What is the Gospel?

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
You are arguing that Judas Iscariot was given the secret of the Kingdom of God compared with others who were, “...ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”?
Nope. I'm showing that not everyone is saved and God does this according to His will. I don't know how you arrived at your interpretation of that scripture.

Maybe you can't decide to believe until God opens your heart.

Acts 16:14 - One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

Mark 9:23-24 - J
esus said to him, “If you can believe,[a] all things are possible to him who believes.”24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!
 
Last edited:

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
I am a non-believer interested in knowing what the good news is. I ask because, in my experience, Christians do not seem to agree on the specifics. One might point to the issue of the scope of Christ's salvific provision as being particularly relevant.

If the Gospel isn't clearly defined then, surely, the non-believer may legitimately ask, 'Believe in what?'

Gospel is Old English for Good News. The Good News started when it was realised that Jesus was the fulfilment of the long awaited Hebrew Messiah (which means anointed one). The Messiah Jesus died for our sins, which provided a way for people to go to Heaven when they died, as up to then everyone went to Hell.

This is Good News indeed.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You are a scholarly person... reach past the bias. The evidence is clear, and you all would do well to humble and correct Glory! She does it daily for others. It would be well if someone she would listen to would be 100 with her!
There is no bias. I don't know glorydaz any better than I know you except from what I've read on this website. She does not believe what you are freaking out over.

This is Limited Atonement... flirtation... and though the Atonement is said to be "Sufficient"... she is iterating that she refuses to tell the unbeliever that Jesus died for them.

The attitude here appears to be that the Holy Spirit isn't there to explain this to the individual... but instead... Glory inserts herself into the need of the person knowing that the person will die in their sins... the issue here is that Glory knows that Sonnet already knows this portion of the Gospel and thus... Glory is deferring.... to a 50% argument that says... "No... Because that person may die in their sins if I tell them Jesus Died for their sins..."
Unlike what maybe most on this website would do, I simply clicked on the link that takes me to the post that you partially quoted and read the whole post. You should do the same. glorydaz is not a Calvinist and no Calvinist would agree with a syllable of that post and nothing she said there smacks of Limited Atonement in the slightest. Her phrasing seems to have been aimed at poking you in an emotional soft spot. It appears to have hit it's mark.

Sonnet didn't ask this... and Glory knows Sonnet already knows what she is intentionally saying to avoid saying "Jesus died for even the unbelieving". The fact remains that Glory corrects people for saying that Jesus died for all. You can even go to Pate's threads and see her in action. She's becoming a regular TULIP Bee. She's Duplicitous and I wanted to drop this, but you exonerated her out of friendship, instead of doing research for a matter you decided to help mediate. I trusted you to research something you were stepping into without bias.
Again, there is no bias. glorydaz is not "my friend". I don't know her at all outside of this website. I'm reasonably familiar with her positions on things and agree with most of what she says but that isn't "friendship".

I didn't show up here to mediate anything either. I'm simply subscribed to this thread but hadn't read any of it in a while so when I showed up and read a few of the latest posts, I literally couldn't figure out what the disagreement was so I asked. I still see no substantive disagreement.

Clete,

I'm glad you are a "Will" Theist. I see your point, but think we have to say "Free" because of the massive damage Reformed influence has had on western civilization. It's like people need to be reminded they have a brain God gave them, and they are allowed to use it.
Yes, I understand. As I said, "Free Will" works as a title used to refer to a set of doctrines.

This is in response to me forgiving someone for calling me an Unbeliever, a source of discord, invalid and many other things that have been leveled all throughout this thread.

Did I lose my stuff? Oh yes. I admitted shame for losing it! I even wanted to speak kindly to [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] , but she mocked me when I did and like a fool, I took the bait and talked to her like she consistently talks to others... out of pride and hostility, while hiding behind a thin veil of self justification.

If you actually were emotionally invested in me as a friend like you are Glory, you would have had the courtesy to look through this thread before you said something so void of a Holy Spirit Softened Heart... but the fact remains that you most likely dislike certain views I have and know that I don't believe in "Republican Moral Majority Jesus"... thus... you claim I don't have thick skin.

The truth is that I was enormously applauded when I ripped people to shreds and placed Theological agenda over human compassion.

I literally burned all of that applause and humbled myself for my errors... out of conviction of the Holy Spirit. I wanted all the credibility I had obtained while hurting fellow human beings that Jesus died for... to go away... hence... I asked [MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION] to please destroy my old EE account.

