Who’s it to?

glorydaz

Well-known member
I like your suggestion. But I'm amazed that you think there are multiple "plans of salvation".

So here's what you would have:
The gospel includes the grace of God.
Acts 20:24 (KJV) But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

The gospel involves repentance. Acts 20:21 (KJV) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

The church is a flock
Acts 20:28 (KJV) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The gospel would be perverted by wolves that want to draw believers away from the truth--
Acts 20:30 (KJV) Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Gentiles would share an inheritance with the rest of the elect
Acts 20:32 (KJV) And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

In THE kingdom of God
Acts 20:25 (KJV) And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

Which is what we have now. Would God only provide a single witness, when He requires at least two?
Look at all that and Paul hadn't even written his epistles to the churches yet.
It's also interesting because it's all recorded by Luke who was a Kingdom believer.
I always marvel at Acts. It's such a period of transition.

The church is a "flock" is not really doing Paul justice, since we know the Risen Lord revealed to Paul that we are the body of Christ.
In fact, every verse up there is explained in Paul's epistles.

As far as witnesses, the risen Lord also spoke to Ananias, and, of course there is the Holy Spirit.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Look at all that and Paul hadn't even written his epistles to the churches yet.
It's also interesting because it's all recorded by Luke who was a Kingdom believer.
How do you substantiate that? What evidence do you have that supports this claim?
I always marvel at Acts. It's such a period of transition.
For sure.
The church is a "flock" is not really doing Paul justice, since we know the Risen Lord revealed to Paul that we are the body of Christ....
This is a false dilemma, you posit that there are only two options, and imply necessarily that there is no third option, but here is the third option: The One Church is the Body of Christ and a "flock".
 

Derf

Well-known member
Look at all that and Paul hadn't even written his epistles to the churches yet.
It's also interesting because it's all recorded by Luke who was a Kingdom believer.
I always marvel at Acts. It's such a period of transition.

The church is a "flock" is not really doing Paul justice, since we know the Risen Lord revealed to Paul that we are the body of Christ.
In fact, every verse up there is explained in Paul's epistles.

As far as witnesses, the risen Lord also spoke to Ananias, and, of course there is the Holy Spirit.
How do you know Luke was a kingdom believer?

Are you suggesting Ananias was saved into the BOC? And what exactly did he leave us and through whom? In calling upon Ananias to add to Paul's witness, you have to go through Luke.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
How do you substantiate that? What evidence do you have that supports this claim?

For sure.

This is a false dilemma, you posit that there are only two options, and imply necessarily that there is no third option, but here is the third option: The One Church is the Body of Christ and a "flock".
So look into the word ecclesia. It's an assembly. For instance the church in Jerusalem is referring to the Jews who accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah. They were also called the little flock.

Luke 12:32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

Here, it's speaking of the Jewish Church.
Acts 2:
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Now Paul in Acts 22 is using the analogy of a flock, because he is talking about the oversight of the elders in continuing to feed and care for those in the assembly. Paul never, in his letters, speaks of the body of Christ or the church of God as a flock. You should be careful not to read into this more than is there.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
How do you know Luke was a kingdom believer?

Are you suggesting Ananias was saved into the BOC? And what exactly did he leave us and through whom? In calling upon Ananias to add to Paul's witness, you have to go through Luke.
Another one who reads something it to what is said. Funny, because you both do the same thing with scripture.

Luke is clearly a Kingdom believer because Paul had not yet started preaching his gospel.

No, I'm suggesting no such thing about Ananias. God used Ananias, who was a Kingdom believer.

Ananias was a witness to what the Risen Lord had revealed to him.
I already mentioned the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you'll hear Paul on the matter.

Romans 1:9

For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

2 Corinthians 13:3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.
4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.
5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
So look into the word ecclesia. It's an assembly. For instance the church in Jerusalem is referring to the Jews who accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah. They were also called the little flock.

Luke 12:32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

Here, it's speaking of the Jewish Church.
Acts 2:
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Now Paul in Acts 22 is using the analogy of a flock, because he is talking about the oversight of the elders in continuing to feed and care for those in the assembly. Paul never, in his letters, speaks of the body of Christ or the church of God as a flock. You should be careful not to read into this more than is there.
A shepherd watches a flock...right?
Isn't the word "pastor" a substitute for shepherd?
We know Paul spoke of pastors. (Eph 4:11)
 

Derf

Well-known member
Another one who reads something it to what is said.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Luke is clearly a Kingdom believer because Paul had not yet started preaching his gospel.
It's "clearly" to you, because you've swallowed the koolaid. Luke was writing to some guy named Theophilus, but you have no idea when he was writing compared to when Paul started preaching.
No, I'm suggesting no such thing about Ananias. God used Ananias, who was a Kingdom believer.

