Crossless Gospel and Acts 9

I had a cross-less gospel advocate tell me that Paul did not believe in the cross in Acts 9 as that was not the message Christ gave to him. He wanted me to believe that the moment Jesus said, "I am Jesus" was when Paul was saved and not by choice either. It appeared that he wanted to make an issue out of when Paul actually was saved in Acts 9. It does not matter if Paul was saved in Damascus or later as that is entirely pointless. The only thing that matters is what message Paul believed to be saved and that is what I would like to clarify to you today.

This CG advocate supplied some verses to be compared along side Paul's statement of "Lord" in Acts 9 to somehow prove that he believed a crossless message. I will now show you what I have been discovering with these CG advocates and that is they always rely on a shallow approach to Scripture. They rely on an 'eisogesis' approach which is a reading into the passage of something that isn't there rather than an exegesis approach and to read out of what is actually there. Here is what the CG advocate said:

"What was Paul's first question? WHO ARE YOU LORD? Answer: I am Jesus Whom you are persecuting. Sound familiar? See Acts 16:31, Jn. 11:27, Jn 20:31, 1 Jn. 5:1."

Do you see the problem with "Who are you Lord" being compared to "What shall I do to be saved?" according to Acts 16:31?? The word "Lord" as most scholars agree means "sir" here as it is a title. Paul had no clue as to who this man was. I want to compare now all his verses to Acts 9 and tell me if you see a reading into the passage:

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:31).

"She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world" (John 11:27).

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:31).

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him" (1st John 5:1).

Are those 4 verses that are scattered all over consistent to what we now will read in Acts 9?? Be honest and look at the following verses:

"And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" (Acts 9:5-6).

Question, how is this in any way similar to the above verses? Paul specifically said, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" If this passage in Acts mirrors that of Acts 16:31 as this CG advocate claims then would you not expect Jesus response to have been anything less than, "Believe on Me and thou shalt be saved"???? Look at what Jesus actually said in response to that question in the latter part of verse 6:

"And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

I did not know that "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do" implies the gospel to be believed by all. My point was that you cannot get any gospel message out of Acts 9 as this was a passage written for us believers. This is not an evangelistic message to the lost here. I now hope you can see how those verses scattered all about being compared to Acts 9 is no comparison at all but a game. This is a reading into the passage. His argument is as bad as those that believe in Lordship salvation that argue the word "Lord" in Acts 16:31 means to surrender to His Lordship when no such words appear. You do not put words into a passage when they do not exist as this CG advocate clearly did. They want their CG and will do anything to get it.

I already dealt in my blog 'What Gospel Do You Preach?' about isolating such verses that teach "believe in Him" without looking at the gospel as a whole. If I am told that I must simply believe without any mention of the cross and that somehow a verse here and there overrules all other verses then why can't I simply hold to Mark 16:16 that teaches baptism is needed to be saved when the verse is as plain as day by itself? You cannot isolate verses. I have yet to receive any rebuttals concerning my blog but instead am sent on wild goose chases with theories that have no biblical support as well of being accused of saying things I never said.

Now, what message did Paul actually believe? You can read a more detailed account of what happened to Paul on Damascus road in Acts 26 and that is where I would like to focus our attention. Paul just got through talking about the message Christ gave to him on Damascus road even though no mention of what exactly Paul was told to do to be saved but Paul did make this statement:

"But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles" (Acts 26:20-23).

Question, what message was Paul preaching DAY AND NIGHT and witnessing to both SMALL AND GREAT?? That Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first that should rise from the dead!!!!!!!!!!! What was Paul claiming that he was saying "NONE OTHER THINGS" about? Can it be any plainer folks what the message of Paul was and what he believed? Was not this message he received from Christ? Do you not see the deceit of this CG advocate that merely wanted to compare Paul saying, "Who are thou Lord" to Acts 16:31 and so on?? This is deceptive! Paul's message was to prove to the Jews that their Messiah was to suffer and that he should be first that should rise from the dead.

What does that mean that He should be first (firstfruits) that should rise from the dead? The firstfruits is an OT word and Paul further expounds on this teaching in 1st Corinthians 15:20-23:

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."

