What is the Gospel?

PipEE.Long.Socking

BANNED
Banned
In context...

I was mocking GD’s Earlier Dog comment and calling myself “Danny the Dog”... and I was ensuring EE gets permabanned...

While trying to link all together in full responses...

That about does it for m.EE
 

PipEE.Long.Socking

BANNED
Banned
Before you go, what exactly do you agree with Sonnet about? In one sentence.

If you read all of my posts in this thread... and go back to my thread The Slaying of Calvinism and The fallacious doctrine of reprobation thread....

You will see...

There’s no way around it...

Reducing the scope of God’s gesture of Love to ALL... though all are bound to personal choice... is the beginning of the creation of an Idol within Reform... which influences a huge portion of “Protestant” doctrine and does cause many to reject Jesus before they search Him out for themselves.

The Salt has been harmed by These 500 year old lies and the Gospel is damaged by this.

It is inexcusable and I regret making peace with Reform.

I like peace... but at what cost do I seek it?

Do I hold the “f**k the rest” mentality... when God Died for ALL?

Absolutely not.

No way of disguising or dressing up the Lie that God didn’t die for all is anything less than... a doctrine of demons.

Goodbye friends...
 

Lon

Well-known member
The end result the same? How so?
It's not about man.
It's about the character of God.
OR what you think about Him? To Derf, but I'll take it on: Long ago, going through the O.T. I learned if it doesn't 'look' loving, I'm probably the one that is wrong, not God. Because I am the fallible one, I have adjusted my thinking of what is right and wrong rather than trying to adjust Him to my (or your) expectations. He is Good. It doesn't matter what it 'looks like' after that. I don't have to make apology for Him. He is Holy. I am not. Job 13:15


That's not the travesty at all:
The real travesty is that God ordained that men would be damned for His glory. Ah yes, "It doesn't matter in the long and short". And that is the final resting place of Calvinism; nothing really matters anyways, what will be, will be. Who Christ died for is really irrelevant, it doesn't matter; well said.

To say "It doesn't matter in the long and short." is simply a cop out.
Romans 9:13,15,21 Exodus 9:16 WHATEVER answer I have, it MUST embrace AND include these verses. You? :think:

'Some' versus 'all' is a direct reflection of the character of God; and, it does matter what a man believes about God.
Yep, but that does NOT mean 'my' summation of it. "My" assumptions about it are not gospel, thus we can argue about it and try to reflect on the greater truth of God. He IS good. No contest

It is not a matter of whether any body ever believes or if no body ever believes; it's about what God has already accomplished. The atonement for every man is either a reality now, due to what Christ has already accomplished, or it will never be so. It's either done, or it's not; Christ will never die again. To say that some will never be able to come to God, because that God ordained such, is to say something about the character of God. That's a man's own business to believe such, if he chooses, but then the implications of that belief cannot be denied.
Again, no unbeliever 'cares' or responds. They could give a rip about your empathetic gesture. Ask yourself the same question I ask: Does ANY of Jesus' blood go to waste? For me, this is the question that puts us on page. However you see His blood not going to waste, it is the more important consideration for me.
God is good, always.
But this doesn't always mean your or my version of 'good.' Mark 10:18 "Only"

I've come to a point in my life where I insist "I am confused" rather than questioning God's goodness or re-forming scripture passages to fit 'my' expectation. The more we spend time in scriptures, the more we are formed by them and inherit the mind of God.
 

musterion

Well-known member
If you read all of my posts in this thread... and go back to my thread The Slaying of Calvinism and The fallacious doctrine of reprobation thread....

You will see...

There’s no way around it...

Reducing the scope of God’s gesture of Love to ALL... though all are bound to personal choice... is the beginning of the creation of an Idol within Reform... which influences a huge portion of “Protestant” doctrine and does cause many to reject Jesus before they search Him out for themselves.

The Salt has been harmed by These 500 year old lies and the Gospel is damaged by this.

It is inexcusable and I regret making peace with Reform.

I like peace... but at what cost do I seek it?

