What is the Gospel?

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The Gospel of 1 Cor 15:3ff is pretty straight forward...as you say. And yet Calvinists (consistent ones) wont preach it to the unbeliever. And that remains astonishing...but then the scriptures they cite are pretty persuasive too.

The charge of doublespeak is a fair one I feel.

Sonnet...

I’m asking for affirmation on this... from the names I’m about to drop... [MENTION=14087]George Affleck[/MENTION] , [MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION] are the “Calvinist’s” that Free Will Theists can not only tolerate... but appreciate... because in the end... these 3 individuals place the John 5:39 of the matter before the “Theology”. To be cute about it... they place the Theos of the matter before the “Ology”.

I’m certain all 3 of them only desire you to surrender to Jesus and aren’t interested in making you a “reformed” convert.

You keep hashing “Isms”... and when Jesus finally touches your hip... in His timing... you’ll possibly choose an “Ism”. But... it is clear you know that God could not be “unjust” and are battling with ideas you have studied out.

To be blunt... Jesus is the Baby and all Isms are bathwater. It’s always okay to throw the bathwater out... but hold that Baby close!

Why worry and focus on the bath water when there is much semblance of Gospel unity that transcends many Isms here?

You are wise on Who Jesus is... now it’s time to fight through the crowd like George said and reach for His Garment.

It doesn’t get much more peacefully ecumenical than this. The Isms and schisms will remain till the last day. The John 5:39 of the matter is eternal.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Read Isaiah 54. That's where it was written.

[MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION]...

GD ain’t wrong... Is. 54 cinches this perspective and doesn’t leave room for wiggle.

Isms can change perception... but it is congruent with your inquisition.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

'They are held accountable for that which they cannot do' - you don't disagree with this?

Even the village “communicationally challenged person” has value in their words... but Nanja is only going to fan the flames of your suspected conspiracy... because they are... ahem... a village “communicationally and gospel challenged person”.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The non elect do understand the gospel but cannot accept it.

A Muslim understands clearly that I believe salvation is a free gift but he cannot accept this. He condemns the idea that I don't need to do anything to be saved other than have faith.

An atheist understands clearly that I believe I have eternal life by virtue of the propitiation of the Son of God but he refuses to accept God's existence.

The scripture categorizes men on their ability to understand the Word of God 1 Corinthians chapter 1. Only the saved can understand and only the full grown spiritual saved can understand the deep things in the Word. The unregenerate man understands non of it but he does have the capacity to understand the gospel message. You are quite an example of this, you understand the gospel message of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone plus nothing but you wrestle with accepting this news by seeking differences in doctrinal understandings of it in order to disavow the whole idea. Do you not?

From my perspective the differences are election, all humanity already condemned headed to hell. If the Calvinist rejects this he is still saved because he accepts the finished work of the cross. If the non Calvinist rejects the idea that babies die because of sin they too are still saved etc. election is not a part of the message of the cross. But it is part of the salvation package. If the elect get saved by hearing the message of the cross then they don't need to hear about election to be regenerated, the doctrine of election falls under the category of the deep things of the Word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Intojoy,

Non elect? Are you mincing Dispensationalism with Reformed teaching?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Huh? By "consistent ones" are you attempting to lump in the hyper-Calvinist? A cheap shot. They are heretics. Plain and simple.

Hyper-Calvinism can be defined as believing in any one of these:

- God is the author of sin and evil
- Human beings have absolutely no will whatsoever
- Individuals are not responsible for their own decisions and actions
- Justification occurs in eternity, not in time
- God does not command all people to repent of sin
- Not everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation
- God creates unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect
- Assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
- Election is evident simply by a profession of faith, regardless of sanctification (antinomianism)
- Saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination (only Calvinists are Christians)
- Limited atonement must be believed in order to hear the gospel and be saved
- Evangelism is unnecessary, or even wrong
- God has no love whatsoever for humanity in His providence

Spoiler

On the other hand, the orthodox Calvinist obeys the command to preach the Good News promiscuously for it by means of the foolishness of preaching by which's God's redemptive ends for all His chosen will ordinarily be brought into the Kingdom.

