What is the Gospel?

[heir]

Except, of course, many Christians don't agree with the dispensationalism you are advocating - so I don't see your point.

That others agree or disagree with things that are excellent makes it no less true.

You didn't actually deal with what I wrote.

Deal with the gospel that is the power of God to save you by trusting the Lord believeing IT (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) and then you will be fit for discussion of the deeper things of God. Until then, it's like putting the cart before the horse (1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV).

 

[musterion]

That others agree or disagree with things that are excellent makes it no less true.
Deal with the gospel that is the power of God to save you by trusting the Lord believeing IT (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) and then you will be fit for discussion of the deeper things of God. Until then, it's like putting the cart before the horse (1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV).

More like blind horse, no cart.

 

[blackbirdking]

I can't refuse something until it is given to me.

This is the second time you have said this
Here is the other place..

How can a man refuse something if it hasn't been given to him?

This is based on a false premise.
Refusal is not based on giving. It is based on offering.
A gift is only a gift when it is accepted as such and received.
It can be purchased as a potential gift based on offering and acceptance.
But it requires both parties to participate.
Until it is accepted it is still just your personal property, regardless of your intentions.

Disagreed.
If a man buys a flower for a gift and drops it off at the porch of a woman; whose flower is it while on the porch?

Christ bought every man a 'flower'.

If the government passes a law to give a rebate of $50 to every taxpayer and some never apply for it or accept it, it is not a rebate. It is still only a potential benefit.

Disagreed.
If the government has allotted $50 to me as a rebate, it's my money; even if I never claim it. True, I can't receive the benefit of having the $50, but I can accept/refuse it because it has been allotted to me already.

We colloquially use the word "gift" assuming the second part of the contract will follow. But if it doesn't, for some reason, it is ineffectual and no longer a gift.

Disagreed.
*********** If I put $50 in a card for my teacher and put his name and address on the envelope, then mail it at the post office; whose $50 is it? In transit, whose is it? Upon arrival could the teacher accept/reject it? It was given before it was accepted/rejected.

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Rom 5:17KJV

---

In the case of the unbeliever, the blood gift has not been received and has, therefore, not been applied.

Agreed.

There are none who, having been offered the free gift of Jesus' blood as a sacrifice for sin, and having rejected the offer, are in possession of the gift.

Agreed.

It has been offered but not given.
This is one of the limiting factors of the doctrine of limited atonement

Disagreed.
It has been given but not received.
See *********** above.

Jesus died for all men so that all men have been given a gift; the Spirit offers it to men. Man is offered, man accepts/rejects what the Spirit offers.

It's easy to see this at Christmas in America, under the Christmas tree. Everybody's gifts are under the tree but nobody has received a single one. They are gifts and they have been given. And, they can be accepted/rejected when they are offered.

 

[glorydaz]

Disagreed.
If a man buys a flower for a gift and drops it off at the porch of a woman; whose flower is it while on the porch?

Christ bought every man a 'flower'.



Disagreed.
If the government has allotted $50 to me as a rebate, it's my money; even if I never claim it. True, I can't receive the benefit of having the $50, but I can accept/refuse it because it has been allotted to me already.


Disagreed.
*********** If I put $50 in a card for my teacher and put his name and address on the envelope, then mail it at the post office; whose $50 is it? In transit, whose is it? Upon arrival could the teacher accept/reject it? It was given before it was accepted/rejected.



Agreed.



Agreed.



Disagreed.
It has been given but not received.
See *********** above.

Jesus died for all men so that all men have been given a gift; the Spirit offers it to men. Man is offered, man accepts/rejects what the Spirit offers.

It's easy to see this at Christmas in America, under the Christmas tree. Everybody's gifts are under the tree but nobody has received a single one. They are gifts and they have been given. And, they can be accepted/rejected when they are offered.

God's is able to see into the heart of man. Santa can't do that....nor can the government.

 

[glorydaz]

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;

 

[blackbirdking]

You can turn away when the Gospel is preached to you.....that is trampling on the blood of Christ.

Sure, I never said otherwise.

The rest of your post was just as silly as the above, so not worth responding to.

Maybe, but you can't turn away when the Gospel is preached to you, unless the Gospel is for you; it cannot be for you unless Jesus died for you.

Every man can turn away from the Gospel because Jesus died for all men so they had a Gospel to turn away from.

If you agree that you can't tell a man that Jesus died for him, you are espousing the L in TULIP. That is how this whole thing got started.

The Gospel is, "Jesus loves you and died for you".

 

[glorydaz]

Sure, I never said otherwise.



Maybe, but you can't turn away when the Gospel is preached to you, unless the Gospel is for you; it cannot be for you unless Jesus died for you.

That's just plain silly.

The Gospel is the Good news of Salvation.......Justification through Faith.

