What is the Gospel?
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
Sonnet
New member
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It does, by assuming God just peeks ahead to see what Johny will do, and then rubber stamps Johnny's wise choice when he makes it. In addition to making God a contingent being in His decision making, such a view establishes predestination as well. Let's say I were to grant, for the sake of the argument, the Arminian/Romanist view that God "peeked ahead" and that this is a "foreknowledge" that some people would believe in Christ and be saved, and others would not believe in Christ and perish in their sins. This would still establish the Reformed doctrine of predestination. Why? Well, with this "foreknowledge", God still chose to create the world, so that the salvation of some and damnation of others manifestly rests on God's choice. The Arminian and Romanist arguments from "foreknowledge" actually accomplishes nothing. Rather these arguments only push the issue of divine choice back another step.
If God omnisciently sees those who will choose Him and others who won't, the question remains: why do some respond positively to grace while others do not? In the Arminian scheme the one who exercises faith to believe does so of their own accord- that is, he or she freely chooses God in a faith response to grace, while another sinner, who received the same offer of gospel grace, refuses it. Logically, this view forces the conclusion that some--by nature--are better than others. It is quite simply inescapable.
Yet Scripture teaches that no one may boast of having come to the Lord, because without His drawing no one can come to Him and because the faith that brings salvation is His gift. God has purposely designed His system to exclude human boasting (John 6:44,65; Romans 9:16; Eph 2:8-9; 1 Corinthians 1:29-31; 1 Corinthians 4:7). This view is nothing more than election based upon merit.
If God sees every person's future actions, then those actions must be foreordained in some sense, their outcome sure. For if God has nothing to do with foreordaining these human actions, how does He reign over them? Is God truly sovereign over all things if He is merely reacting to future actions/choices of His creatures? And if He elects someone on the basis of knowing that the person will believe, does that person remain always elect, or does that person stop being "elect" if they then decide not to believe (as they may, according to the Arminian view)? It seems in the Arminian view election is ultimately not God's working but man's.
The Arminian view robs us of much of the comfort and assurance about our salvation that Scripture means to give believers, in such passages as Romans 8:29-30 or 1John 5:10-13. This comfort comes as a witness of the Spirit, in knowing we belong to God. It also comes from recognizing the spiritual poverty (Matthew 5:3) and absolute dependence on God (John 15:5) that thrusts us into the arms of God's all-powerful grace as we walk out our faith. We are confident, not of ourselves (Phil 3:3), but of God's faithfulness (Phil 1:6).
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The view that gives God all the glory, one that has a very high view of the sovereignty of God, is the view taught in Scripture. God makes it very clear that He owes no man an answer as to why He does what He does. The account in Job is plain here. That view comports most with the Calvinist view. The Arminian view robs God of His glory, making Him a debtor to the decisions of His creatures.
AMR
glorydaz
Well-known member
You can try every trick in the book..... condescension, distraction, and big gaudy memes, but you can't undo your deception with that kind of behaviour.
opcorn:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Oh dear, I missed this one. :rotfl:
Sonnet
New member
Since your argument grants the Arminian view which has men making genuine choices to believe (synergistically) then any predetermination excludes the particular persons who will believe.
This forces faith under the umbrella of a good work. Romans 4:1ff explicitly precludes any such conflation.
This goes to the heart of the issue doesn't it? If you are suggesting that the Arminian's inability to explain how God maintains His Sovereignty is a good reason to reject the theology - then where does the Westminster Confession of Faith's comparable admission of ignorance (regarding human culpability) leave yours?
Why aren't you rejecting your own theology AMR?
Such an assurance is at the expense of other people's damnation is it not?
Last edited:
Sonnet
New member
Yet you also have to maintain that men are responsible for choices.
For whom did Christ rise from the dead for?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Well, the fact that He does give us answers all throughout Scripture seems to belie that point. He punishes those who do wrong, and He forgives those who repent. God's Glory is affirmed in His very righteous dealings with mankind. He never leaves man in doubt about His doings.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What I am stating and not suggesting is that the Arminian view is ultimately a works based view that dilutes the sovereignty of God. Of course, few Arminians will admit it to be so, preferring to hold that it was all grace. They just gloss over the plain fact that if all are offered the same grace by God, yet some refuse it and some do not not, then the reason some do not can only be due to something unique about themselves. You will not find that within the orthodox Reformed view. Hence, the choice of which theology to reject is quite simple.
A non-sequitur.
Fooolish me assumed your questions were genuinely offered up to seek irenic answers from an actual Calvinist. It appears they are merely being proffered as a means to find "Gotchas!" and claims of victory. If you are as genuine as you claim in seeking to learn more about weighty matters, you would not abuse the privilege extended to you in discussion of these matters. Do better.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
And? My answer was plain enough, God owes no fallen man mercy. You continue to assume the state of all in Adam is not really one of complete inability. That lump of clay contemplated in God's hands when He created, was a fallen lump of clay, not a morally neutral lump of clay. This is the Reformed view. If you cannot recognize that as the starting presupposition we will continue to go in circles.