What you will not find is the Calvinist telling a specific person "Our Lord died for you, {Bob, Mary, Pete, Jane, etc.}" for we understand that Our Lord's active and passive obedience was particularly intended to actually save, not potentially save, those so given to Him by God the Father, persons (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9; John 17:22; John 18:9) that no man can number from among the peoples of the world (Rev. 7:9). We also understand that we do not know exactly who God has chosen (Deut. 29:29), so we obey the command to preach the Good News to all.

Calvinists also reject the hypothetical aspect (the potentially saving view of the Atonement, of the anti-Calvinist's view:

Hypothetical universalism teaches that God gave Jesus Christ to save all men on condition they believe; but He has not elected all men to believe and be saved. This means that God gives Jesus Christ to all men but then takes Him away from some. Election comes in to exclude the application of the merits of Christ to a whole class of men. Christ's merits call for faith and justification but God says "No" to His dearly beloved Son. Hypothetical universalism teaches that God is not well-pleased to save all men for whom Christ died. This is a distortion of the gospel of free grace.

All your (and anyone's) questions begin and end with the beginning in the Garden. Just how fallen did those in the loins of Adam become? If you think those after Adam still possess some "seed" of righteousness such that they can still reach for and grasp the life preserver tossed to them as they are drowning in the sea of sin, then you end up outside of Calvinism.

On the other hand, if you think those in the sea of sin are actually morally dead at the bottom of that sea and will remain so if and until God does something to resurrect them from their state of moral death, such that they are enabled and made irrevocably willing to believe (Eze. 36:26), then you end up in the Calvinist camp.

All discussions of soteriology begin with the understanding of the fall of man and the universe in the Garden. You keep implying that Calvin somehow invented all of this. As I have pointed out in earlier posts, the proper understanding of the fall of man precedes Calvin by well over a thousand years. It is not something new to Calvin nor Calvinism. It was also just one of the many things the Reformers were calling the church back to during the Reformation.

Are there differing opinions on the matter? No doubt this site gives ample evidence of the same. I am confident no one comes to grip with all the questions you are raising until that person is actually born anew. Afterwards, in their walk of faith not a few will come to a deeper understanding of how they came to be where they are now. You just cannot rationalize yourself into the Kingdom.

AMR

[MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION] ... what AMR has articulated here is enormous and important...

People like AMR... Lon... George Affleck and others who are reformed... get misunderstood because of the “Hyper” group... this is the most precise articulation of this matter and I’m simply drawing attention to it... because it could legitimately be a go to pinned post of sorts.

I’m focusing on the Hyper aspect of his post because it zeros in on the contentious nature of some that fully misrepresent reformed theology.

It is an Anti-Thesis to the false nature of the Hyper proclamations... and it indeed zeros in on what [MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION] is so conflicted about. I know Sonnet is teetering on belief... but legitimately... this is a priceless post...

I’m not Reformed by any measure... but this work of AMR’s is priceless!

- EE

 

[intojoy]

M8,

Even if you think it’s funny... you didn’t even offer a respectful response. Could you please retract your playful jab at FL?

I’m sincere... I’m avoiding a search for the report button. And... half of me likes you...

Stank eye


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Gaylight


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

M8,

Even if you think it’s funny... you didn’t even offer a respectful response. Could you please retract your playful jab at FL?

I’m sincere... I’m avoiding a search for the report button. And... half of me likes you...

Stank eye


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you kindly edit your post... or do I add to your nickname and point out that “IntoBoys” isn’t that far off from your name?

 

[freelight]

M8,

Even if you think it’s funny... you didn’t even offer a respectful response. Could you please retract your playful jab at FL?

I’m sincere... I’m avoiding a search for the report button. And... half of me likes you...



Would you kindly edit your post... or do I add to your nickname and point out that “IntoBoys” isn’t that far off from your name?

Some posters who cannot entail a valid debate or discussion with me might resort to mere 'namecalling', you just let those slide thru the cracks, unless they can prove to be a valid partner in open objective and intellectually honest discussion.

I will also add that my former post has not been addressed, but the points I offered are valid in the greater field of religious studies, especially noting the differences between the gospel Jesus and the original aposltes taught, compared to Paul's gospel.

