Jesus' Saving Message is Void? It is Sacrilegious to Suggest So!
It is interesting in such a scheme as both mid-Acts dispensationalism and fundamental checklist soteriology that Jesus' message of evangelism, the saving message He preached while on earth, contained in the only expressly evangelistic book in the Bible (which by the way, by most scholars view, was the second to the last in the canon written) only had a 3 1/2 year shelf life!
It would seem curious to me that John, having been informed of this now necessary information, as Art and the checklist evangelists are concerned, by the Apostle Paul (or anyone else for that matter), does not make any such new information explicitly necessary in His gospel, but everywhere shows that the saving message of Christ is just that, the saving message of Christ that sufficiently tells us how to have everlasting life. His whole treatise is constructed to show that those who received everlasting life in the text upon hearing the saving message of Christ is the same way that his readership is to appropriate that life: simple faith in Jesus and nothing else.
Wouldn't you think that John, writing with an expressly and intentional evangelistic purpose, would clearly state that Jesus' saving message when He was alive is now insufficient? Why even produce testimony after testimony about Jesus' saving message if it is now void? Why risk giving the false impression, years after Paul died, that Jesus' message was still sufficient today!?!?
It just does not pass the critical thinking test. Why give such elaborate testimony to the saving message of Christ (which I take it in Art and the fundamentalists' estimation only had a 3 1/2 year shelf life) and then fail to clearly state explicitly that there is new content that is required from the standpoint of God (if indeed more information is required!)?
The facts mitigate against Art (and also the fundamentalists') shaky arguments.
1) John's gospel is explicitly evangelistic and written much after Paul's epistles
2) John's gospel fails to state anywhere that eternal life is gained by anything more than simple faith in Jesus, simple reliance on Jesus, simply taking Jesus at His word in His promise that guarantees everlasting life to the believer in Him.
4) Since it is true that John did not make any explicit statement concerning new Pauline disclosed requirements for eternal life, we can either conclude that:
a) John was misinformed years after Paul died or
b) John's treatise fails to clearly and explicitly articulate for us precisely how one is born again
4) Art and the checklist evangelists have failed to convince that the gospel is a technical term denoting exactly what one must do and believe to be born again and nothing else. There is no such verse that says "believe the Pauline gospel and you have eternal life and/or justification and/or eternal salvation". Everywhere those things are conditioned on faith in Jesus.
The mystery of the gospel in Ephesians is clearly the new information that God would make one organic unity out of Jews and Gentiles who believed in Christ.
Is that something too that must be believed in this Mid-Acts dispensation?
If the saving message of Christ is insufficient, where must one go to get all the information? We will not know what it is! Nowhere is it stated that one must believe this loose and ambiguous term, the gospel, and one has everlasting life. Where is the gospel, in its supposed technical sense, clearly, and sufficiently defined? Anyone who claims there is such a thing has never done a word study on the pertinent Greek words, especially as used by Paul himself.
1 Cor 15:3-11 doesn't even contain the deity of Christ or the necessity of faith alone.
John never says that Jesus' message was changed!
Imagine Art and the checklist evangelists calling the saving message that I preach a false gospel! That would put me under an anathema according to Galatians 1:8. Imagine me being rebuked by Christ at the Bema for repeating His saving message!
Jesus knew that the 4th gospel would give His words and be constructed with the purpose of being the only evangelistic book in the canon. Jesus is the Prophet Par Excellence! Art will not tell you, but the logical conclusion of his system will tell you to throw out the gospels as specific instruction for the church age. But funny. They give the teachings for those who are disciples of Christ.
Quite frankly, it is sacrilegious to suggest that Jesus' saving message, that was taught in the only purposely evangelistic book in the canon, authored by the Apostle John (which by the way Paul stated that the church was in the present position of "having been built on the foundation of the apostles" (Eph 2:20), John being one of these apostles), years after supposedly being instructed by the Apostle Paul on this new gospel (wasn't John there at the cross and already see Jesus risen from the dead? Didn't Peter preach the death and resurrection of Christ much before mid-acts?!) is now void. Imagine that. Jesus' saving message given in the only book that was purposely constructed for evangelism is now void. Sacrilegious to suggest so!