Do I hold the “f**k the rest” mentality... when God Died for ALL?

Absolutely not.

No way of disguising or dressing up the Lie that God didn’t die for all is anything less than... a doctrine of demons.

Goodbye friends...

Let me get this straight, because you're not communicating clearly and I have not followed this thread closely.

Is your problem with what some Calvinists admit to as Reprobation...God allegedly either "passing over" if not actively pre-damning certain individuals who have zero hope?

If so, get in line. It's not news and we were here first.

Or is it something else?
 

PipEE.Long.Socking

BANNED
Banned
The The fallacious doctrine of reprobation thread is the first thread I ever joined on here as NIG.

It was started by Sonnet...

And Musterion... What other thread is valuable?

It is about the gospel. Without that... Jew and Gentile alike are damned.

Kingdom or Paul... it all hinges on Christ’s DBR...

And Jesus is the manifestation of all... so To each May be the conscience of Spirit... in this matter...
 

PipEE.Long.Socking

BANNED
Banned
You missed an important thread Musterion... this isn’t Sonnet trolling as you say.

It is the most sincere thread I have ever seen...

L8r?

On the other side... :e4e:
 

musterion

Well-known member
The The fallacious doctrine of reprobation thread is the first thread I ever joined on here as NIG.

It was started by Sonnet...

And Musterion... What other thread is valuable?

It is about the gospel. Without that... Jew and Gentile alike are damned.

Kingdom or Paul... it all hinges on Christ’s DBR...

And Jesus is the manifestation of all... so To each May be the conscience of Spirit... in this matter...

So this is all about Reprobation?

I've been railing against that, off and on, for as long as I've been on TOL. It's been awhile, maybe before the big TOL wipe and restore. But yeah, it's as wicked as wicked gets. Utter blasphemy against Father, Son and Spirit.
 

musterion

Well-known member
You missed an important thread Musterion... this isn’t Sonnet trolling as you say.

It is the most sincere thread I have ever seen...

L8r?

On the other side... :e4e:

I will repeat what I've said a few times.

I doubt the sincerity of anyone questioning the details of the Bible when that person already admitted he does not believe in the God of the Bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
If you read all of my posts in this thread... and go back to my thread The Slaying of Calvinism and The fallacious doctrine of reprobation thread....

You will see...

There’s no way around it...
:sigh:

Reducing the scope of God’s gesture of Love to ALL... though all are bound to personal choice... is the beginning of the creation of an Idol within Reform... which influences a huge portion of “Protestant” doctrine and does cause many to reject Jesus before they search Him out for themselves.
OR exaggerating His love to fit 'our' expectations? :think: Both equally problematic, yes?

The Salt has been harmed by These 500 year old lies and the Gospel is damaged by this.
Matthew 16:18 :think:

It is inexcusable and I regret making peace with Reform.

I like peace... but at what cost do I seek it?
Why? Truth is the goal. Face it. if you HAVE to emote OR make things up by yourself without further discussion. something is wrong. We ALL need to be open to truth. We may grow weary of our fallible condition, but such for me, makes me long for some other place, where I may finally rest. If you are comfortable here, something is wrong: John 17:16 I believe the blood of Jesus efficacious, as do you, for ALL men. He is the Chief Cornerstone in the life of a believer. He is the stone of stumbling (including His blood) for all who reject Him. I care that others reject Him, but I cannot do a thing. It forces me to pray. Only God can save souls. You and I can but point the way. Trying to be overtly frivolous or a careful steward with His blood, I think has merit. Disagreement? Yes, but not to where we need to be hating on one another. To me, that is the greater sin. It is the difference between a frivolous giver and an accountant. As long as neither of us are burying talents, we are responsible for our own work. If you are the one who produces ten talents and I only two, well, your crown is the larger. "How many folks are in Christ because you exist on this earth?" It is always my life-challenge as well as if I was a faithful disciple with them. When they are effectively discipling others, I believe I've been a faithful steward.

