Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles I can read you a few ways but it seems, in one sense of reading you, that there is a problem, then, with Peter's presentation in Acts 2 as well as Paul's presentation at Mars Hill (among others). There is not explicit mention with the command to believe that the only reason they will believe is because God has given it to them. | Rich, this fact obviously carries some weight with you, but I fail to see its relevance; perhaps you could explain why selected speeches in the book of Acts should be made the model of gospel preaching. Besides, how can you ask for an explicit mention of faith as a gift of God when neither text contains an explicit command to believe? |
The "weight" ascribed is simply to present two exceptions to a rule you seem to be making. If, as you seem to argue,the Gospel *must* include an explicit reference to the inability of men to respond to the Gospel then these simply represent examples of Gospel presentations that did not contain explicit reference to those details in all instances.
It was never my intent to argue that the Gospel must *not* include references to men's inability. I am trying to avoid the notion that *all* Gospel preaching is of the same kind to all audiences. Certainly the preacher must preach whatever is in God's Word and the regular preaching of the Gospel during worship will include this data. I do not wish to preclude that.
Thus, my examples were not to state that Peter and Paul's examples were the only *type* of Gospel presentation but were *a* type of Gospel presentation. I frankly don't understand your objection to these examples and citing that Peter and Paul didn't precisely call men to believe. It's rather obvious that when Peter states that Jesus is Lord and Christ that this is something that demands some sort of response. I would argue that "...oh and you need to believe what I just said..." is superfluous given everything that preceded and cut men to the heart to the point that they were cognizant of their great sin.
Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to drive at and I wish you'd be more explicit. I'd rather like to stick with Peter if you don't mind so I can make sure I understand where you're coming from. Are you arguing that, in the intervening period between his preaching and their baptism that they were indoctrinated as to the nature of their belief at that point to ensure that they understood that their "cutting to the heart" was something that the Spirit did to them and that the faith they were now expressing was not of themselves?