What is the Gospel?

[Derf]

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 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.


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?

Now they're my puppies? How did I get them?

How did the boy get them?

If the boy made them (not just raised them), and can raise them to achieve a particular goal, can you question whether he's doing it the right way? Only on the basis of a higher standard--one that was given us by the One the made the boy. Everything else is merely a man's opinion.

And if the boy made those puppies in such a way that they DON'T have any say over what they do and where they go, is that wrong? Why?

I'm not immune to your argument. I'll rephrase it a bit here:
If the boy specifically made the puppies so that they would experience pain, and then tortured them just to see the expressions on their little puppy faces and to hear their little puppy howls and whines and whimpers, I would certainly question the goodness of the boy. But again, based on what?

Let's back out of the analogy and ask the same question: If God made humans to feel pain, and then caused all humans pain for no benefit to the humans, is God good or not? Well, did God also make humans to think that that was bad? Was that part of the sadistic plan, that humans would both feel pain and also see the infliction of such pain as evil? Doubly sadistic, in my view.

But don't we reject both of those things as sadistic because God made us to think that? Or is that a human invention? And if He made us to think those things are sadistic, what happens if we now turn back to the boy and punish him for doing such sadistic things to animals that he raised (not created). Why do we do that? is our punishing less sadistic than the boy's torturing of the puppies? We'd say, YES! It is necessary to prevent more torturing.

Isn't this what God did with the flood? He wiped out almost all of mankind because they were violent.
[Gen 6:11 KJV]
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

[Gen 6:13 KJV]
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

God hurt men for hurting men. And we applaud it, don't we? Because we know why He did it, and we recognize God as just in doing so. Whatever the final outcome, we will understand it and applaud God for it, even if we don't now, because we trust that God is just. We have faith that He is. We BELIEVE in God's justice. And the more we believe in God's justice, the more we see ourselves as the likely targets of God's justice, because of how we have hurt others. And the more we see ourselves as the target of God's justice, the more we should seek God's mercy.

Is this the same as hell? Is hell a means for preventing our torturing of others? Will we see the justice in it at the resurrection? I think so. I believe so. Or we'll find out what it is for if not for that.

 

[Lon]

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

Incorrect. The question, for me at least, is wrong. "Creating for" damnation? :nono: Our fault. Satan's fault. Redeeming some? 1 Corinthians 9:22 Acts 17:30. It isn't that I'm hung up on the way another sees the efficaciousness of the Blood. I agree with you it is wholly efficacious. It is more about if it is dumped on all mankind or not. The Calvinist is simply saying "if the saving blood of Jesus Christ is dumped on all men, is it possible it would not, could not save? They (I) say no. We are both trying to answer scripture questions. A disagreement here isn't huge to me: All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. If ANY unsaved is worried about it, they will call. God isn't finished, even if they are at that point. Time is on His side. I try not to be discouraged. My father said 'no' to me. 30 years later, he said 'yes' to Jesus. I believe that God knows/knew my father would call upon Him. I believe He knows who will not. Question: Does it make sense, ahead of time, for Jesus to have died for all He foreknew were not saved? (a bit of an Arminian dilemma, Calvinists solve this a bit differently) In the end, Salvation is in God's hands and every man and woman must come to Jesus themselves. He has rocks to cry out if you or I mess this up.

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

This question too, is loaded, though maybe not from your perspective. God created man. Did He know ahead of time they were going to Fall? Yes. Did He know ahead of time that many would not receive Him? Yes. He says so in the gospels. I can't deny that. Can you? Doesn't that, then (assuming you said 'yes') put us on the same page? Does simply trying to pass the buck (question) without answering it yourself, actually work? :think: I'm not trying to dodge it, but ascertain if you do, yourself. For me, the answer is yes, He created man. "For" damnation? :nono: Yet, man winds up damned anyway. God's fault? :nono: "IF" you can appreciate my response, you'll see too that you also answered yes then no. Yes God created anyway. No, Not God's fault. I think generally, those who believe Christ died for all men, without exception, aren't meaning universal salvation and that most who believe He only died for those who are saved, aren't willing that any should perish either. 2 Peter 3:9

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

Well, no. You asked more than one question, and even in your individual questions, there were parts I had to say no and yes to. I 'believe' however, I've been clear in my response if not simplistic. :e4e:

 

[blackbirdking]

Now they're my puppies? How did I get them?