The book of James supports my case and explains what the Holy Spirit has done to my heart.
I said it because you were whining about how someone was being mean to you. It has nothing to do with you or your beliefs. I literally don't know ANYTHING about what you believe outside of the few things you've said directly to me IN THIS THREAD! I have no doubt that I've read other posts of yours in other threads but I don't remember any of them and I couldn't tell you anything at all about what you believe or don't believe based on your user name. My responses here have 100% to do with what has been said here - in this thread - and nothing else.

Like when Jesus said... "I did not come to condemn the world but to save it"? Or, when He said... "Woman where are your accusers... I accuse you neither".

Or, how about... "Father forgive them, they know not what they do"?

How about... "Forgive 70 X 7"?

I think the issue is Bob E. is an idol here... and he promotes judging sinners that Jesus died for. How do I know Jesus died for even the sinners that Christians like to single out? Because Paul makes it clear... "WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS, CHRIST DIED FOR US"...

Funny how the whole judge not thing comes into light. I judge doctrine, not people.. and brother... there is a difference and Christianity as a whole would be much more full of the flavor of Love if it understood.

When most Christians in the US are a step away from Westborro Baptist Church... just without the guts they have to boldly proclaim their hatred for people... We have a problem Denver Bible. (See what I did? I replaced Houston with DBC) DBC looks wonderful BTW... I wish I could go there. The outreach on their web site, does look enormously valuable. That means a bunch!
If you want to debate whether we should judge, start and thread and I'll "crush you to powder".

So forgiveness as Jesus taught is a sham? The "Love your enemy" and "While we were yet Sinners" thing should clear this up.
Typical. Your understanding of scripture is less than skin deep. If you formulate your doctrine by quoting verses without giving any thought to context, you may as well go join the Branch Davidians. Koresh should be back at any moment now.

I think Jesus has taken a back seat to the religion built around Him. We all screw up! Judge NOT means more that most admit. And why? Because people like to point fingers and say... "ewwwwww"... thank God I'm not them. James 2 and Romans 2 explain that that is spiritual SUICIDE!
Incredible.

Like I said, start a thread if you want. You won't like the results but maybe it'll do you some good.

I wonder who our example will be? Jesus... perhaps? He's the light and He showed us that the brutal and Spiritually judgmental of others sins are the ones that have the heat coming.

Remember Matthew 23? Remember that He came for the SINNERS and not the "Self Righteous"?
Would you say that this is part of the gospel?

I just ask because it's not even hinted at in those two verses you keep quoting at glorydaz.

Resting in His Grace and aware I am a flawed human being that was saved by the PERFECT King of Kings,

Nameless.in.Grace.Evil.Eye.<(@)>
Interesting double message.

I started to say that what follows is off the topic of the thread but then I realized that the thread is about the gospel so it's only off the topic of this weird quazi-debate about Limited Atonement that no one here other than AMR believes in.

Here's something for you to chew on...

The portion of your sign-off that acknowledges an awareness of being a flawed human being is contrary to the idea that you are resting in Him which you expressed immediately prior. The two are in contradiction to each other and ARE NOT both true. If you are in Christ then you are clothed in His righteousness and are no longer flawed in any way. If you are in Him, you are a new creation and the things of old have passed away and you have been declared by the Judge of all things to be holy, righteous and good. Identifying yourself in your flesh is to both resurrect and feed that which was crucified in Christ. You'd do better to acknowledge the existence of your flesh but avoid identifying yourself in or by it. Sin resides in your flesh but you are not a sinner. Your flesh resides in you but you are not your flesh. You are to crucify your flesh, not keep it alive by identifying with it!

And since this thread is about answering the question, "What is the Gospel?", would you say that the doctrines I just alluded to are a big part of the gospel? I certainly would. So much so, in fact, that I'd insist that anyone who denied it was denying Christianity itself.

I ask because these ideas are found nowhere in the bible except within the writings of Paul. Jesus didn't mention anything at all similar to them and neither did Peter, James or John. In fact, if not for the books of Galatians and Romans no one would believe any of what I just said. How do you account for that? Did Jesus and the Twelve just forget to mention it, or what?

I ask the question because understanding the answer goes a long way to preventing the accidental (and chronic) feeding of your flesh that brought it up.


Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Sonnet

New member
Nope. I'm showing that not everyone is saved and God does this according to His will. I don't know how you arrived at your interpretation of that scripture.

Maybe you can't decide to believe until God opens your heart.