It's preached to all men, but not all men obey the Gospel....which is the Obedience of Faith (believing unto righteousness). Salvation by Grace through Faith.


Jesus died to give mankind the access to the throne of Grace. We can only access that Grace through faith.

Every man can turn away from the Gospel because Jesus died for all men so they had a Gospel to turn away from.

You're confused about the Gospel, clearly. It's foolishness to those who are perishing. They are perishing because they have no faith.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.​

If you agree that you can't tell a man that Jesus died for him, you are espousing the L in TULIP. That is how this whole thing got started.

The Gospel is, "Jesus loves you and died for you".

So, you start a thread that claims you don't know what the Gospel is, but now you claim to know what it is? Odd. :chew: I tell people the TRUTH. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.


Tell ya what. I'll reject the T part of Tulip if that will make you feel better. :chuckle:

 

[George Affleck]

If a man buys a flower for a gift and drops it off at the porch of a woman; whose flower is it while on the porch?

The man's. It is not hers until she picks it up and accepts it. He cannot disown the flower until someone else takes possession of it. He could be charged for littering but she could not be charged as it is not hers.

If the government has allotted $50 to me as a rebate, it's my money; even if I never claim it. True, I can't receive the benefit of having the $50, but I can accept/refuse it because it has been allotted to me already.

No, its not your money until you receive it. It is not allotted to you. It is only offered. Possession is 9/10ths of the law.
As long as you do not possess it, it remains the property of the government. It does not have your name on it and, at some point, it will no longer be able to be claimed by you. It is offered on condition that you apply for it and accept it.

If I put $50 in a card for my teacher and put his name and address on the envelope, then mail it at the post office; whose $50 is it? In transit, whose is it? Upon arrival could the teacher accept/reject it? It was given before it was accepted/rejected.

It is still yours in transit. It is still yours until the teacher accepts it. The post office will recognize only "Return to sender" not "Hold in perpetuity should the recipient change their mind". It is their responsibility to return it to the owner.

You send an email transfer of $50 to your teacher. Does the money change hands when you send it or when it is accepted?

Jesus died for all men so that all men have been given a gift; the Spirit offers it to men. Man is offered, man accepts/rejects what the Spirit offers.

Here's the difference:
Jesus died for all men so that all men might be saved. If He did, then all men are saved.
Jesus died ________ so that all men might be saved. If He did, then all men might be saved.

Jesus died so that all men might be saved. His offer of salvation extends in the form of a free gift for those who appropriate it (make it theirs).

It's easy to see this at Christmas in America, under the Christmas tree. Everybody's gifts are under the tree but nobody has received a single one. They are gifts and they have been given. And, they can be accepted/rejected when they are offered.

John buys and wraps a Christmas present for Sally and places it under the tree. On Christmas eve, Sally elopes with her Jewish boyfriend and converts to Judaism and renounces all ties to Christmas. She refuses to accept gifts according to her new religion.
Who is the rightful owner of the present under the tree marked with her name?

A giver requires a receiver. If there is no receiver, giving cannot take place.

 

[intojoy]

Birdblackdroppings


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sonnet]

As you are a thinking person, I find it hard to accept that you can't see how thin and ridiculous your argument is.

No, he actually says the exact opposite.

This is not inclusion, it is exclusion. "Otherwise" performs the task of excluding, from his address, those who do not hold to the gospel as preached because they reject the resurrection. KJV - "Unless".
ἐκτὸς- outside, beyond, outside of, exterior. It is a statement that contrasts two different groups. The second is a group who have begun by believing a part of the gospel and have not followed through. For them there is no good news if there is no resurrection. They are on the outside, whoever they are. To them the gospel that Paul preached was not effectual.

The exclusion is from the state of being saved. The fact that Paul is including such people in his address contradicts your assertion.

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Paul is saying that one is otherwise, that is, not saved, if one has believed without result. There is no explicit exclusion of such persons from the Gospel that he then recapitulates which includes Christ dying for their sins.

Why do you allow the resurrection part of the Gospel to apply to any and everyone, but balk at the dying for their sins part? You say, '...they reject the resurrection...' - why stop there?

There is no essential difference between what Paul is saying and Jesus talking about the seed falling on bad ground. The gospel is preached to all but not all believe and even some of those who begin do not follow through.

Jesus's crucifixion made salvation for all possible - just as the OT analogy Jesus chose Himself makes clear. Whether one looked or otherwise, a cure was offered.

The "this" you refer to is an incorrect rendering in the NIV (and one or two others) and is misleading at best. Most versions use "thus" or "so". It does not mean a particular set of truths, it means a manner of presentation. After this manner, in this way, thusly.
οὗτος means thus, not this.

Paul explicitly calls vv.3ff the Gospel. You are suggesting that the Gospel Paul outlines should not be so preached if unbelievers are present. Paul does no such thing.

