What is the Gospel?
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Which "Catholic Church" do you keep putting on a pedestal?
The Catholic Church. I am not Catholic.
Sonnet
New member
Infants are born whiny selfish little love terrorists.
Everything is me me me RIGHT NOW!
You have to guide them (sometimes by threat) to not snatch another kids toy, to not hit someone when they don't get their way, to not throw a tantrum, to stay away from things they have no business with, and to stay away from people they have no business being with, etc.
And when you tell them "NO" they look at you like who the hell do you think you are, and go right on doing the same thing.
They finally straighten up a bit when they realize there is an additional aspect to his action if he does not heed the "NO". SPANK!
At this point you might have a chance with them.
They may be cute and tiny and helpless, but a love machine they are not.
They should thank their parents every day for the rest of their lives that they showed enough restraint and patience to not strangle them before they reached childhood.
And yet Matthew 18:1ff.
Sonnet
New member
Sonnet
New member
1 Corinthians 15, v.11 Whether, then, it is I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
Romans 10 wasn't written specifically to unbelieving Israelites - nevertheless, Paul's words are for them and may be read so.
Last edited:
Sonnet
New member
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
[MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION]
As my post from which you have quoted above without comment indicated, the free offer of the Gospel is not denied, provided it is clearly explicated in terms of God's preceptive will towards men in general without distinction, sinners qua sinners. Thus, God sincerely calls all men to repent, but in that free offer God does not call anyone in particular sincerely.
The will of precept (or the "revealed will" of God) has no volitional content as to the futurition of actions, but only to the obligation of them. The will of precept simply states what God has commanded ought to be done by man. Whether man wills to do it is absolutely dependent upon whether God has decreed that he shall do it (the will of decree, or God's "secret will").
Perhaps a careful reading of the following will help you come to grips with my position:
http://www.dr-bacon.net/blue_banner_articles/murray-free-offer-review.htm
The dissenting review of Murray's OPC majority report at the link above captures the conservative Reformed position nicely. It is not for casual reading, but for serious study if you are so inclined.
A few teasers:
"...God desires the salvation of all men. The word, desire, we are informed, does not have reference to the decretive will of God, but to the revealed will of God in “the free offer of the gospel to all without distinction.”
"This distinction between a decretive and a revealed (or preceptive) will of God is both sound and necessary, and one to which all orthodox Calvinistic divines have had recourse. To quote Francis Turretin: “The first and principal distinction is that of the decretive and preceptive will of God... The former relates to the futurition and the event of things and is the rule of God’s external acts; the latter is concerned with precepts and promises and is the rule of our action.”
"Such a distinction must never be understood as implying that God has two wills. For it is clear from the above definition that the word will is being used in two different senses, i.e., equivocally, having two distinct points of reference. It is only the will of decree [nb: decretive will] which is the will of God in the proper sense of the term, as an act of volition, for therein God has decreed what shall be done."
"The will of precept [nb: revealed will] has no volitional content, for it simply states what God has commanded ought to be done by man. Whether man wills to do it is absolutely dependent upon whether God has decreed that he shall do it. So it is quite inappropriate to say that God wills something to be with reference to His will of command, for the preceptive will never pertains to the futurition of actions, only to the obligation of them."
"Scripture speaks expressly on the relation and action of God towards the reprobate, as it has been determined by His eternal and immutable counsel. They are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction (Rom. 9:22), enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18), delivered unto thraldom to obey Satan as their god, (2 Cor. 4:4), ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7). Any goodness they experience from the hand of God is a bitter sweet. It serves to inure them and to prepare them for the day of wrath (Rom. 2:4, 5). God has been pleased to leave multitudes of them without the fragrance of the gospel, and of those that do come under its aroma, the gospel becomes a savour of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16). Its promises were never intended for them, having only been purchased by Christ for the elect (2 Cor. 1:20); and its commandments are odious to them, for they are never graciously renewed by the Holy Ghost (Rom. 8:7). And when they stumble at the word, continuing in their disobedience, it is because that is whereunto they were appointed in accord with the good pleasure of God (1 Pet. 2:8)."
AMR
As my post from which you have quoted above without comment indicated, the free offer of the Gospel is not denied, provided it is clearly explicated in terms of God's preceptive will towards men in general without distinction, sinners qua sinners. Thus, God sincerely calls all men to repent, but in that free offer God does not call anyone in particular sincerely.
The will of precept (or the "revealed will" of God) has no volitional content as to the futurition of actions, but only to the obligation of them. The will of precept simply states what God has commanded ought to be done by man. Whether man wills to do it is absolutely dependent upon whether God has decreed that he shall do it (the will of decree, or God's "secret will").
Perhaps a careful reading of the following will help you come to grips with my position:
http://www.dr-bacon.net/blue_banner_articles/murray-free-offer-review.htm
The dissenting review of Murray's OPC majority report at the link above captures the conservative Reformed position nicely. It is not for casual reading, but for serious study if you are so inclined.
A few teasers:
"...God desires the salvation of all men. The word, desire, we are informed, does not have reference to the decretive will of God, but to the revealed will of God in “the free offer of the gospel to all without distinction.”
"This distinction between a decretive and a revealed (or preceptive) will of God is both sound and necessary, and one to which all orthodox Calvinistic divines have had recourse. To quote Francis Turretin: “The first and principal distinction is that of the decretive and preceptive will of God... The former relates to the futurition and the event of things and is the rule of God’s external acts; the latter is concerned with precepts and promises and is the rule of our action.”