Acts 16:14 - One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

Mark 9:23-24 - J
[FONT=&]esus said to him, [/FONT][FONT=&]“If you can believe,[/FONT][FONT=&][a][/FONT][FONT=&] all things are possible to him who believes.”[/FONT][FONT=&]24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief![/FONT]

Did Jesus tell the twelve that the secret of the Kingdom of God was given to them? Did Jesus explain that others - those 'outside' were 'ever seeing but never perceiving and ever hearing but never understanding'?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
It's not my intention to convince you of any disagreement.
As if that was the point.

The point is that you're freaking out over something that doesn't exist. gorydaz is not a Calvinist and does not believe in Limited Atonement.

I have read Galatians and Romans.
Did you miss the point?

I wasn't even actually asking! It was a rhetorical question! Of course you've read Romans and Galatians as well as the whole rest of Paul's writings and I'm sure the whole of the New Testament. So why the hang up on just two verses?

In other words, if it is valid for you to complain that glorydaz is not preaching the gospel because she doesn't mention two verses in I Corinthians, why wouldn't it be valid for me to complain that you're not preaching the gospel by failing to mention Romans 7 or Galatians 2 or Galatians 2 THROUGH Romans 7 for that matter?


Resting in Him,
Clete
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Did Jesus tell the twelve that the secret of the Kingdom of God was given to them? Did Jesus explain that others - those 'outside' were 'ever seeing but never perceiving and ever hearing but never understanding'?
No. The mystery, not the "secret".
 

Sonnet

New member
As if that was the point.

The point is that you're freaking out over something that doesn't exist. gorydaz is not a Calvinist and does not believe in Limited Atonement.

I'm not aware that I'm freaking out - but, sure, refusing to tell unbelievers that essential element of the Gospel seems pretty serious to me.


Did you miss the point?

I wasn't even actually asking! It was a rhetorical question! Of course you've read Romans and Galatians as well as the whole rest of Paul's writings and I'm sure the whole of the New Testament. So why the hang up on just two verses?

In other words, if it is valid for you to complain that glorydaz is not preaching the gospel because she doesn't mention two verses in I Corinthians, why wouldn't it be valid for me to complain that you're not preaching the gospel by failing to mention Romans 7 or Galatians 2 or Galatians 2 THROUGH Romans 7 for that matter?


Resting in Him,
Clete

The difference, of course, is that the 1 Corinthians 15:3ff is the guts of what Christ seemingly came to do. It is also noted that Paul names those verses as the Gospel. Why would any Christian exclude anyone from such words?
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
...why wouldn't it be valid for me to complain that you're not preaching the gospel by failing to mention Romans 7 or Galatians 2 or Galatians 2 THROUGH Romans 7 for that matter?
Because Romans is before Galatians in the Bible? :D
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I'm not aware that I'm freaking out - but, sure, refusing to tell unbelievers that essential element of the Gospel seems pretty serious to me.
It was just a figure of speech.

The difference, of course, is that the 1 Corinthians 15:3ff is the guts of what Christ seemingly came to do. It is also noted that Paul names those verses as the Gospel. Why would any Christian exclude anyone from such words?
Maybe because they've rejected the gospel! The blood of Christ is not applied to the unbeleiver, Sonnet! The application is available to the unbeliever, (which glorydaz has repeatedly affirmed and which Calvinism in general and Limited Atonement specifically denies), but it is not applied apart from him willfully becoming a believer.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Because Romans is before Galatians in the Bible? :D

Galatians is placed in the modern bible before Galatians, this is undeniably true but Galatians is likely the first Epistles written by Paul while Romans is one of if not the last.

Regardless, the point holds, right?

Clete
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Galatians is placed in the modern bible before Galatians, this is undeniably true but Galatians is likely the first Epistles written by Paul while Romans is one of if not the last.
I thought either Galatians or 1st Thessalonians was earliest, and that his pastoral epistles were later on, but it's splitting hairs regardless.
Regardless, the point holds, right?
Of course! :)
 

Sonnet

New member
Maybe because they've rejected the gospel! The blood of Christ is not applied to the unbeleiver, Sonnet! The application is available to the unbeliever, (which glorydaz has repeatedly affirmed and which Calvinism in general and Limited Atonement specifically denies), but it is not applied apart from him willfully becoming a believer.

Clete

Maybe? So you, too, do not tell unbelievers this Gospel?

Why did you say this then?

You won't get any disagreement from me as to what Paul preached and that the Pauline Gospel is THE Gospel.