Do I hold the “f**k the rest” mentality... when God Died for ALL?
We'd see a difference in the 'purpose' of Him dying. "IF" salvation is not accomplished in all, why die for all?
For me: He did die for all, but knew His work did not save all. For some, it condemns them even further, because they've rejected the Only Begotten. Read John 3. It says exactly that.

Again, I'd call you to leave profanity behind in holy discussion. The expletive clouds the issue as well. It isn't sufficient for the extreme of hell. "To hell with the rest" is not an expletive either. It is the saddest state of those who reject the Only Begotten Son, because nothing is left for them. They have rejected the only way out in preference for something far worse and worthless selfishness and drivel.


Absolutely not.

No way of disguising or dressing up the Lie that God didn’t die for all is anything less than... a doctrine of demons.
Hebrews 10:29 I can't dump blood on others. Only God can.
Goodbye friends...
"If" my doctrine is disgusting, how can I be a friend? Oh ... was this not written to me?

Interesting side note: You are not alone, there are many haters of Calvinists on this site. I am perplexed, genuinely, that ANY of my brothers and sisters in Christ can love a sinner who will not come to Christ, over and above me or another Calvinist for whom Christ died. Granted, a good many on TOL relegate us to the outer reaches of hell where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Oddly, my response is yet Job 13:15
I 'only' want Him glorified. The sad thing, is that this argument against us goes SO FAR as to save the unrepentant sinner while withholding it to a Calvinist for no other reason than that He thinks everything (EVERYTHING) God does, accomplishes a purpose. It isn't a lack of love, rather it is no real love and trying to reach into that and teach as many as possible, what love actually looks like. I NEVER knew love until I came to Christ.

I'm ever sorry the love of nonCalvinists haters cannot reach that far :( I'm ever thankful when it does (and it does with a good many who disagree with Calvinism on TOL).

My prayer: That whatever conversation I have on TOL, that as I look at Him and His scriptures and those He loves, I'd become a GREATER lover, not less of one. I pray the same for all other members here, even those who do not know Him, thus do not know love. In Him -Lon
 

Derf

Well-known member
Sonnet, I rejoined all of your answers, as I wanted to respond to all of them,
and didn't want to lose any, at least not yet. If you'd rather keep them separated, I can abide by it next time.

Derf

Of course, if someone decides that they are not 'sick' and have no need of Jesus then they will go on without Him. Nevertheless, and as you say, scripture has it that we are, de facto, 'sick' - so Jesus is there, raised up, for such people and for all without exception - there is no other way to interpret John 3:14-16. Any suggestion that even just one of the bitten Israelites was not able to do that which was offered to them - to look at the brazen serpent - makes God's offer disingenuous.

The Arminian must admit at this point that he is unable to explain how God remains in control if this is the case. The only response might be that God knows counterfactuals - 1 Samuel 23:7ff.

My point was that the serpent was NOT for everybody--it was only for the sick. It was also not effective for even all the sick--only those that looked. I think the comparison with Jesus narrows the choices down to "those that look" and "those that don't look", and all are sick.

When you say "not able to look", are you suggesting that some were blind, or bedridden, and thus didn't have the ability or visual access?

I'm not getting your Arminian comment. I tend to believe that the traditional Arminian viewpoint is wrong for that very reason (God knowing counterfactuals), but what type of control do you think God has lost in your scenario?

My point was merely that without a significant degree of God's creation acting through genuine choice then His creation becomes worthless.
Depends on what the purpose of the creation is, I suppose. Just like if I have a train set I want to construct, in order to enjoy the sight and sound effects, despite the surety that the set will do exactly what I want it to do. Personally, I don't think that was the purpose of God's creation, but it might be the purpose of SOME of God's creation, like "heaven", where God's will is done, according to the Lord's Prayer.

You may be right but I don't see it as explicit.
I can see what you're saying. But what scattered them if not the language barrier?

I might be using it as an excuse. I fail.

What is the point of me saying I believe when I could be wrong? - when doubts persist? I believe in part but that's not enough.

