to know God, He will reveal Himself.
I appreciate your teaching on this site.
I haven’t read everything here, but you said ‘salvation = faith (that Jesus died for our sins and rose again) + nothing’. Does mean that if someone believes that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, but that some other work is required (baptism, keeping the Sabbath, etc.), that they don’t have sufficient faith and are not saved?
Justin,
Paul made it clear that one is saved by faith alone, believing in Christ’s death and resurrection. Anything “added,” any work, baptism, church membership, sabbath-keeping, doing good works, etc., negates salvation. We must come as God has instructed.
Don…You seem to indicate that God CHANGED HIS PLAN from working through Israel to sending Paul to the Gentiles when Israel refused to repent. I do not believe that God ever changed His plan (there has never been a Plan B for God)…not in the Garden of Eden and not when He sent Paul to the Gentiles. God is omniscient and knew that Adam and Eve would disobey Him and He knew that Israel would refuse to repent. It was not time for the Kingdom to come…until it was the right time!! If the Jews had accepted the Kingdom offer, then there would have been no outreach to the Nations and only Israel would be saved…and the Bible would end with the gospels.
Your thoughts?
Dean,
God changes His plans (think programs). He has plans A, B, C, etc., whatever is required to accomplish His goal. He changed His plan when He called Abraham. He changed His plan when He gave Moses the Law. He changed His plan when He commissioned Paul to found the Church. God knows all. He allows men to exercise their free will. All this is accounted for by His foreknowledge. God offered the kingdom to Israel. It was a valid offer. Did He know they would refuse it? Of course. God declared He would bless Gentiles through Israel. Could He do this within His prophetic, covenant plan if the Jews rejected Him? No. Hence, Paul. Paul became proxy Israel. Boom! One cannot outsmart God.
Thank you, Don. I love that concept of “Paul became the proxy Israel”!!
Dean,
Yes. Paul was light to the Gentiles (Acts 13), priest (Romans 15), and minister of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3). All roles a future, obedient Israel will do in the kingdom.
I believe (and my experience bears it out) that those who come to God “must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). I am convinced that God rewards diligent seeking! I think that those who come to faith circuitously are often more deeply changed than those who ‘inherit’ faith. That is the ‘diligently seeking’ part of the faith journey! I started out seeking God in the wrong places, but He knew I was seeking Him. There are many people, including myself and my wife, who did not come to faith by believing Paul’s gospel verbatim or instantaneously. Those who seek the truth will receive the truth they need at the right time. It is God who saves, not the words of men! For many salvation is a process, but an event. The key is election and the pure desire of the heart.
Dean,
Paul wrote he received the message of salvation directly from the ascended Christ (Galatians 1.11-12). That gospel is most clearly given in 1 Corinthians 15.1-4:
1 Now I declare to you, brethren, the gospel that I proclaimed to you, which you also received, by which also you stand, 2 through which also you are saved, if you possess that message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first what I also received: Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures.
Each of us has a unique path to God but Paul’s gospel is what must be believed for salvation. There is a moment of spiritual birth, just as in physical birth. A baby comes alive when it breathes on its own. We become alive through the work of the Spirit. Adam came alive when God breathed into him the “breath of life” נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים.
Don,
Queston from statement above, “a baby is alive when ti breathes on its own”. Is an unborn baby alive?
Joe,
Yes. But when it breaths on its own it has its own life. Before, it has been dependent on the mother.
The reason I asked is because one of your fellow Dallas bible grads from the Houston area used his interpretation of the Greek pneuma (Spirit) as a permission to abort an unborn child. Since no breath had been taken then it made some kind of difference. I don’t know if he ever changed his view.
Thanks
Joe,
I know of whom you speak and never accepted this view as valid. He had much right, but much wrong also.
Don, I have a friend who appears to be oppressed severely by satan. She claims to be a Christian but is very hostile to everything I share with her about the Apostle Paul, rightly dividing, etc. Her mother was a satanist and heavy into voodoo dolls and sticking pins in them asking satan to bring sickness on certain people. My friend has cancer and has ended up blind and wheelchair bound. I sense very strongly that satan is really keeping her oppressed and defeated. My question is: are there Scriptures I can use against satan? Can I ask God to put a hedge of protection around her.? Can we use our authority as believers in Christ to demand satan leave a person alone? Please help. My friend is elderly and bed ridden and I fear she may not have much time left. I’m also praying for her salvation as I don’t know if she is saved.
