What is the Gospel?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

How is the one related to the other? Again a logical non-sequitur. God is not the author of sin because He has so claimed it to be so in Scripture. Given that, any notions that suggest otherwise from the reading of Scripture must be taken to mean something very different than what one initially assumes. The duty of the exegete is to apply proper principles of interpretation to reconcile what appears to be contradictory. Slow down on the "Gotchas!" mentality a wee bit.

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.

Those in reference above are "the believing ones" not each and every person who has lived or will live. Those that believe are the one's made to believe by God. Not all are so made to believe, therefore these verses cannot be teaching some universal salvation doctrine. "All" means from every stripe of mankind, not each and every man. Do not bother to "deal with the rest" until you have come to grips with these points. Even better, have the decency of exhibiting some trepidation in your claims "thus saith the Lord", for as a non-believer you cannot possibly make such assertions. Try to season your words with "I think it may mean this" or "Perhaps the meaning is..." and so on. For how can you, having no eyes to see, nor ears to hear, presume to teach anyone what saith the Lord? :AMR:

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.​

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.'

Paul reminds brothers and sisters of the teachings of Scripture. This is one of the means by which the faithful are stirred up through warnings and persevere in the faith (the redemptive ends of God who has ordained these means.) Obviously, very deniable. Again, please refrain from attempting to instruct me on matters of the faith until you can claim to actually possess the faith of which is in front of us.

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.

No contention at all. It is your contention and that of the confused. I am not going to resurrect the discussion. I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

Please stop. It is looking desperate. You cannot possibly understand these sacred matters as a non-believer. I cannot argue you into the Kingdom. Call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Then, let's talk.

There are very few passages the anti-Calvinist may appeal to that have not been asked and answered, to wit:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Devil-do-it!&p=5087127&viewfull=1#post5087127

AMR

 

[musterion]

Please stop. It is looking desperate. You cannot possibly understand these sacred matters as a non-believer. I cannot argue you into the Kingdom. Call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Then, let's talk.

He's not interested. Never has been.

 

[musterion]

The difference is that the Reformed or the Calvinist will not give one iota of credit to himself, whether explicitly or implicitly.

Nor do grace believers.

My daughters just threw me a birthday party. I could have refused it and not showed up but I accepted it as the gift it was. I get no explicit or implicit credit for simply accepting what they freely offered. I benefitted from accepting it, but all the glory for the gift, and the love behind it, goes to them because it was entirely their idea.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

But, we are not saved by the larger gospel of precepts and laws, are we?

No, we are saved by Grace through faith. We are ambassadors of God to preach this ONE Gospel that saves. Belief in our Lord Jesus Christ. Be ye reconciled is the call of the Gospel of Grace.

2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.​

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;​

Salvation is through faith in His blood....not in any precepts or laws. There are no strings attached to this Gift. So, the basic simple Gospel of Salvation is what we should be discussing on a thread such as this. Anything beyond that is a matter of doctrine, and the various understandings of doctrine. We can preach Paul's simple Gospel and men will be saved, and that's the reason Paul was given this Gospel during this age of Grace.

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

We do not have to wait until the end to understand the what it means to "obey the Gospel".
Those who obey the Gospel are those who believe Paul's one Gospel of Grace. We see it has NOW BEEN MADE MANIFEST. It is the obedience of Faith....that same exact thing spoken of by the prophets.

Romans 16:25-27
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.​

 

[Nihilo]

Do not buy into the Romanists “the RCC has been the one true church for two thousand years” rhetoric.

The rise of what would become the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) began around the fifth century as Rome was collapsing under Barbarian invasions (Alaric the Visigoth, the Huns under Atilla). So we have a group that tyrannized the bodies of men (Rome) soon to be replaced by a group that would tyrannize the souls of men.

The actual establishment of the political and ecclesiastical Roman Catholicism owes its genesis to three popes: Hildebrand, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII. With Innocent III the papacy was cemented as a controller of church and state. His Fourth Lateran Council defined RCC's seven sacraments, required confession, and made the penitential treadmill necessary as the only way to salvation. Finally Boniface's Unam Sanctum made submission to the Pope necessary for salvation.

By the thirteenth century the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses. Justification by faith alone, the divine way of forgiveness and salvation had yet to be officially denounced and condemned (that would come later with Trent). Lastly, the church had yet to declare that its interpretation of inspired Holy Writ was infallible and solely legitimate. So the true church was there, but, as noted, scattered in the wilderness wherein the elect did hear our Lord's voice above that of the false shepherds, much like the blind man heard Jesus as the Christ in John 9.