How did the boy get them?

If the boy made them (not just raised them), and can raise them to achieve a particular goal, can you question whether he's doing it the right way? Only on the basis of a higher standard--one that was given us by the One the made the boy. Everything else is merely a man's opinion.

And if the boy made those puppies in such a way that they DON'T have any say over what they do and where they go, is that wrong? Why?

I'm not immune to your argument. I'll rephrase it a bit here:
If the boy specifically made the puppies so that they would experience pain, and then tortured them just to see the expressions on their little puppy faces and to hear their little puppy howls and whines and whimpers, I would certainly question the goodness of the boy. But again, based on what?

Let's back out of the analogy and ask the same question: If God made humans to feel pain, and then caused all humans pain for no benefit to the humans, is God good or not? Well, did God also make humans to think that that was bad? Was that part of the sadistic plan, that humans would both feel pain and also see the infliction of such pain as evil? Doubly sadistic, in my view.

But don't we reject both of those things as sadistic because God made us to think that? Or is that a human invention? And if He made us to think those things are sadistic, what happens if we now turn back to the boy and punish him for doing such sadistic things to animals that he raised (not created). Why do we do that? is our punishing less sadistic than the boy's torturing of the puppies? We'd say, YES! It is necessary to prevent more torturing.

Isn't this what God did with the flood? He wiped out almost all of mankind because they were violent.
[Gen 6:11 KJV]
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

[Gen 6:13 KJV]
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

God hurt men for hurting men. And we applaud it, don't we? Because we know why He did it, and we recognize God as just in doing so. Whatever the final outcome, we will understand it and applaud God for it, even if we don't now, because we trust that God is just. We have faith that He is. We BELIEVE in God's justice. And the more we believe in God's justice, the more we see ourselves as the likely targets of God's justice, because of how we have hurt others. And the more we see ourselves as the target of God's justice, the more we should seek God's mercy.

Is this the same as hell? Is hell a means for preventing our torturing of others? Will we see the justice in it at the resurrection? I think so. I believe so. Or we'll find out what it is for if not for that.

Does the Bible define good.

 

[blackbirdking]

Incorrect. The question, for me at least, is wrong. "Creating for" damnation? :nono: Our fault. Satan's fault. Redeeming some? 1 Corinthians 9:22 Acts 17:30. It isn't that I'm hung up on the way another sees the efficaciousness of the Blood. I agree with you it is wholly efficacious. It is more about if it is dumped on all mankind or not. The Calvinist is simply saying "if the saving blood of Jesus Christ is dumped on all men, is it possible it would not, could not save? They (I) say no. We are both trying to answer scripture questions. A disagreement here isn't huge to me: All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. If ANY unsaved is worried about it, they will call. God isn't finished, even if they are at that point. Time is on His side. I try not to be discouraged. My father said 'no' to me. 30 years later, he said 'yes' to Jesus. I believe that God knows/knew my father would call upon Him. I believe He knows who will not. Question: Does it make sense, ahead of time, for Jesus to have died for all He foreknew were not saved? (a bit of an Arminian dilemma, Calvinists solve this a bit differently) In the end, Salvation is in God's hands and every man and woman must come to Jesus themselves. He has rocks to cry out if you or I mess this up.


This question too, is loaded, though maybe not from your perspective. God created man. Did He know ahead of time they were going to Fall? Yes. Did He know ahead of time that many would not receive Him? Yes. He says so in the gospels. I can't deny that. Can you? Doesn't that, then (assuming you said 'yes') put us on the same page? Does simply trying to pass the buck (question) without answering it yourself, actually work? :think: I'm not trying to dodge it, but ascertain if you do, yourself. For me, the answer is yes, He created man. "For" damnation? :nono: Yet, man winds up damned anyway. God's fault? :nono: "IF" you can appreciate my response, you'll see too that you also answered yes then no. Yes God created anyway. No, Not God's fault. I think generally, those who believe Christ died for all men, without exception, aren't meaning universal salvation and that most who believe He only died for those who are saved, aren't willing that any should perish either. 2 Peter 3:9


Well, no. You asked more than one question, and even in your individual questions, there were parts I had to say no and yes to. I 'believe' however, I've been clear in my response if not simplistic. :e4e:

God's love is shown in creating man for damnation and redeeming some.
This statement is either true or false.