Ananias was a witness to what the Risen Lord had revealed to him.
And you only know that because of Luke. SO why won't you accept what Luke said about Paul?
Romans 1:9

For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
So? This has nothing to do with Paul's gospel or Luke's testimony.
 
Last edited:

glorydaz

Well-known member
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Doesn't surprise me one bit.
It's on "clearly" to you, because you've swallowed the koolaid.
You need some of that koolaid, as you call it, because you don't even understand the basics and the importance of Paul's ministry....

A dispensation of the gospel was committed unto Paul.
The dispensation of the grace of God was given to Paul.
Paul was made a minister, according to the dispensation of God....to fulfil the word of God.

1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Ephesians 3:2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:eek:lars

Colossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to mefor you, to fulfil the word of God;



Luke was writing to some guy named Theophilus, but you have no idea when he was writing compared to when Paul started preaching.

And you only know that because of Luke. SO why won't you accept what Luke said about Paul?

So? This has nothing to do with Paul's gospel or Luke's testimony.
What is this infatuation with Luke? Perhaps you got lost somewhere along the way.

I have a good idea when he was writing compared to Paul, and I said NOTHING about not accepting what Luke said of Paul. That's you reading something into my comment that wasn't there.

Bible scholars have got it all pretty narrowed down, but Luke had to have been there when Jesus walked among us, at least according to what he says in Luke 1, and Paul spent at least 25 years preaching his gospel.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Perhaps Luke ended up being saved by Paul's gospel, for we see this from Paul.

All of this complaining because you're trying to make "flock" fit into both gospels? Wow.

Colossians 4:14
Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Doesn't surprise me one bit.
I was hoping you'd review your sentence structure and see if something didn't turn out as you expected
You need some of that koolaid, as you call it, because you don't even understand the basics and the importance of Paul's ministry....
Ah! I see. You have to have some of the koolaid before you can understand the koolaid. Sounds like Calvinism.
A dispensation of the gospel was committed unto Paul.
The dispensation of the grace of God was given to Paul.
Paul was made a minister, according to the dispensation of God....to fulfil the word of God.

1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Ephesians 3:2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:eek:lars

Colossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to mefor you, to fulfil the word of God;
No problem with any of that.
What is this infatuation with Luke?
Luke wrote Paul's words. If Paul's letters were suddenly missing from the bible, Luke's accounts provide some of Paul's material. Thus, when you ask what it would be like if Paul's letters were removed, that's my answer. Why is it an infatuation to seek to answer your question?
I have a good idea when he was writing compared to Paul, and I said NOTHING about not accepting what Luke said of Paul. That's you reading something into my comment that wasn't there.

Bible scholars have got it all pretty narrowed down, but Luke had to have been there when Jesus walked among us, at least according to what he says in Luke 1, and Paul spent at least 25 years preaching his gospel.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Did you read verse 2? "they delivered ... unto us". And "they" is further described as "which from the beginning were eyewitnesses". Thus, Luke doesn't claim to be an eyewitness, but received the information from eyewitnesses.
Perhaps Luke ended up being saved by Paul's gospel, for we see this from Paul.

All of this complaining because you're trying to make "flock" fit into both gospels? Wow.

Colossians 4:14
Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
It's possible/probable Luke was saved by Paul.

It's funny that you focus on "flock", as that was merely one point I was making, and not the primary one. But @Right Divider is so sure that the BOC is never called "sheep", and uses it as a distinction point between kingdom and BOC believers. I'm saying there is no such distinction--that by calling them "flock" he refers to them as "sheep". But if you lop off parts of the bible (like separating Paul's letters out as you suggested), you miss part of Paul's message, which gives you a lopsided (pardon the pun) view of his gospel, making you think it's different from the one Peter and the apostles were preaching.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
It's funny that you focus on "flock", as that was merely one point I was making, and not the primary one. But @Right Divider is so sure that the BOC is never called "sheep", and uses it as a distinction point between kingdom and BOC believers. I'm saying there is no such distinction--that by calling them "flock" he refers to them as "sheep". But if you lop off parts of the bible (like separating Paul's letters out as you suggested), you miss part of Paul's message, which gives you a lopsided (pardon the pun) view of his gospel, making you think it's different from the one Peter and the apostles were preaching.
You could add to that with the fact that all Gentile Christians ARE kingdom anticipators, along with the Jewish Christians.
The "good news" that the "kingdom is near" for the original Jews, is fulfilled in the Jews and Gentiles that have repented of sin and been baptized into the Christ; and into His death and burial.
The kingdom is in us...thanks be to God.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Ah! I see. You have to have some of the koolaid before you can understand the koolaid. Sounds like Calvinism.
It's actually known as spiritual understanding. You'll need that before you can understand what is written in the Bible.