The Reformation (500th anniversary this month!) was soon to come on the heels of men like Wyclif, Hus, Lyra, Valla, Erasmus, and Ockham. Indeed, God wills righteously what men do wickedly. Those last four Renaissance minds of natural men were used by God to show the likes of Luther the more true path. At the time of the Reformation it was clear that the RCC had long since departed from the true church and it was necessary that they be called to return from their apostasy by the Reformers. That call to return continues even to this day.

This is all ancient history. What is your trouble with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, first published in ~1994?

The RCC today is four or five generations removed from its beginnings. The ancient form held to Nicene orthodoxy and was in fellowship with other churches. The medieval version insisted on Roman supremacy, embraced transubstantiation, and thusly separated itself from other Christian churches. At that time justification and the place of tradition were still open to discussion. At Trent, the Tridentine form (1545–1563) of the church moved it beyond its medieval form by condemning views that had remained open to discussion and adding many more. Next came Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). These post-Tridentine versions of Rome theoretically are to be upholding the decisions of Trent, but when one examines the practices of Rome, they have moved outside the bounds and against Trent. For example, rather than supplementing Scripture with tradition, post-Tridentine Rome uses tradition to usurp Scripture.

In other words, Rome's claims are their own mythologies, not the reality of history. Sadly, many Protestants and Romanists swallow Rome's public relations machine outputs without careful scrutiny. Don't take the bait.

There is no bait. Why aren't you Orthodox?

BTW, Nihilo. Why hide behind the "Christian" label, when just declaring yourself a Catholic?

I'm not Catholic. I don't declare that I am, either.

The option exists in the profile settings. Are you not proud enough of the moniker to claim it?

I'm not Catholic. I am currently a non-Catholic non-Protestant Christian. That's not an option in the profile settings, right?

Or do you just want to be able to smuggle in Rome's views on occasion?

I'm not Catholic. The Catholic views are simply the most compelling of all the Christian traditions. The Catholic Church happens to also trace her roots all the way back to Jesus Christ. Reformationist ecclesial traditions trace back to Halloween 500 years ago. In Germany. :down:

Or are you not an actual Catholic

Bingo. Inasmuch as "actual" means "in body," which I am not. I am a Catholic on the way to full communion, like I said, a non-Catholic non-Protestant Christian.

but just really really like their views

Like how you really really like the Reformationist views.

...but no so much as to actually join them? :idunno:

My reasons for not yet being received into the Church are personal, filial, and not theological. Is that all right with you?

 

[intojoy]

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.

Good scripture. I’m going to say that scripture doesn’t say what happens to children when they die. The Bible does say that they die do to sin but is silent about children being saved because they are children. Then there’s David’s son killed because of his transgressions with Bathsheba. David said he would go to him. What we can know of certain is that God will always do what is right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[intojoy]

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.

Amen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[intojoy]

I think Arminianism is a road of the unsaved. And while some may be saved within the camp they will eventually leave the doctrine and begin to bear fruit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[intojoy]

Yet you also have to maintain that men are responsible for choices.

For whom did Christ rise from the dead for?

Adam


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nihilo]

So, here's a question for you, AMR. Do you consider any of the above the Gospel of Salvation?

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.
​

AMR

In all those words, you can't even mention in passing Easter, not even once? Why not? Paul made a big stink about Easter in a plenitude of places, in one place saying that salvation is through believing Easter, and in another place calling the whole Christian faith vain, if Easter is fictional instead of nonfiction. You don't even mention it, when asked pointedly what your take is on the Gospel. You're a musterion.

 

[intojoy]

What is the Gospel?

[MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION], assurances of salvation come from the understanding of scripture. But there is the danger of carnality taking hold of a believer and robbing him of his salvation. A believer can never lose his salvation but he can lose his assurance of it. He also loses his testimony, ministry and future rewards in the kingdom.

Similarly with the naked native who gave up his tribe’s idol worship to see God send him someone presenting him with gospel by which he can be saved, the believer that moves on from the milk doctrines of the Bible into the meat doctrine will increase in his assurance of salvation.

Paul started the church of Corinth 3-5 years prior to his letter to them where he scolds them telling them that by now they should have become teachers of the word. But they had become carnal. In Hebrews the writer (not Paul) teaches the same principle that the one who should be handling the meat of the Bible had need to relearn the milk. What we are debating with Calvin’s theology is part of the milk, it is not the meat of scripture. And the antimony of man’s responsibility in light of God’s divine sovereignty is just that, an antimony. It can not be forced into a logical conclusion as the Calvinist tries to do by limiting the atonement nor by Arminianism by placing all of it upon men’s works. Nor can it be the Calminian view where God foresees men and elects based upon the foreknowledge of who was worthy enough to believe the gospel. In my opinion the forcing upon scripture man’s reasoning leads to carnality in the believer which is why neither camp can see the whole counsel of the word of God and it is why the Calminian does not come to a full understanding either.