No need. You have already provided them.
Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

'Otherwise' is a reference to the obverse of being saved Paul writes about in the first part of the sentence.

 

[Sonnet]

Your offer to go to the moon is superficial without a ticket; when I have a ticket I can refuse ("trample it"). I can't refuse something until it is given to me.
Jesus bought every man a ticket; He paid for every man's ticket, whether the man uses it or not. He paid for every man's right (if you please) to access God. Else no man could access God for forgiveness. Every man can access God without Jesus doing one more thing; it's finished, done.

Indeed - no other explanation fits the analogy Jesus chose Himself - that of the Mosaic serpent.

 

[George Affleck]

The exclusion is from the state of being saved. The fact that Paul is including such people in his address contradicts your assertion.

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Paul is saying that one is otherwise, that is, not saved, if one has believed without result. There is no explicit exclusion of such persons from the Gospel that he then recapitulates which includes Christ dying for their sins.

Why do you allow the resurrection part of the Gospel to apply to any and everyone, but balk at the dying for their sins part? You say, '...they reject the resurrection...' - why stop there?



Jesus's crucifixion made salvation for all possible - just as the OT analogy Jesus chose Himself makes clear. Whether one looked or otherwise, a cure was offered.



Paul explicitly calls vv.3ff the Gospel. You are suggesting that the Gospel Paul outlines should not be so preached if unbelievers are present. Paul does no such thing.



'Otherwise' is a reference to the obverse of being saved Paul writes about in the first part of the sentence.

You are not this stupid.
Ignorance is easily forgivable.

You are being deliberately obtuse and argumentative.

 

[Lon]

Indeed - no other explanation fits the analogy Jesus chose Himself - that of the Mosaic serpent.

We don't 'get' to qualify His salvation. He does. John 6:44 1 John 2:2

No Calvinist will argue over verses, they will argue how one best understands these verses and others like them. There is no other name, under heaven, given to men, whereby they may be saved. Acts 4:12

I am not really bothered over such a disagreement. You think Jesus shed His blood "for" everyone. The Calvinist will see "for" as saving power, thus sees Universalism. IOW, 'If' the Lord Jesus Christ died and shed His blood 'for' all men, then all men would be saved. However, that isn't what most who disagree mean. They are rather arguing that the blood is 'available' for all men, not that all men are saved. IOW, expectations and definition of 'for' isn't agreed upon, therefore the disagreement is over the light shone on aspects being seen. Every Calvinist I know of believes the blood of Christ is sufficient for salvation of all who believe. The message doesn't change at all and, despite dispute, the scope doesn't either because neither you nor I save. IOW, a disagreement doesn't make any difference whatsoever in who comes to Christ by the gospel. I'm glad for the man working extra hard to bring every man to the Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot do better than plant and water sun-up to sun-down. Move on. Your only business, saved or unsaved, is the work of a workman, not interfering and arguing with other workman. If you want to work, work. That really is the only point in the Calvinist/Arminian debate: To do our own work the way we see it. It is the only thing, practically, that matters: Calvinists and Arminians (and others) doing the work of an evangelist. Once that is done, this academic debate is over and comes to naught. The sinner will hear from two people: "Christ died for sinners, of which you as an unbeliever are. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." You'd insist on "Christ died for you." I believe quoting scriptures verbatim is the most effective. This whole thread is summed and ended, by simply quoting scriptures verbatim to one needing God's saving grace. -Lon

 

[Nihilo]

Ephesians 5:25 (KJV)
He gave Himself for the Church, who are His Body, and who are the Elect.

 

[intojoy]

Ephesians 5:25 (KJV)
He gave Himself for the Church, who are His Body, and who are the Elect.

Excellent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sonnet]

You are not this stupid.
Ignorance is easily forgivable.

You are being deliberately obtuse and argumentative.

None of this deals with the substance of what I wrote - it's just an ad hominem.

 

[Sonnet]

Ephesians 5:25 (KJV)
He gave Himself for the Church, who are His Body, and who are the Elect.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."410 He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.411 The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."412​

John 3:14-16, 1:29, 1 John 2:2, Titus 2:11, Hebrews 2:9, 1 Timothy 2:3-6, 1 Timothy 1:15.

The are no scriptures that explicitly say the opposite.

 

[Sonnet]

I was unaware that I must repeat myself time and again. You sure do like to yell "Gotcha!" at every chance.

Quoting scripture isn't yelling "Gotcha!"

You are not really a "seeker". Seems to me a seeker would be hungry for any and all information and not given over to these biting responses. You actually are just wanting to debate under the guise of "seeking". Knock it off.

The op isn't about whether I am a seeker or not. When challenged over whether I am or not I have replied.