I think I mentioned the Christian I once spoke to who said she 'didn't believe in the OT'.
What does one make of such a statement? Does anyone believe 100% in every detail?
I don't believe anyone believes 100% the same in every detail. Isn't that what your thread is about? The detail we don't agree on is "how it works". The detail we do agree on is "that it works". If you don't agree on the second, the first is irrelevant. But if you don't agree on the first, that's ok--the second is still the important part.

But in terms of whether anyone has enough faith with no doubts? Is there anyone like that? My doubts come and go, but I'm pretty sure the source of the bible, the source of the salvation, the source of creation is capable enough to pull off what He says, even if I don't understand it all. If He's not, then nobody is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Derf

Well-known member
Hi BBK
If Jesus' death being for you means that you are saved, but the bible clearly indicates that not all are saved, what can we say, but that Jesus' death was NOT for all?

Personally, I think He did die for all, but only some take advantage of it.

The end result is the same--those that do not believe are not benefited by His death, whatever the reason. What I don't understand is why Christians feel the need to argue about it so much. Apparently we are all still not fully sanctified and completed in the good work He has promised to do in us.

The end result the same? How so?
It's not about man.
It's about the character of God.
I think I explained what I meant. Maybe you could tell me why you think one position or the other demeans or diminishes the character of God? If God decides to create a world where all is decided from the beginning, including the response to His offer of salvation, there's no one around to question whether God's character has been besmirched. So no harm, no foul. And it's definitely about God and not about man in that scenario.

If, rather, God creates creatures that can and do rebel on their own, and some do not repent, can He not do with them what He wants? Isn't it still about God and not about man?

Derf
 

Lon

Well-known member
Lon ... Your sophistry is not befitting of your genuine Love for Him...
:nono: No trickery on my part. I REALIZE most do not get or understand a Calvinist. In some ways, you are correct, that my Calvinism is often tied with Amyraldian, simply because of what I see the Lord Jesus Christ's blood accomplishing. "Whole world" is in my vocabulary and I cannot express scripture truths, as I understand them, always in line with the way some Calvinists and even John Calvin does. Rather, I see a limitation on atonement in several senses: One, no one who died before Christ came, was atoned (made right with God) for. I realize that isn't what most think of when they talk about Calvinism and so, they may be correct at times in calling my Calvinism into question. I 'think' I'm a five-pointer, but I realize, because of the way I get there, I may yet be Amyraldian in disguise. I'm not really hung up on that, as I'm more concerned with expressing scriptural truth as I understand it than trying to champion and defend a systematic theology. Such should not be confused, however, with sophistry. I freely admit I may not be a classic Calvinist on this particular point, I simply restate that I do believe in several ways, the atonement is limited. Even an Arminian would believe the atonement is limited, against universal salvation, and perhaps the confusion (Limited Atonement is a response to the Arminian Remonstrance AND Amyraldian "Unlimited Atonement."
Please take a moment to read the spoiler (and links if you have time).
Spoiler
Article I — That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.
Article II — That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."
Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of a good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting, awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, in as much as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.[1 ] -Wiki


Often times, the gauntlet is thrown at the Calvinist footstep, but notice that Arminians, ALSO share commonality with Calvinists on a good deal of the 5 points. Article one, for instance: The difference is whether God purposes according to man's response or not. Total depravity says not. Arminian sees yes, but both believe God purposes[d] to save from among all men, a portion, thus even the Arminian doesn't believe in a universal atonement. I suppose that can look like sophistry as well, but I'm trying to point out both agreement and difference here, as the point. Article 2 deals more precisely with the majority of the content of this thread. Arminians believe Christ did the work, but that only those who come see any advantage. The Calvinist questions that veracity. As your water analogy: ANY that comes will have something to drink. To me? It is academic. You assume 'come, He bought water for you!' to all men. I assume "All ye that thirst..." Isaiah 55:1 John 7:37
Article 3 is nearly Total Depravity. Article 4 undoes their article 3 by asserting man has need of 'salvation assistance.' The Calvinist believes Salvation is in Jesus Christ alone (monergism, not synergism - God saves alone, man does not have a hand in his own salvation lest he find even in that he is incapable Hebrews 7:25).
Article 5 is about a salvation that is fairly left in man's hands with obedience (works) keeping one saved, whereby if he does not persevere, he did not count the cost thus was a fool who built his house without sufficient funds. Article 5 opens the door, against Grace, that man may lose his salvation.
 

blackbirdking

New member
:sigh:

OR exaggerating His love to fit 'our' expectations? :think: Both equally problematic, yes? ....