"Such a distinction must never be understood as implying that God has two wills. For it is clear from the above definition that the word will is being used in two different senses, i.e., equivocally, having two distinct points of reference. It is only the will of decree [nb: decretive will] which is the will of God in the proper sense of the term, as an act of volition, for therein God has decreed what shall be done."
"The will of precept [nb: revealed will] has no volitional content, for it simply states what God has commanded ought to be done by man. Whether man wills to do it is absolutely dependent upon whether God has decreed that he shall do it. So it is quite inappropriate to say that God wills something to be with reference to His will of command, for the preceptive will never pertains to the futurition of actions, only to the obligation of them."
"Scripture speaks expressly on the relation and action of God towards the reprobate, as it has been determined by His eternal and immutable counsel. They are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction (Rom. 9:22), enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18), delivered unto thraldom to obey Satan as their god, (2 Cor. 4:4), ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7). Any goodness they experience from the hand of God is a bitter sweet. It serves to inure them and to prepare them for the day of wrath (Rom. 2:4, 5). God has been pleased to leave multitudes of them without the fragrance of the gospel, and of those that do come under its aroma, the gospel becomes a savour of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16). Its promises were never intended for them, having only been purchased by Christ for the elect (2 Cor. 1:20); and its commandments are odious to them, for they are never graciously renewed by the Holy Ghost (Rom. 8:7). And when they stumble at the word, continuing in their disobedience, it is because that is whereunto they were appointed in accord with the good pleasure of God (1 Pet. 2:8)."
AMR
Okay...
Short answer...
“In reference to eternity” No. Jesus Death Saved all mankind from the clutches of Spiritual blindness and the “inescapable” condemnation of the “first physical death”. More specifically, John 12:32 shows that God can communicate with and “draw” “ALL” men to Himself, because Jesus Died for “ALL Men”, as 1 John 2:2 states... 1 Timothy 4:10, as well. I also recognize mankind’s free will to reject Christ’s Drawing Gesture of “Scandalous Love” towards all sinners.
To answer your question in its’ originally intended expression, that refers to eternal life with Christ...
Long Answer...
Earlier... I stated that Universalism and Limited Atonement both arrogantly claim to know the will of God.
For that matter... all conclusions about final judgment are attempts to speak for God as scripture says something very important I never deviate from...
Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure
I get tired of people passing Salvic judgment on others and thus... I give all Glory to Jesus (The Word of God)... and recognize He has the final say... and thus... I exalt God far above even scriptural disputes in such matters and say...
“He can do whatever the Hell He wants... because He’s God”...
I do believe we had this conversation as I introduced a sock called “James Dalton” because I was sick of debating without rebuttal... so I went on as a noob and discussed this very thing with “whosoever” would bite...
And lookey here...
Deja Vu Link
And what? I still say God Alone knows the answer to your question...
He alone has final Salvic say...
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
I enjoy the way that you try to evade. Come clean.
And that's all well and good, until someone starts thinking that somehow you don't have to believe Easter to be saved.
I'm not evading anything. The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Christ built upon Peter, and I'm not Catholic, bodily. I am on my way to full communion, but I'm not there yet. Just like all non-Catholic Christians.
glorydaz
Well-known member
As I said, you took it out of context. You cherry picked...just as you do with Paul.
Spoiler
glorydaz
Well-known member
And there you have it, folks. The simple fact without all the hand wringing and anger and accusations.
Why is context...
Such an issue for you?
Dishonest inference isn’t a positive trait. How can you be trustworthy, or supported, when you nurture obfuscation and simply look to make debate points... instead of focus on “Jesus”?
Context...
Okay...
Short answer...
No. Jesus Death Saved all mankind from the clutches of Spiritual blindness and the “inescapable” condemnation of the “first physical death”. More specifically, John 12:32 shows that God can communicate with and “draw” “ALL” men to Himself, because Jesus Died for “ALL Men”, as 1 John 2:2 states... 1 Timothy 4:10, as well. I also recognize mankind’s free will to reject Christ’s Drawing Gesture of “Scandalous Love” towards all sinners.
To answer your question in its’ originally intended expression, that refers to eternal life with Christ...
Long Answer...
Earlier... I stated that Universalism and Limited Atonement both arrogantly claim to know the will of God.
For that matter... all conclusions about final judgment are attempts to speak for God as scripture says something very important I never deviate from...
Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure
I get tired of people passing Salvic judgment on others and thus... I give all Glory to Jesus (The Word of God)... and recognize He has the final say... and thus... I exalt God far above even scriptural disputes in such matters and say...
“He can do whatever the Hell He wants... because He’s God”...
I do believe we had this conversation as I introduced a sock called “James Dalton” because I was sick of debating without rebuttal... so I went on as a noob and discussed this very thing with “whosoever” would bite...
And lookey here...
Deja Vu Link
And what? I still say God Alone knows the answer to your question...
He alone has final Salvic say...
Right Divider
Body part
You've trying to get into the wrong church. The church which is His body had its foundation laid by Paul as given by the LORD Jesus Christ.
This explains your confusion.
glorydaz
Well-known member
He has a melt down, and a royal temper tantrum.
And so can Evil Eye, apparently. :chew:
And she trounced you in your dirty sock, too.
You're quite comfortable deceiving others...with who you are and what you "preach". Deceiver.
Ummm, to say that Christ's death was salvation for all, and then say not all get that salvation is not context, but contradiction.
Either all mankind got salvation due to Christ's death, or not all of mankind got salvation due to Christ's death.
(And by 'salvation' is meant eternal salvation, not just a saving as Israel was saved during the parting of the Red Sea.)