1 Corinthians 15

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you - unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

What is believing in vain ... or grace from God that would be in vain in this passage?

Also, in verse 2, there is an "if" that makes the salvation being spoken of sound conditional upon continuing to "hold fast to the word," but maybe there is a better rendering of the verse that I have not seen just yet.

Does anyone have any thoughts on these ponderings?

Liver and Onions

Liver and Onions: If Those In Heaven and Those In Hell Have the Same Atonement, Then Why Is One Group Saved and the Other Lost?

Some more interesting thoughts on the limited atonement point of view and its conundrums with those outside it.

Does Dispensationalism Teach Two-Ways of Salvation?

A certain very nice blog reader, one who won't comment anymore (hi!) emailed me this article. I thought it worth sharing with everybody here. It still doesn't give me the specific answer I was looking for in the question on the post below this one, but it certainly answers the critics of dispensationalism regarding the charge that we teach two ways of salvation! (It is a lot like one of the chapters in Ryrie's book)

Does Dispensationalism Teach Two-Ways of Salvation?

Question for Dispensationalists

(Or anyone who can find an answer in dispensationalist literature... or.... why not? Covenentalists chime in too - but I don't want it to end up being a debate between CT and Disp) (wink)

How many times has the "content of saving faith" changed since the incarnation?

I have asked this question in various venues and have gotten the take from several people. I am not satisfied with the answers! Rachel says "once" and then says that there have been subpoints added over a period of time. Art (mid-acts dispensationalist) seems to indicate three times (that I surmise from his comments) but I am merely surmising, because I did not get a direct answer. I would love to have Charles Ryrie's answer, but haven't found it yet - perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, LOL. Matthew says it has never changed, not even from OT to NT (I think). I would like to know from him or anyone who shares that view, what dispensational theologians also share that view, just out of curiosity.

I am hoping to now possibly some scholarly input - quotes from renowned theologians. ;~) But of course, lowly bloggers opinions are welcome as always.

I don't have a firm answer on this myself and this is really on my mind these days.
I think it is a vital question is reference to the current controvery in this blog neighborhood.

Thanks for your input!

BIBLICAL SEPARATION:STRUGGLE FOR A PURE CHURCH-REVISED - 5361 - Regular Baptist Press

Hot off the presses!
Regular Baptist Press (the publishing arm of the GARBC, of which my church is a part) has just released the updated version of Ernest Pickering's excellent book. I have read the foreward already because I know the editor and he gave me a sneak peak. I am excited to order a copy. I think Ernest was very balanced about this. I would love to ask him what he thinks about personal attacks done while referring to his book. Alas, I cannot, as he passed away into the arms of Christ in the year 2000. He was always dignified and kind... and ever the gentleman.

BIBLICAL SEPARATION:STRUGGLE FOR A PURE CHURCH-REVISED - 5361 - Regular Baptist Press

A Different Gospel from Paul?

A poster named Art has graciously asked a question in the comments of the last post. I thought it was really fascinating. I have never heard anything like this before. I first saw Art on Lou Martuneac's blog chiming in against the GES view on the gospel some months ago. I want to discuss this and see others discuss it here - it is so interesting. So, comment away and let us know what you think about these ideas.

ART SAID:

I've been told ... that Peter and the other apostles were aready preaching, before Paul, that Christ died for our sins and that Matthew 20:28 confirms this because Christ told them he would die as a ransom. This means (?) that the apostles preached this, before Paul, because they heard it directly from Christ. Really? ... Well, Matthew 20:28 does indeed say: "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to give his life a ransom for many." So, yes, Christ himself said this and the disciples heard him say it. So now please tell me, how does this establish that any of those disciples understood this and preached it?

All I can figure is that you must be overlooking this important fact:

"And they understood none of these things, and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things that were spoken." - Luke 18:34

How can anyone possibly claim that hearing words they didn't understand teaches us that this is what those disciples preached? Again, Matthew 16:21,22 tells us that when Peter heard Christ talk about being put to death, he rebuked him, saying, "This shall not be unto thee." Don't you see. Peter did not agree with that idea, did not understand it, and most certainly could not have preached it. So, when did Peter learn better and start preaching this? Text please.

This is a very simple matter. Produce the text, if you can, that shows Peter, James, John, or any of the other apostles preaching that Christ's death paid for our sins. My view is that they learned this from Paul, who received this by revelation directly from Jesus Christ. They learned it through Paul communicating this gospel to them in Galatians 2:1-9, and NOW, with Christ having given this gospel through Paul's ministry, anyone who preaches any other gospel is accursed (Gal. 1:8,9). Peter preached, before Paul, that Christ was murdered and arose from the dead (and Paul preached this too, of course) but...

where is the text that tells us (until after Peter learned it from Paul's gospel) that Peter ever said Christ's death paid for our sins?

Another Portrait

This of my daughter. I took the photo and then looked at that to render the portrait. Mixed media - pencil with watercolor washes.

See What I Mean?

I was just looking over the GES website where the links to the notes from their conference are located. I opened up a PDF of Bob Wilkin's. I read through it. I had various reactions to the actual teaching held therein, but that is not where I want to go with this post. Near the end I read this:

All believers will appear at the Judgment Seat of Christ and our works will be evaluated. This includes all we have taught evangelistically and in terms of discipleship. This is a sobering thought. Teach what Jesus taught and you are not going to be rebuked by Him at the Bema for those teachings. Teach contrary to what He taught and rebuke is sure to come.

One can argue with another Christian's conclusions and even how they arrive at their conclusions. We can choose to dissisociate with those who teach what we feel is not a sound look at Scripture, whoever they may be. We can even teach against their teaching if we are so convinced of their error, but ultimately, Christains are accountable to Christ for what they teach and believe. I think what Bob Wilkin recognizes here is important. We all must be very prudent in this regard. This paragraph above proves that "Wilkin" (as I have seen him referred to on a ceratin list) is not a good person to put on that list of "disobedient brethren." He is very aware of his responsibility as a teacher - he obviously takes this very seriously. He fully believes in what he is teaching. Someone can call him "wrong" if they believe him to be. BUT - no one should call someone disobedient who is obeying their conscience before the Lord Jesus Christ.

Vote for Pedro

It's time to go and vote, but I still am not sure who to vote for... or why.
This is unprecedented!

(I want a t-shirt that says "vote for Pedro" - does anyone know where I can get one? If that means nothing to you, I apologize - just my stupid sense of humor again)

Ohio Primary

Tomorrow is the primary electioin in my state, Ohio. It is an open primary - so one can vote for whatever candidate they want, regardless of party.

I can't believe this is coming off my keyboard, but I think I am going to vote for Hillary Clinton tomorrow. McCain seems to have it all wrapped up so I can't exert any influence in my own Republican party's choice for nominee. Even though I am not crazy about McCain, I think he is better than any Democrat. I think he could beat Hillary easier than Obama. Therefore I am going to vote for Hillary.

I wonder if there are many other Ohio Republicans doing this kind of thing? Or Texans?

Does it make sense?