Craig,
Paul does not give specific information about Satanic attack or influence other than using God’s word as the Lord did against him. I think the major issue is the lady’s salvation. It seems her hostility to things you have shared is an indicator she is not a believer. The one offensive weapon Paul wrote about against spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6 is God’s word. I believe that once we are saved, God does protect us to a large degree from the realm of darkness. So, it seems in this matter, the lady’s salvation is the key issue.
Wasn’t the Gospel of Luke written for a gentile audience? Thanks.
DJ,
Luke was a Jew and wrote to Jews, not Gentiles.
Britannica says: “Luke’s Gospel is clearly written for Gentile converts: it traces Christ’s genealogy, for example, back to Adam, the “father” of the human race rather than to Abraham, the father of the Jewish people.”
I guess this is an important subject of whether 90% of the churches preaching the Gospel of the kingdom are confused, or not. If Luke (Paul’s close friend) wrote the Gospel for a gentile audience, that confuses me. Why is the generally accepted view that Luke’s gospel was written for gentiles also, incorrect? Thanks.
DJ,
Most of Christendom believes Luke was a Gentile and wrote to Gentiles. No Scriptural evidence supports this. Romans 16.21 cites kinsmen of Paul, Jews, and Luke is named (Lucius=Luke, Luke being a shortened version of the formal Lucius). Luke’s genealogy back to Adam presents Christ as the perfect man, the second Adam, able to redeem all of mankind (Luke 19.10). Luke wrote his gospel to a fellow Jew, Theophilus, to give him an account of what occurred with Jesus (Luke 1.1-4). Here’s a bit more on the Ashkenazi Jews: https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-Ashkenazi-Jews-come-from-What-ethnicities-did-they-have
Rightly divided blessing to you Don. During the invitation, our pastor would first empathize one must “surrender” to Christ prior to belief in His finished work on the cross to be saved Eph. 2:8-9 and 1 Cor. 15:1-4. In his words salvation = surrender + belief. What would be the best approach to convince him that surrendering is a form of works.
Anthony,
These kinds of statements confuse people. I doubt your pastor sees “surrender” as a work but views it more as repentance. Paul did not use the word “surrender” and rarely used “repentance.” Paul used the words “believe” and “faith.” Incorporated in them is surrender and repentance. Paul wrote about “obedience of faith,” Romans 1.5, 16.26. To obey God is to believe God. What I encourage in evangelistic efforts is make the message as clear and simple as possible—believe Christ died for one’s sins and rose from the death. All the language of accepting Christ as one’s Savior, receiving Christ, inviting Christ into one’s heart is outside of Paul and only confuses the simple message of salvation. In the Army, we said KISS, keep it simple, stupid. Simple is good.
I understand that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and the 12 were Apostles to the Jews. I’ve read the Great Hinge. I understand that before Acts 15 there was 2 Gospels but then there was 1 for all the world.
Peter the declares that “we” are to be saved as “they” are. I understand that there’s a shift at the moment on how the world would be saved…the 12 to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.
1. From this moment on are the 12 teaching the Gospel of Grace?
2. Are the Jews that are under the 12, are they to be raptured?
1 Peter 1:18-21 ESV
[18] knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, [19] but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. [20] He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you [21] who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
This seems to be teaching that exact message as Paul. That the blood was the sacrificial atonement.
At Pentecost Peter is preaching to the crowd and says:
Acts 2:31-32 ESV
[31] he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. [32] This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Even though he said Repent and be Batlptized, he did set up it,as fact, that Jesus was crucified, buried, resurrected and sitting at the right hand of the God.
Here it seems to be in line with 1 Cor 15:1-4
Did Peter and the 12 teach a veiled version of the Gospel of Grace.
in Ephesians 3:5, Paul writes:
“This mystery was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.”
I understand that here we left with the apsotles being Paul’s circle, but couldn’t he also be including the 12?
1. Yes. Otherwise, see Galatians 1.6-9.
2. No. They are resurrected after the Lord comes (2nd Advent) with the OT saints.
1 Peter 1.18-21 was written after the Jerusalem council.
Peter’s mention of Jesus’ resurrection at Pentecost was to let the Jews know He was alive and could return as their King. Peter did not connect Jesus’ resurrection with removal of our sins.
Paul likely meant those whom he considered apostles that worked with him. If the 12 were in view, they learned about the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection with regard to paying for our sins from Paul.