I would further note that Lon just reported my previous post in the Woodshed, assuming that this thread is in the EC (Exclusively Christian Theology) section, or so it appears that way. I just asked him to retract that report. Just another day at TOL

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Some posters who cannot entail a valid debate or discussion with me might resort to mere 'namecalling', you just let those slide thru the cracks, unless they can prove to be a valid partner in open objective and intellectually honest discussion.

I will also add that my former post has not been addressed, but the points I offered are valid in the greater field of religious studies, especially noting the differences between the gospel Jesus and the original aposltes taught, compared to Paul's gospel.

I would further note that Lon just reported my previous post in the Woodshed, assuming that this thread is in the EC (Exclusively Christian Theology) section, or so it appears that way. I just asked him to retract that report. Just another day at TOL

Freelight... I always embrace you as my brother in Jesus and claim you as my friend. That is the part of me that responded to IJ.

However... Religion ain’t worth a lick in this discussion and bringing up a fallacious charge against Paul’s validity when paralleled to Jesus Christ’s Words... is a devicive topic to broach on this particular thread.

While we are all boiling towards simplicity... your interjection about the possible invalidity of Paul... only confuses a topic that is far from discussion of the nature you have broached.

Lon is directly answering Sonnet... In respects to one perspective Sonnet is highlighting. I would hope you can respect that eclectic thought would only detract from this threads thrust...

All respect... but all sincerity...

EE

 

[freelight]

gospel focus.............

gospel focus.............

Freelight... I always embrace you as my brother in Jesus and claim you as my friend. That is the part of me that responded to IJ.

However... Religion ain’t worth a lick in this discussion and bringing up a fallacious charge against Paul’s validity when paralleled to Jesus Christ’s Words... is a devicive topic to broach on this particular thread.

While we are all boiling towards simplicity... your interjection about the possible invalidity of Paul... only confuses a topic that is far from discussion of the nature you have broached.

Lon is directly answering Sonnet... In respects to one perspective Sonnet is highlighting. I would hope you can respect that eclectic thought would only detract from this threads thrust...

All respect... but all sincerity...

EE

Always respect, even if I went total 'Agnostic' or 'Atheist'

My points still hold on the original inquiry in the OP, - and my questioning Paul's definition of the gospel, since he's describing the gospel revealed to him in his address to the Corinthians. His gospel came by way of 'revelation' and 'according to the scriptures' being 'post-resurrection', while the gospel of the kingdom taught by Jesus and his original apostles in the gospels have a different nuance and focus of teaching emphasis, although of course there are similiar religious themes and concepts therein. This is noted among modern christians of various sorts today, recognizing a different dispensational context and target audience. So, while attempting to narrow it down simplistically, that cant be done without recognizing the 'complexity' involved in the question itself, within the context of what criteria even constitutes "the gospel".

Dovetailing off into the old Reformed Theology points, TULIP tenets and the rest is fun, as we've circled those wagon trails before,...but I just thought to add pertinent points and offer some other directives addressing the original inquiry. Just what would satisfy Sonnets inquiry would be his own indications, regarding the criteria held to help come to any rational conclusion of the matter.

A so called biblical answer would of course include the whole of the NT, what it and its various authors describe as "the gospel". While Jesus emphasized a 'gospel of the kingdom', Paul seems to emphasize a focus on a celestial Jesus figure who came down, was crucified, dying for sins, being raised the 3rd day, then resurrected, being a gospel of 'grace', whereby the believer takes part in the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the risen Savior by being spiritually united with him (Christ now being a life-giving spirit). Answers to the original question will come by further research, based on the motive of the inquirer.

 

[Epoisses]

Always respect, even if I went total 'Agnostic' or 'Atheist'

My points still hold on the original inquiry in the OP, - and my questioning Paul's definition of the gospel, since he's describing the gospel revealed to him in his address to the Corinthians. His gospel came by way of 'revelation' and 'according to the scriptures' being 'post-resurrection', while the gospel of the kingdom taught by Jesus and his original apostles in the gospels have a different nuance and focus of teaching emphasis, although of course there are similiar religious themes and concepts therein. This is noted among modern christians of various sorts today, recognizing a different dispensational context and target audience. So, while attempting to narrow it down simplistically, that cant be done without recognizing the 'complexity' involved in the question itself, within the context of what criteria even constitutes "the gospel".