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

Yes or no?

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

or,

you do not believe that the Gospel consists of God creating men ordained to damnation, and the choosing of some men to eternal life.

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

Yes or no?

 

[Derf]

Does the Bible define good.

Excellent reply to my overly verbose post!

The answer is Yes. And the bible also defines God. And no one is good except God, according to Jesus (Luk 18:19). So if our ideas of good conflict with God's actions, what are we to say? Do we condemn God's actions or our ideas of good?

[Rom 9:20 KJV] 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

That's why I made the distinction between just a boy who was given a puppy to raise and a boy who had actually MADE a puppy.

I think God gave us all a sense of what is good, but it is a faulty one after the fall. And those that are given over to depravity have all the more fault in their sense of good, as it is no longer held in check by God, imo.

Derf



[Alternate snarky reply for grammar lovers:
I think you mean "Does the Bible define well?"]

 

[blackbirdking]

Does the Bible define good.

Wasn't necessarily a question.

...The answer is Yes. ...

Derf


[Alternate snarky reply for grammar lovers:
I think you mean "Does the Bible define well?"]

Nah, I meant good.

Since you answered,
What then is the Biblical definition of good?

 

[Nihilo]

Wasn't necessarily a question.


Nah, I meant good.

Since you answered,
What then is the Biblical definition of good?

That which those validly authorized to teach Christian morals teach is good. The bishops.

 

[blackbirdking]

That which those validly authorized to teach Christian morals teach is good. The bishops.

Biblical definition?

 

[Lon]

God's love is shown in creating man for damnation and redeeming some.
This statement is either true or false.

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

Yes or no?

It was simply asked, and by that I mean not effectively. It was asked incorrectly.

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

:Z You are conflating Gospel with creation, with prescription etc. all in this jumble. For you it may be a simple or simplistic matter, for me, it isn't careful enough. You've complicated the question with too much luggage.

I'll show you: "No" God did not 'create' men for damnation. He made man. Man chose damnation. He 'created' man knowing he'd be damned but NOT for that purpose. Further "No" It is not the Gospel that men are damned. John 3:18 "Already" condemned thus not in connection with the work and being of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

or,

you do not believe that the Gospel consists of God creating men ordained to damnation, and the choosing of some men to eternal life.

"Do I not believe that..." Awkward: "Yes, I do not believe that..." I've said "yes" clearly but are you sure you know what I answered? You asked in such a way that for me, at least, a "yes no" is confused as a sufficient answer. For you? :think:

Do you believe that the Gospel consists of God creating men...

Nope, not the gospel, but not what you were 'trying' to ask. I'm 'simply' frustrated by sloppy questions that are asked by men who aren't up to par for theological discussion. Blame? :nono: No, just frustration that I can't answer the question the way I want it asked (because it hasn't been asked that way) nor that my answer to the simplistic will accurately project my feelings over the matter. "OUR" frustration is probably mutual as such but at the very least, I believe I can span the frustration meaningfully for better conversation later.

ordained to damnation

YES and you agree if you believe anybody is ever damned. "So be it" is "ordination." Do you mean or are you conflating 'desire' as part of this? God ordains, does not desire damnation, but that all would come to Him. I realize, as E.E. accused, such looks like sophistry from a Calvinist but that is not at all my intention. I'm embracing scriptures. It took me a LONG time and I had an Ah Ha moment. I was always resistant to Calvinism before that. It isn't Sophistry, but I agree Calvinism is hard to understand.

and the choosing of some men to eternal life?

Yes or no?

Yes, giving men eternal life is essentially the content of what the 'Gospel' means.

It may help for you to hear from this Calvinist: The story of the wedding feast is to "COMPELL" men to come. It isn't that God is sitting back, it is that we are all so stupidly stubborn that whomever He can MAKE come to Him, He does. Luke 14:23 He is literally saving all those He can AND it is a miracle any of us come. Romans 3:10-12

(also, read Derf's Good post, he about answered all of these very well, before me, and in a way that I could have also answered. I could have typed his post myself, about verbatim) :e4e: -Lon

 

[Nihilo]

Biblical definition?