Clete

...this being your response to:

Paul simply said this is what we preach (1 Corinthians 15:11)...and his 'this' is vv.3-8.

What can be more powerful than telling a man that a man/God claims to have died for them to save them?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Maybe? So you, too, do not tell unbelievers this Gospel?
It would depend on the circumstance. I wouldn't prohibit saying it to them but I may decide that it's wiser to allow him to be the evil person he desires to be. (Revelation 22:11a)

Why did you say this then?



...this being your response to:
I don't understand why people think it's okay to treat complex things as though they are so simplistic. People are complex things and relationships between them are even more so. Discernment is required in all things when dealing people, especially when dealing with issues as important and complex as their relationship with the living God. Otherwise well meaning Christians very often do more harm than good with their preaching of the gospel. It turns my stomach to see some syrupy sweet Christian being "nice" to the homosexual, trying to twist his arm into reciting the so called sinner's prayer before giving so much as lip service to the fact that he's wretched, wicked, evil and disgusting and that he's in serious danger of spending eternity in Hell if he doesn't acknowledge is decrepit state and repent of it.

There's no point in throwing a life preserver to a man who doesn't think he's even wet, much less drowning.

Additionally, there is the man who knows the gospel and is actively hostile to it. We are not admonished to preach anything to such a person. Whether our doctrine acknowledges that Christ died for his sins or not does not necessitate our communicating that fact to him over and over in spite of his hostility to it. And if we did, it would just as likely further the hardening of his heart as it would anything else.

Not only that but a straight out of the clear blue sky preaching of the gospel usually has no effect at all anyway. There has to be some sort of a relationship that gives the hearer some reason to think that they ought to listen to anything you've got to say. He has to have some reason to think that you know what you're talking about and that what you are saying has any bearing on his life and situation. It's just not as simple as you want to pretend.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Some plant, some water. :think:
Sometimes it never sinks in.

Matthew 13:3-7 - [FONT=&quot]Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]4 And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]5 Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]6 But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them.[/FONT]
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Sometimes it never sinks in.

Matthew 13:3-7 - [FONT="]Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="][FONT=Arial][B]4 [/B][/FONT]And as he sowed, some [I]seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them.[/I][/FONT][/COLOR][I][COLOR=#000000][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="][FONT=Arial][B]5 [/B][/FONT]Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="][FONT=Arial][B]6 [/B][/FONT]But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them.[/FONT][/I]

Matthew 3:9

“And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”
 

Danoh

New member
The Gospel is preached to all unbelievers.

But, clearly, you have a comprehension problem. "Our sins" is referring to the sins of believers there in Corinth.......those who had already had the entire Gospel preached to them, and have already believed it. This really isn't rocket science.

And, Jesus Christ is the Elect One, and those IN HIM are the Elect. Isaiah 42:1 Isaiah 43:10

Eph. 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

The died for our sins is for the sins of sinners.

You are contradicting yourself - the New Man does not have sins for Christ to have had to die for.

Paul is merely reminding those Believers at Corinth of the fact that their having believed as sinners that Christ had died for their sins assured them a part in that resurrection yet future, even now.

Christ died for sinners while they were yet sinners.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Your Calvinist view of election is also obvious.

Right there, next to the obvious chip on your shoulder to being disagreed with :chuckle:

Rom. 14:5; 5:6-8.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
The died for our sins is for the sins of sinners.

You are contradicting yourself - the New Man does not have sins for Christ to have had to die for.

Wrong. I didn't say anything about the new man.

Paul is merely reminding those Believers at Corinth of the fact that their having believed as sinners that Christ had died for their sins assured them a part in that resurrection yet future, even now.

Exactly what I've been saying. Paul was talking to believers...the "our sins" applies to the believers. Try and pay attention.

Christ died for sinners while they were yet sinners.

No duh.


Your Calvinist view of election is also obvious.

Right there, next to the obvious chip on your shoulder to being disagreed with :chuckle:

Oh, so those verses I quoted in Eph. 1 are Calvinist verses, too?
Your claim is that the word "elect" is a Calvinist word? :rolleyes:

Let's just start tossing them all out, shall we? Let's start here.

Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.​

Let's just rid the Bible of all these Calvinist verses.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.​
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Maybe because they've rejected the gospel! The blood of Christ is not applied to the unbeleiver, Sonnet! The application is available to the unbeliever, (which glorydaz has repeatedly affirmed and which Calvinism in general and Limited Atonement specifically denies), but it is not applied apart from him willfully becoming a believer.

Clete

:e4e:
 
Top