This was the message that Paul preached night and day to all. Now to be even clearer as to what message was given to Paul by Christ let's compare a few verses to make this even more abundantly clear:

"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:12).

What message did Paul receive then from Jesus Christ only? Look at 1st Corinthians 15:3,4:

"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."

Now compare that phrase, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures...and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" that he claimed to have received to Acts 26:22-23:

"Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

There are no similarities between Acts 16:31 and Acts 9, but you can clearly see 1st Corinthians 15:3,4 "according to the Scriptures" in Acts 26:22-23. Paul clearly said "those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer..." and that is simply saying, "according to the Scriptures." Can you now see that this was the message Paul received from direct revelation of Jesus Christ? What message did Paul claimed to have preached:

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness" (1st Corinthians 1:21).

Paul said that if you preach (proclaim) any other gospel that you are to be accursed. Does one HAVE to proclaim the cross to the lost for them to be saved? I did not ask you whether you believed in the cross or that most people already believe in the cross, but do you proclaim the cross without exception to the lost EVERY time you witness? Do you make exceptions that allow for a CG in certain situations when witnessing? If your hearer does not want to hear about the cross then would you accommodate him/her by leaving out the cross? Then you are to be anathema.

One other statement this CG advocate made to me was

"Jesus' did not have to tell him to "believe." He had no choice but to believe as soon as Jesus told him who He was!"

Here is his deception, he is trying to make the mere announcement of Jesus as the grounds for which Paul was saved. We have plenty of people today that are not saved that know of a Jesus and plenty out there crying, "Lord Lord." This CG advocate clearly was arguing that a message about what this Jesus has done is of no importance to be saved. Sorry, we tell everyone about Jesus but that does not mean that they do not have a choice to believe the facts concerning Him. Everyone everywhere is COMMANDED to believe and not forced as Scripture states. I do not think that Paul doubted that someone knocked him to the ground but the message Christ gave to him must be consciously believed. Paul chose to believe what Jesus was saying and that was his choice. This CG advocate seems to think that since Jesus knocked Paul to the ground that Paul would believe no matter what as this was logical to him. That argument is about as bad as the rich man in hell that begged for someone to be raised from the dead to go and speak to his brethren. It seems logical to us that if the dead were to rise from the grave that the brethren would believe, but Abraham certainly refuted such thinking.

Again, it matters very little as to at what point Paul believed as you can see. What does matter is what message Paul believed and now you were able to see clearly how the CG advocate carelessly handles the Word of God to promote a CG heresy. They only seek to leave the door of possibility open so that their message that is anathema will be accepted by others. I have yet to have them address me politely and argue my blog. I am instead insulted and am falsely accused of making statements about men and organizations that I never once made. In fact, this CG advocate accused me of slander against others and I ask for anyone to prove this from my blog. I have NEVER once mentioned any organization or any man or lady at all. I never even supplied a quote from any particular person or organizations in my blog 'What Gospel Do You Preach?'. I challenge anyone to search my blog 'What Gospel Do You Preach?' and show me where anyone or any organization is named???

I have been insulted and have been told by a man full of pride that I am part of a movement that is a "fraud." Here are his exact words:

"This movement you are involved in is a complete fraud before the Lord and I pray that He brings you to your senses."

He provided ZERO Bible references to support this belief of his, and his negative comments were only given in love he claims. I was shocked to know that CG advocates actually believe that the absolute necessity of preaching the cross to the lost is a "complete fraud" and not a partial fraud. This man shows that he is truly an "enemy of the cross" and has been banned from my site. I have never addressed anyone ever in my blog like that and never will. I still refrained from sharing his name but this type of talk is unacceptable. I accuse him of pride because he essentially is claiming that he has the truth and that he will pray to God to bring me to my senses when he supplied nothing to back it up but these blanket statements only. If I was brought to my senses then I too would view the cross of Christ as foolishness as the lost do as I would possess nothing more than worldly wisdom. I am instead thankful for the foolishness of God that is wiser than men and it by His so-called foolishness I am saved today! I choose to glory in the cross of Christ and seek to be like Paul to preach it night and day!