The Bible is good.

 

[Sonnet]

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

Where did I use the word 'forgiven'?

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

Anyone can attempt to interpret what is written, especially when there is no consensus amongst believers.

Paul is merely reminding them of what he had already preached...how we are saved by grace through faith.

He reminds them of what was preached and explicitly tells them what that was. You only balk at the word 'our' of verse 3 - but are quite content to speak the rest. Where does Paul actually proscribe as you are? He doesn't. He just calls verse 3ff the Gospel and says this is what the Corinthians believed and this is what he and the other Apostles preach.

I am confused as to why anyone, let alone a Christian, would carp about preaching what Paul calls the Gospel.

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.

Paul calls it the Gospel, and yet you think the onus is on me? Denying v.3 is part of the Gospel means you have two Gospels.

If you are unable to tell unbelievers that 'Christ died for our sins' then you've got two.

 

[Sonnet]

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.

Not a taboo? I am being dramatic?

...No pastor must stand in the pulpit and declare to all present that "Jesus died for each and every one of you present here today." This is an abomination of what Scripture teaches unless the pastor is in possession of infallible knowledge of the will of God about each and every one present in that church today....
AMR

AMR is merely being consistent with the 'L' of TULIP - so of course it's a taboo.

Now please explain how I have misinterpreted the Reformed position?

 

[Nihilo]

Paul calls it the Gospel, and yet you think the onus is on me? Denying v.3 is part of the Gospel means you have two Gospels.

If you are unable to tell unbelievers that 'Christ died for our sins' then you've got two.

That's more good news for the Church, but the Gospel to the unbelievers is Easter. If and only if you believe Easter, does it make any sense to read 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 (KJV)---it's not written to those not in the Church. If you believe Easter, then it makes sense to read 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 (KJV), but otherwise, it's not written to you, and it doesn't make any sense in what it's saying, because 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 (KJV) is not written to you, so the OUR is exclusive of YOU, if you don't believe EASTER.

 

[Sonnet]

That's more good news for the Church, but the Gospel to the unbelievers is Easter. If and only if you believe Easter, does it make any sense to read 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 (KJV)---it's not written to those not in the Church. If you believe Easter, then it makes sense to read 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 (KJV), but otherwise, it's not written to you, and it doesn't make any sense in what it's saying, because 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 (KJV) is not written to you, so the OUR is exclusive of YOU, if you don't believe EASTER.

As already pointed out, the 'this' of v.11 refers to the Gospel of vv.3ff - so Paul is talking to me.

I am not a little baffled at your post Nihilo - I already posted paragraph 605 of the RCC catechism which makes it explicit that Jesus died for everyone without exception.

At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."

 

[Nihilo]

As already pointed out, the 'this' of v.11 refers to the Gospel of vv.3ff - so Paul is talking to me.

I am not a little baffled at your post Nihilo - I already posted paragraph 605 of the RCC catechism which makes it explicit that Jesus died for everyone without exception.

He gave Himself for the Church Sonnet, not those who don't believe Easter. I thought I was explicit. Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that He died for anybody other than for her.

 

[Sonnet]

He gave Himself for the Church Sonnet, not those who don't believe Easter. I thought I was explicit. Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that He died for anybody other than for her.

Are you rejecting paragraph 605 of the RCC's Catechism? Specifically:

The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."

 

[Sonnet]

He gave Himself for the Church Sonnet, not those who don't believe Easter. I thought I was explicit. Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that He died for anybody other than for her.

1 John 2:2

 

[Nihilo]

Are you rejecting paragraph 605 of the RCC's Catechism? Specifically:

The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."

Of course not. Ephesians 5:25 (KJV) Different "for."

 

[Nihilo]

1 John 2:2

Ephesians 5:25 (KJV) again then. You are against all non-universalists then, you're making it explicit now.

 

[Sonnet]

Of course not. Ephesians 5:25 (KJV) Different "for."

Please would you clarify? You responded, seemingly, against the assertion that Christ died for unbelievers sins.