For exactly those so given to Him and none other, else all would be saved (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9; John 17:22; John 18:9). His active and passive obedience actually accomplished what He was sent to do. Not potentially. Actually. We Reformed reject all notions of hypothetical universalism which assumes God is not well-pleased to save all those for whom Christ died.
AMR
glorydaz
Well-known member
Exactly what I have been saying, but you said it so much better. :thumb:
glorydaz
Well-known member
So, here's a question for you, AMR. Do you consider any of the above the Gospel of Salvation?
Sonnet
New member
This 'glossing over' - how is it any different from the inability to explain you profess yourself? You sent me Robert Shaw's exposition on the W C of F which states:
It has also been objected, that if God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, human liberty is taken away. To this it has been commonly replied, that it is sufficient to human liberty, that a man acts without any constraint, and according to his own free choice; that the divine decree is extrinsic to the human mind; and, while it secures the futurition of events, it leaves rational agents to act as freely as if there had been no decree. This answer, it must be acknowledged, merely amounts to an assertion that, notwithstanding the decree of God, man retains his liberty of action. We still wish to know how the divine pre-ordination of the event is consistent with human liberty. "Upon such a subject," says Dr Dick, "no man should be ashamed to acknowledge his ignorance. We are not required to reconcile the divine decrees and human liberty. It is enough to know that God has decreed all things which come to pass, and that men are answerable for their actions. Of both these truths we are assured by the Scriptures; and the latter is confirmed by the testimony of conscience. We feel that, although not independent upon God, we are free; so that we excuse ourselves when we have done our duty, and accuse ourselves when we have neglected it. Sentiments of approbation and disapprobation, in reference to our own conduct or that of other men, would have no existence in our minds if we believed that men are necessary agents. But the tie which connects the divine decrees and human liberty is invisible. "Such knowledge is too wonderful for us; it is high, we cannot attain unto it.'"–Ps. cxxxix. 6.
You said:
Ok - I'm not seeing the assurance from these scriptures that you are. A man claiming to know he belongs to God may be deceived. Mat. 7:21ff.
I am not suggesting this is the case for you.
Sonnet
New member
Why criticize the Arminian for his non-explanation if you are equally unable to explain how God isn't the author of sin? Pot calling the kettle black? It was your assertion that man is unable to not sin and inherited the condition at birth.
John 6:37,39
All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
Those given will come. Nothing here that explicitly states that the Father excludes irrespective of a man's response. Verse 40:
"For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
aligns exactly with the sentiments of John 3:14-16.
Same point regarding John 10.
No time to deal with the rest - will do another time.
In Romans 10 what business has Paul in enjoining his brethren to believe in the resurrection if your assertion about its limitation is correct?
1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Undeniably, Paul is expressing here the Gospel for unbelievers. He is telling all such Israelites (his brethren) what they should do to be saved - believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, you are telling such folk, 'no, Jesus did not do this for everyone.'
This relates directly to the contention over 1 Corinthians 15:3,11. Paul's invitation to his brethren regarding the resurrection has no limitation whatsoever - hence we may conclude the same regarding Christ's crucifixion.
Last edited:
Sonnet
New member
John 17:
9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
Jesus is praying for his disciples. What is your point?
John 18:9
This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”
Why have you posted this AMR?
John 3:14-16 has the bronze serpent raised for all without exception. Those that looked were healed. Jesus says himself - 'Just as...'
Not one single scripture explicitly states that Christ did not die for all. Not one. But you say it is so.
Alternatively: 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, John 1:29, Titus 2:11, John 3:14-16, 1 Corinthians 15:3,11.
Sonnet
New member
Total depravity from birth?
Mark 10:13-16
People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.
Matthew 18:1-5
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
Mark 10:13-16
People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.
Matthew 18:1-5
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There is a broader and narrower use of the word "gospel" in the holy Scriptures. This is helpfully explained by John Colquhoun, Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, pp. 111-112.
The gospel, in its large acceptation, contains the purest and fullest system of morals, that ever has been presented to the world. It reveals the infinitely glorious perfections of God; for “he who is in the bosom of the Father, hath declared Him.” It affords, at the same time, plain and affecting discoveries of a future state. “Our Saviour Jesus Christ,” says the apostle Paul, “hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”
The gospel in this point of view, contains precepts, all the precepts, that the Lord ever gave to the children of men; all the precepts, that are to be found in the whole compass of Divine revelation, and summed up in the ten commandments. It comprehends, not only the commands to believe, to repent, and to perform new obedience, but all the other commandments of God to men; so that every precept in the word of God, is a precept of the gospel in its lax and general meaning.