In Him -Lon

So is God's love shown in creating man for damnation and redeeming some?

And,
do you believe that the Gospel consists of God creating men ordained to damnation, and the choosing of some men to eternal life?

Can you give me a really simple answer, like maybe 'yes' or 'no'?
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you,

For some reason you are spending much time restricting what was preached to believers only. Paul preached to unbelieving Corinthians. Paul is not the least bit concerned worrying about clarifying as you are. The interpretation I make is one that Paul allows.

For some reason you are spending even more time pushing the idea that unbelievers' sins are forgiven.

And as an unbeliever you think you have the authority to say what Paul allows or what he is clarifying. :rolleyes:

Paul is merely reminding them of what he had already preached...how we are saved by grace through faith. You are hoping to read something else into his gospel which is not there. And why? So you can besmirch Calvinists. If you want to attack the Calvinists, at least use some actual proof instead of trying to manufacture it from this text. OUR really does mean believers in this text. Argue against that until the cows come home....you won't be right.
 

blackbirdking

New member
Hi BBK

I think I explained what I meant. Maybe you could tell me why you think one position or the other demeans or diminishes the character of God? If God decides to create a world where all is decided from the beginning, including the response to His offer of salvation, there's no one around to question whether God's character has been besmirched. So no harm, no foul. And it's definitely about God and not about man in that scenario.
If the above happened, it tells us something about God. It defines all of His attributes.

If a kid raises puppies and has predetermined which ones he will treat with care and those he will abuse; even in this fallen environment, he would be accountable. Now add to that, he wants to train his puppies to respect each other, like he does. The kid's actions simply tell us something about him.


If, rather, God creates creatures that can and do rebel on their own, and some do not repent, can He not do with them what He wants?
If a kid raises puppies and wants them all to be treated with care, sets a standard of requirements for the puppies to follow, and uses that standard to determine how the puppies are treated, it would show a different kid than the one above.
Isn't it still about God and not about man?
Derf

Yes, it's about the character of God either way.

My point was that, what a man believes about God is definitely influenced by what he believes God has done, and is doing.
Therefore, it does matter what a man believes that God has done and is doing.

Which kid would you want raising your puppies?
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
It is a taboo amongst Calvinists - we have seen such on this thread where it was described as 'an abomination'.

By who? If you're talking about AMR you've twisted his meaning from the get go. You didn't hear what he was saying any more than you hear what Paul is saying in the disputed text.

Newsflash....your inability to understand doesn't make your false accusations true.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Can letters addressed to specific persons make references to those other than the addressees? Paul addresses his letter to believers at Corinth and discusses what he preached to them when he came to them...when they were unbelievers.

Why are you placing a restriction on that which Paul did not? 'Thus we preach,' Paul said but you won't - at least not the first bit.

Paul is referring to this. But you refuse to see he is preaching justification by faith. Forgiveness of sins for "all that believe". I've shown you this many a time, but you pretend like you haven't seen it.

Acts 13:37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.​
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
To whom are these words of Paul addressed to?

1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: ) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

So you take a teaching text, without any "ours" in it hoping to prove something. What you've proven is that Paul preaches salvation and justification by faith. Believing is an absolute requirement of salvation (which, by the way, includes forgiveness of sin even though it isn't mentioned in this text).

Hence, the justification of faith. He preached it everywhere. That's his gospel. That's what I've been telling you. The Gospel isn't preached without the justification of faith....which is why Paul reminds the Corinthians of what he has been preaching.
 
Last edited:
Top