No problem with any of that.

Luke wrote Paul's words. If Paul's letters were suddenly missing from the bible, Luke's accounts provide some of Paul's material. Thus, when you ask what it would be like if Paul's letters were removed, that's my answer. Why is it an infatuation to seek to answer your question?

Nice try, but Luke only wrote what he saw, and recorded very little of Paul's words. Have you ever read Paul's epistles?
Did you read verse 2? "they delivered ... unto us". And "they" is further described as "which from the beginning were eyewitnesses". Thus, Luke doesn't claim to be an eyewitness, but received the information from eyewitnesses.
That could be. The Bible isn't clear on a lot of things.
It's possible/probable Luke was saved by Paul.
Could be. I don't know.
It's funny that you focus on "flock", as that was merely one point I was making, and not the primary one. But @Right Divider is so sure that the BOC is never called "sheep", and uses it as a distinction point between kingdom and BOC believers. I'm saying there is no such distinction--that by calling them "flock" he refers to them as "sheep". But if you lop off parts of the bible (like separating Paul's letters out as you suggested), you miss part of Paul's message, which gives you a lopsided (pardon the pun) view of his gospel, making you think it's different from the one Peter and the apostles were preaching.

You're the one working so hard to prove there is only one gospel.
Your example of the flock was taken totally out of context. It was an analogy and nothing more.
This is what you're left with....turning an analogy into doctrine.
 

Derf

Well-known member
It's actually known as spiritual understanding. You'll need that before you can understand what is written in the Bible.



Nice try, but Luke only wrote what he saw, and recorded very little of Paul's words. Have you ever read Paul's epistles?

That could be. The Bible isn't clear on a lot of things.

Could be. I don't know.


You're the one working so hard to prove there is only one gospel.
Your example of the flock was taken totally out of context. It was an analogy and nothing more.
This is what you're left with....turning an analogy into doctrine.
All references to people as sheep are analogical. Because people aren't really sheep. But why do you think it necessary to discount the actual words of Paul from Luke, while promoting words of Paul from Paul? Are you saying Luke wasn't accurately recording Paul's words?
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
All references to people as sheep are analogical. Because people aren't really sheep.
Yes people, like sheep, can easily be led astray when they lose track of their "shepherd".


But why do you think it necessary to discount the actual words of Paul from Luke, while promoting words of Paul from Paul?

Because I mentioned that Luke was probably a follower of the Kingdom gospel? You think I'm discounting what Luke wrote?
The Bible is the inspired word of God. I'm simply trying to figure it out. It would help a lot if you would refrain from reading things into my posts that aren't there.

Are you saying Luke wasn't accurately recording Paul's words?

There you go. Well, since I already answered this, I'll refrain from commenting further.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Hebrews:
The full title of Hebrews is "The Epistle to the Hebrews".

I don't have any problem with this letter being directed at Jewish believers primarily. The title is certainly one of the best evidences. However, the title is not part of the actual letter--it isn't "scripture". It's interesting to note that the letter reads like other letters in the Bible, with specificity in the conclusion regarding actual people, including Timothy. Knowing that Timothy was Paul's companion for much of his ministry, and that Paul wrote directly to Timothy twice, many people assume Hebrews was written by Paul. I think they may be correct, but I don't know for sure. Let's say it was Paul. Would that be sufficient for many of you MADists to acknowledge that Paul wasn't stepping on Peter's and the eleven other apostles' toes in going to the circumcision? Would it be sufficient for you to acknowledge that Peter and Paul were preaching the same gospel after Pentecost, but targeted to two different groups? Remember, I'm not asking you to admit that Hebrews was written by Paul, just that IF IT WERE, what does that do to the MAD two-gospel narrative?

Let's now assume that Hebrews was written by someone else (not Paul). Since Timothy is mentioned, do you think the writer was a BOC member? Or was he an earthly kingdom believer? If the latter, why was he hanging out with Timothy? If the former, why was he writing to the Kingdom believers?

Finally, no matter who the author was, don't you think that the intention of the author was to convince Jewish believers that Jesus was the Christ, and show them that their faith needed to be in the finished work of Christ, rather than in the Old Covenant, which he shows is passing away and being replaced by the gospel of grace?

And the author's admonition was for the readers to grow up--to get beyond milk and understand the meat of the gospel of the death and resurrection of Chris. Which is exactly what you would expect those (the Hebrews) to do that are supposed to be acting as teachers of new believers ( the Gentiles).
 