Accordingly, the apostle Paul informs us that, “the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He also says of them, who heard the gospel from himself and the other apostles, That “they have not all obeyed the gospel.” And the apostle Peter, “If judgment first begin at us, what shall the end be of them who obey not the gospel of God?”
By the gospel, in these passages, is meant the whole word of God, comprehending both the law, and the gospel strictly so called. If, therefore, we exhort one another to obey the precepts of the gospel, we certainly should, in order to prevent error, inform each other, at the same time, that we do not mean, the gospel in its strict sense, which contains no precepts; but, the gospel in its lax and general acceptation, which comprises all the precepts which the Lord hath given to the sons of men.
The gospel in this point of view, contains precepts, all the precepts, that the Lord ever gave to the children of men; all the precepts, that are to be found in the whole compass of Divine revelation, and summed up in the ten commandments. It comprehends, not only the commands to believe, to repent, and to perform new obedience, but all the other commandments of God to men; so that every precept in the word of God, is a precept of the gospel in its lax and general meaning.
Accordingly, the apostle Paul informs us that, “the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He also says of them, who heard the gospel from himself and the other apostles, That “they have not all obeyed the gospel.” And the apostle Peter, “If judgment first begin at us, what shall the end be of them who obey not the gospel of God?”
By the gospel, in these passages, is meant the whole word of God, comprehending both the law, and the gospel strictly so called. If, therefore, we exhort one another to obey the precepts of the gospel, we certainly should, in order to prevent error, inform each other, at the same time, that we do not mean, the gospel in its strict sense, which contains no precepts; but, the gospel in its lax and general acceptation, which comprises all the precepts which the Lord hath given to the sons of men.
AMR
Right Divider
Body part
Another fiction writer hard at work.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The difference is that the Reformed or the Calvinist will not give one iota of credit to himself, whether explicitly or implicitly. It is the unstated implicit assumption not being brought to light and examined that underlies the Arminian's view that they possess the moral liberty to choose wisely and be regenerated (quickened). They will deny they were dead men walking up until the moment they were given ears to hear by God. They will cling to the idea that they indeed are in possession of all the moral faculties to choose to obey God and believe. God's role in all of this captaining of their own souls is but to woo, cajole, plead, and be long-suffering until they come to their senses and choose wisely. God respects their libertarian free will so much that He will not act to restore their corrupted state of affairs. They must do that of their own libertarian free will.
That, Sonnet, is the "gloss" in question not examined by those that claim they made a decision for Christ, while their neighbor did not. I do not know how much more clear I can be in stating the issue. Unless God first quickens (regenerates, born again) the unbeliever, who is but completely passive in the quickening, such that he or she is now made active and irrevocably not able to not believe, none will be saved. Of course, I will never claim all Arminians are not saved, only that the average Arminian is simply confused about the state of affairs that preceded their re-birth.
First, unless you are born anew, you will never "see" this or anything related to Scripture in its proper sense. For the non-believer Scripture is but foolishness accompanied by some well-meaning, albeit, misguided notions of how to live aright. All the non-believer can hope for is some head knowledge but no heart knowledge.
Now, as to the passage in question, rather than lift it from its context, examine it closely. Prior to that verse Jesus has made it clear that one's possession of faith can be discerned, for example, in the fruits of what one has professed. These words do not exclude faith, but presuppose faith as the principle from which other good works flow. In the preceding verses, Jesus speaks of false prophets. At the passage in question (Matthew 7:21-23), Jesus extends his discourse: for here he speaks not only of false prophets, who rush upon the flock to tear and devour, but of hirelings, who insinuate themselves, under fair appearances, as pastors, though they have no feeling of piety.
Of course, this doctrine embraces all hypocrites, whatever may be their rank or station, but at present in this passage Jesus refers particularly to pretended teachers, who seem to excel others. He not only directs his discourse to them, to stir them from the indifference in which they lie asleep like drunks, but also warns believers, not to estimate such pretenses beyond their proper value. In short, Jesus declares that, so soon as the doctrine of the Gospel shall have begun to bear fruit by obtaining many disciples, there will not only be very many of the common people who falsely and hypocritically submit to it, but even in the rank of pastors there will be the same treachery, so that they will deny by their actions and life what they profess with the mouth.
I have made it clear previously as to how those not in possession of full assurance of their faith may starve their doubts and feed their faith: by not neglecting daily Scripture study, rejoicing in hope, being patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer (Romans 12:12), fellowship with other believers, keeping good stewardship of the secular and spiritual gifts God has given them—including how and where their time is being spent—and with regular assembly with others to worship God, receive instruction, access the ordinary means of grace, and be subject to discipline.
One's walk of faith determines how and if one will come to be in full assurance of it. Scripture declares it to be so attainable. One's duty as a believer is to seek after it diligently, ever stirred up for that which he or she holds dear.
AMR