Dovetailing off into the old Reformed Theology points, TULIP tenets and the rest is fun, as we've circled those wagon trails before,...but I just thought to add pertinent points and offer some other directives addressing the original inquiry. Just what would satisfy Sonnets inquiry would be his own indications, regarding the criteria held to help come to any rational conclusion of the matter.

A so called biblical answer would of course include the whole of the NT, what it and its various authors describe as "the gospel". While Jesus emphasized a 'gospel of the kingdom', Paul seems to emphasize a focus on a celestial Jesus figure who came down, was crucified, dying for sins, being raised the 3rd day, then resurrected, being a gospel of 'grace', whereby the believer takes part in the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the risen Savior by being spiritually united with him (Christ now being a life-giving spirit). Answers to the original question will come by further research, based on the motive of the inquirer.

The so-called gospel of the kingdom as defined by the patron saint James was the gospel of grace adapted to meet the weakness and unbelief of the Jews in the 1st century. The pure gospel of Christianity is the one taught by Paul to the Gentiles of grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. If this gospel had been preached to the Jews who were 'zealous of the law' they would have flat out rejected it. We should see the actions of the apostles like Peter and James as wise who understood their target audience while the temple was still standing. There is only one pure gospel and that is the one taught by Paul. The kingdom gospel is basically the Judaizing heresy where grace and law are mixed together.

 

[freelight]

Gospel Grab Bag.........

Gospel Grab Bag.........

The so-called gospel of the kingdom as defined by the patron saint James was the gospel of grace adapted to meet the weakness and unbelief of the Jews in the 1st century. The pure gospel of Christianity is the one taught by Paul to the Gentiles of grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. If this gospel had been preached to the Jews who were 'zealous of the law' they would have flat out rejected it. We should see the actions of the apostles like Peter and James as wise who understood their target audience while the temple was still standing. There is only one pure gospel and that is the one taught by Paul. The kingdom gospel is basically the Judaizing heresy where grace and law are mixed together.

It just so happened that Paul's gospel version won out, as his appeal and acceptance among gentiles was greater, and Jerusalem (The temple, etc. fell) and the original Jewish followers of Jesus dispersed. Within the first few centuries, there was a diversity of branches influenced by Jesus or a 'Crestus' figure, who were also called 'Chrestians' by the earliest term, a word which was later changed to 'Christian' in the centuries following, but thats another thread. So, sure you have the community of Jesus followers in Jerusalem still holding to the the essential tenets/traditions of Judaism, with some innovations brought in by Jesus own teaching, and then Paul's gospel that was quite different, so that some with more Jewish proclivities held to the Jerusalem centered religious teaching (upheld by Jesus original apostles, the pillars Peter, James, John, etc.) and then Pauls gospel was another tangent, if not its own unique dispensation.

Do note the distinguishing content of the teachings and that Paul himself boasts about having his own gospel, and even dissing the original apostles, elevating himself as God's messenger more or less (see Galations, etc.). There are messianic believers in Jesus as Messiah who reject Paul, and hold to some messianc form of biblical practice, or somehow reconcile Paul's teaching. That the greater Gentile world accepted Paul's gospel and the NT interpreted as a synergistic whole, is a matter of biblical 'convention'. Of course the greater percentage of modern day Christianity champions Paul's gospel of grace, interpreting all thru the lens of it, but I think there's more to it, and this is more often brought up by secular and religious studies scholars, that do not play to traditional concensus but strive for a more objective approach without having any religious presuppositions or bias. Anyways,...just saying there is more involved outside of conventional belief systems, mythological motifs and hand me down theologies.

Since the death of Jesus, and his resurrection is a central theme in the NT, naturally the doctrine and theology will be based/contextualized upon the 'event', 'theme' or 'allegorical context' of the 'story', all the gospel narratives serving that story line, where then Pauls letters and other epistles offer deeper explanations of various aspects of 'doctine', Paul's letters being earlier than the gospels, and then some later epistles reflecting the ecclesiastical leanings and church politics beginning their formations.

 

[intojoy]

Oprah gayness going on in here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[intojoy]

M8,

Even if you think it’s funny... you didn’t even offer a respectful response. Could you please retract your playful jab at FL?