Hoping

Well-known member
I don't have any problem with this letter being directed at Jewish believers primarily. The title is certainly one of the best evidences. However, the title is not part of the actual letter--it isn't "scripture". It's interesting to note that the letter reads like other letters in the Bible, with specificity in the conclusion regarding actual people, including Timothy. Knowing that Timothy was Paul's companion for much of his ministry, and that Paul wrote directly to Timothy twice, many people assume Hebrews was written by Paul. I think they may be correct, but I don't know for sure. Let's say it was Paul. Would that be sufficient for many of you MADists to acknowledge that Paul wasn't stepping on Peter's and the eleven other apostles' toes in going to the circumcision? Would it be sufficient for you to acknowledge that Peter and Paul were preaching the same gospel after Pentecost, but targeted to two different groups? Remember, I'm not asking you to admit that Hebrews was written by Paul, just that IF IT WERE, what does that do to the MAD two-gospel narrative?

Let's now assume that Hebrews was written by someone else (not Paul). Since Timothy is mentioned, do you think the writer was a BOC member? Or was he an earthly kingdom believer? If the latter, why was he hanging out with Timothy? If the former, why was he writing to the Kingdom believers?

Finally, no matter who the author was, don't you think that the intention of the author was to convince Jewish believers that Jesus was the Christ, and show them that their faith needed to be in the finished work of Christ, rather than in the Old Covenant, which he shows is passing away and being replaced by the gospel of grace?
How can a Covenant be replaced by a gospel?
I could understand the OC being replaced by a NC.
And I also understand that the gospel was the same for both...ie, A Savior was coming/A Savior had come.
And the author's admonition was for the readers to grow up--to get beyond milk and understand the meat of the gospel of the death and resurrection of Chris. Which is exactly what you would expect those (the Hebrews) to do that are supposed to be acting as teachers of new believers ( the Gentiles).
 

Derf

Well-known member
On to Acts ... and the gospel of Luke, by extension...
Acts was written by Luke, who is NOT Paul, and since it was written as a letter and addressed to a man addressed as "O, Theophilus", it counts as a "non-Pauline epistle", though most would not necessarily think of it that way, nor is it grouped with the non-Pauline epistles. But that's what it is. It is certainly more historical in nature than exhortational, which most of the epistles are. Luke mentions that he had already written extensively to Theophilus previously, which we know as the gospel of Luke. There, he is addressed "most excellent Theophilus", which is likely a title of respect, similar to how Paul addressed Felix and Festus, who were governors.

[Act 24:3 KJV] 3 We accept [it] always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.
[Act 26:25 KJV] 25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
(same word as "excellent" in Luke 1:3)

"GotQuestions.org" gave some possibilities of who Theophilus was, but came to no conclusions. The choices were:
1. a high-ranking Roman official
2. a wealthy man in Antioch
3. a high priest in the first century.

That last one surprised me a bit, but it brings with it some interesting possibilities for why Luke wrote his two books of the bible.

I'd suggest that if the first two options are correct, it tells us that Luke was more likely a gentile believer in the BOC. If the third, it would seem like there was at least one priest who believed in Christ to some degree between Christ's death and the destruction of the temple.

I'll write more later on this topic.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
On to Acts ... and the gospel of Luke, by extension...
Acts was written by Luke, who is NOT Paul, and since it was written as a letter and addressed to a man addressed as "O, Theophilus", it counts as a "non-Pauline epistle", though most would not necessarily think of it that way, nor is it grouped with the non-Pauline epistles. But that's what it is. It is certainly more historical in nature than exhortational, which most of the epistles are. Luke mentions that he had already written extensively to Theophilus previously, which we know as the gospel of Luke. There, he is addressed "most excellent Theophilus", which is likely a title of respect, similar to how Paul addressed Felix and Festus, who were governors.

[Act 24:3 KJV] 3 We accept [it] always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.
[Act 26:25 KJV] 25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
(same word as "excellent" in Luke 1:3)

"GotQuestions.org" gave some possibilities of who Theophilus was, but came to no conclusions. The choices were:
1. a high-ranking Roman official
2. a wealthy man in Antioch
3. a high priest in the first century.

That last one surprised me a bit, but it brings with it some interesting possibilities for why Luke wrote his two books of the bible.

I'd suggest that if the first two options are correct, it tells us that Luke was more likely a gentile believer in the BOC. If the third, it would seem like there was at least one priest who believed in Christ to some degree between Christ's death and the destruction of the temple.

I'll write more later on this topic.
More than one priest believed, as it is written..."And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." (Acts 6:7)
I would think, though, that if there had ever been a "high" priest named Theophilus, there would be a record of it in Jewish history.
 

Derf

Well-known member
More than one priest believed, as it is written..."And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." (Acts 6:7)
I would think, though, that if there had ever been a "high" priest named Theophilus, there would be a record of it in Jewish history.
There was, starting around 41AD. He was a son of Annas.
 
Top