Edit: the time it takes from spiritual babyhood to the full grown spiritually adult person spoken of in First Corinthians is between 3-5 years. Failure to reach adulthood will lead to carnality.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[glorydaz]

​

In all those words, you can't even mention in passing Easter, not even once? Why not? Paul made a big stink about Easter in a plenitude of places, in one place saying that salvation is through believing Easter, and in another place calling the whole Christian faith vain, if Easter is fictional instead of nonfiction. You don't even mention it, when asked pointedly what your take is on the Gospel. You're a musterion.

Why are you going on about Easter?

If you're referring to the Resurrection, just say so. Please don't change what is written to appease your own understanding. We see that WAY TOO MUCH.

Christ's death is just as important as His resurrection. His death, burial, and resurrection are the centerpiece of the Gospel. Believing (faith) in the BLOOD (dbr) is the Gospel.

 

[heir]

That works are a proof of genuine faith is evident from Jesus's own words:

That works are necessary to prove their faith has nothing to do with the gospel of our salvation as ours is not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, Titus 3:5-7 KJV).

Matthew 25:34-40
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

The nations (Gentiles) will be separated (hasn't happened yet) as to who blessed Israel in the great tribulation and who didn't. This does not happen until the second coming (Matthew 25:31-34 KJV). It is yet future and has nothing to do with the dispensation of the grace of God. It is an other doctrine than ours.

 

[intojoy]

That works are necessary to prove their faith has nothing to do with the gospel of our salvation as ours is not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, Titus 3:5-7 KJV).
The nations (Gentiles) will be separated (hasn't happened yet) as to who blessed Israel in the great tribulation and who didn't. This does not happen until the second coming (Matthew 25:31-34 KJV). It is yet future and has nothing to do with the dispensation of the grace of God. It is an other doctrine than ours.

It is another dispensation than ours. The doctrine is the same, it is part of the entire counsel of God’s word. These Sheep Gentiles enter in and repopulate the earth in unglorified bodies during the thousand years Kingdom of Messiah. However you are correct in making the distinction from church saints. But I think that the content of faith for salvation will still be the cross of Christ for the Tribulation populace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nihilo]

Why are you going on about Easter?

If you're referring to the Resurrection, just say so.

I tried. There's more than one resurrection. There's Lazarus, and the general resurrection of the dead, and then there's Easter. It's an unambiguous word.

Please don't change what is written to appease your own understanding. We see that WAY TOO MUCH.

I'm appeasing understanding in general; communication.

Christ's death is just as important as His resurrection.

No it's not. Easter is the only thing that, if fictional, renders the Christian faith vain. And believing Easter is the only thing needful for salvation.

His death, burial, and resurrection are the centerpiece of the Gospel. Believing (faith) in the BLOOD (dbr) is the Gospel.

And I say it's Easter alone, that's the centerpiece of the Gospel. With reason.

 

[glorydaz]

I tried. There's more than one resurrection. There's Lazarus, and the general resurrection of the dead, and then there's Easter. It's an unambiguous word.
I'm appeasing understanding in general; communication.
No it's not. Easter is the only thing that, if fictional, renders the Christian faith vain. And believing Easter is the only thing needful for salvation.
And I say it's Easter alone, that's the centerpiece of the Gospel. With reason.

Well, it isn't Easter. And death is absolutely just as important as the resurrection, because it was GOD IN THE FLESH that died on the cross. Not just an ordinary man, but God.

 

[Nihilo]

Well, it isn't Easter.

What isn't?

And death is absolutely just as important as the resurrection, because it was GOD IN THE FLESH that died on the cross. Not just an ordinary man, but God.

I know that. God's man Paul said that Easter is the one thing that can't be false, in order for the Christian faith to be true. Paul also said you shall be saved if you believe Easter.

 

[glorydaz]

What isn't?
I know that. God's man Paul said that Easter is the one thing that can't be false, in order for the Christian faith to be true. Paul also said you shall be saved if you believe Easter.

No, he did not. Show me the verse you are referring to. You can't because it isn't there.

 

[Nihilo]

it was GOD IN THE FLESH that died on the cross. Not just an ordinary man, but God.

This is from the Catechism:

653 The truth of Jesus' divinity is confirmed by his Resurrection. He had said: "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he." The Resurrection of the crucified one shows that he was truly "I AM", the Son of God and God himself. So St. Paul could declare to the Jews: "What God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'"​

Is this, in your estimation, "close but no cigar," or is it spot on? Because it looks spot on, to me.