I’m sincere... I’m avoiding a search for the report button. And... half of me likes you...



Would you kindly edit your post... or do I add to your nickname and point out that “IntoBoys” isn’t that far off from your name?

Why is glory toasted liking this? Must be the Seagrams Seven


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[intojoy]

Intojoy,

Non elect? Are you mincing Dispensationalism with Reformed teaching?

Dispensationalism allows for the doctrine of predestination.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nihilo]

THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

This is still the Gospel. It's the whole thing. Everything else stems from and leads to the RESURRECTION, and Paul says that He is risen, is the Christian faith. Everything connects to and with it, that is also true, but it's the soil that the plant's growing in. Without the soil, the plant dies. He is risen, is the soil. Without the soil, the plant dies, your faith is vain, the whole Christian faith is vain. That's not going to happen because Calvinism's wrong or Catholicism's wrong, that's only possible if He is risen, is a lie. 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

 

[glorydaz]

The non elect do understand the gospel but cannot accept it.

Will not.

The unregenerate man understands non of it but he does have the capacity to understand the gospel message.

Yep.

 

[intojoy]

Will not.



Yep.

Oh hi little love


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[glorydaz]

Oh hi little love

:aimiel:

 

[Sonnet]

Huh? By "consistent ones" are you attempting to lump in the hyper-Calvinist? A cheap shot. They are heretics. Plain and simple.


Hyper-Calvinism can be defined as believing in any one of these:

- God is the author of sin and evil
- Human beings have absolutely no will whatsoever
- Individuals are not responsible for their own decisions and actions
- Justification occurs in eternity, not in time
- God does not command all people to repent of sin
- Not everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation
- God creates unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect
- Assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
- Election is evident simply by a profession of faith, regardless of sanctification (antinomianism)
- Saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination (only Calvinists are Christians)
- Limited atonement must be believed in order to hear the gospel and be saved
- Evangelism is unnecessary, or even wrong
- God has no love whatsoever for humanity in His providence

On the other hand, the orthodox Calvinist obeys the command to preach the Good News promiscuously for it by means of the foolishness of preaching by which's God's redemptive ends for all His chosen will ordinarily be brought into the Kingdom.

What you will not find is the Calvinist telling a specific person "Our Lord died for you, {Bob, Mary, Pete, Jane, etc.}" for we understand that Our Lord's active and passive obedience was particularly intended to actually save, not potentially save, those so given to Him by God the Father, persons (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9; John 17:22; John 18:9) that no man can number from among the peoples of the world (Rev. 7:9). We also understand that we do not know exactly who God has chosen (Deut. 29:29), so we obey the command to preach the Good News to all.

You appear to be arguing that those that won't preach 1 Corinthians 15:3ff to unbelievers are hyper-Calvinists (since you are reacted to my assertion that consistent Calvinist would not do so) - but you have already said this:

You move the goal posts and try another verse. Yet nothing therein supports your "therefore" conclusion that Paul told unbelievers "Christ died for our sins." You import what Paul was saying to the saints at Corinth into some generalization without warrant.

AMR​

in response to my:

There is one Gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the Gospel.
Paul preached the Gospel to unbelievers (Romans 15:20).
Therefore Paul told unbelievers, 'Christ died for our sins'.

And we conclude that Christ died for all men without exception.​

That you also won't tell unbelieving individuals the (this) Gospel is making the same point isn't it?

All your (and anyone's) questions begin and end with the beginning in the Garden. Just how fallen did those in the loins of Adam become? If you think those after Adam still possess some "seed" of righteousness such that they can still reach for and grasp the life preserver tossed to them as they are drowning in the sea of sin, then you end up outside of Calvinism.

That you argue we cannot turn to God and that we inherit this total depravity, then it would seem that you cannot escape the charge that this makes God the author of their sin.

All discussions of soteriology begin with the understanding of the fall of man and the universe in the Garden. You keep implying that Calvin somehow invented all of this. As I have pointed out in earlier posts, the proper understanding of the fall of man precedes Calvin by well over a thousand years. It is not something new to Calvin nor Calvinism. It was also just one of the many things the Reformers were calling the church back to during the Reformation.

I have no problem accepting that men are inherently wicked, including myself.