If Christ died for all of the sins of all men without exception, upon what basis would any man be denied heaven? Remember, unbelief is a sin and therefore a sin for which Christ died if He has truly died for all the sins of all men without exception.

Unbelief must be a special case - why would any of the elect need to believe if Jesus has already paid for their unbelief?

I'll just get a few citations out of the way so that you can limit your next "Gotcha!" to some other supposed victory:


See: Psalm 34:22, Isaiah 53:8, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 20:28, Matthew 26:28, Luke 1:68, Luke 2:1-2, Luke 19:10, John 3:16 (the Father gave His Son for whom? - according to this verse the Son was given for whoever believes in Him (the believing ones) not for the ones not believing in Him), John 5:13, John 6:35-40, John 10:11, John 10:14 -18, John 10:24-29, John 12:32, John 17:1-11, John 17:20, John 17:24-26, Acts 20:28, Romans 5:8-10, Romans 5:18, Romans 8:32-34, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 1:3-4, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 2:15-16, Ephesians 5:25-27, Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 3:1, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:28, Hebrews 10:14, Colossians 1:21-22, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, 1 Timothy 1:15, 2 Timothy 2:4-6, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:1-2, 1 John 4:14, Titus 2:14, Revelation 5:9.

I asked for an explicit scripture that says that Christ died for less than all but you haven't given one. How can you cite John 3:16? The context is the Mosaic serpent in v.14 which was lifted up for all the dying Israelites - lifted up for those that may have decided not to look. If your theology is correct then Jesus chose the wrong analogy - or else He is disingenuous.

If this is the "truth" then what is holding you back? Why do you continue with this rinse and repeat argument? You are emphatic "This is the truth...". Then if it be so, then what in the world is the matter with you? You have declared you know the truth, so do your duty.

Well?
No more word games.
No more, "yes, but..."

You plainly state: "This is the truth..." You apparently are in possession of the truth. What are you doing about it?


AMR

Truth in the sense of the logic of the words. I don't know it as truth. Again, this thread isn't about my salvation.

 

[Sonnet]

I appreciate that. And it is pretty hard to set aside something you have been taught by respected teachers, whether Darwin's theory or the age of the earth.

Funny that both of these things--the age of the earth and the time it took for the confusion of languages--are time-related. And are historical in nature.

Correction of language confusion usually would take quite some time, too, like it currently does when a new tribal group is found (like in the Amazon, perhaps). Yet on Pentecost, that time was considerably shortened, and it was not the disciples of Jesus that witnessed it, but the unbelievers that witnessed it. Could God do one and not the other? Is it possible that Adam could have named the animals on the first day he lived? If so, then he was created with a language already learned, or God taught him real quick.

You are suggesting that the single language became many over a long period of time through the scattering of people rather God doing so in an instant?

7Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” 8So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9That is why it was called Babel —because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Except the water/wine miracle is another time-related event. And it was witnessed by a number of people, whereas Balaam's conversation was only witnessed by two of his servants. Perhaps they brought the story to Israel at some point.


Do you think you would feel different seeing him perform his miracles? And what about the apostles after his death? Would you want to hear wisdom from Him that has returned from the dead?

It is true - even if one saw what looked like a miracle, scepticism would still be the right attitude. It would have been good to have been there and been an eye witness.

I explained this to Evil.eye in a previous post, but I know it's hard to keep track of all the blather. If Jesus' death being for you means that you are saved, but the bible clearly indicates that not all are saved, what can we say, but that Jesus' death was NOT for all?

Personally, I think He did die for all, but only some take advantage of it.

That is the import of John 3:14-16.

The end result is the same--those that do not believe are not benefited by His death, whatever the reason. What I don't understand is why Christians feel the need to argue about it so much. Apparently we are all still not fully sanctified and completed in the good work He has promised to do in us.

If someone has died for me then I'm a extremely interested to know why. If someone has died for some but excluded others then I wonder about the exclusion - especially when it's got nothing to do with being good or bad.

But here's an interesting question. What would you say if some Christians did NOT allow others to promote that idea, and they had the power to enforce it? Would you not condemn those Christians? Like I would the Inquisition? If you agree, then you condemn Christians for allowing a differing opinion, and you condemn Christians for not allowing a differing opinion.

Are you, perhaps, more harsh to your former brothers and sisters than the situation calls for? And why is that? Is it perhaps that you are still pulled toward the cross, but you are trying to reject it?

I think those that say Christ did not die for all are eviscerating what I perceive as the power of the Gospel (assuming its truth).

Let's try one more "what-if". What would you say to the church you used to belong to, if they said you would have to die when you walked away from the faith, because as Christians, we can't let anyone believe something different? I assume they didn't do that, because you're still alive.

I'd say such a church was not truly Christian.

Have we not, then, grown as the church universal, where we don't kill the heretics and apostates anymore? Maybe Jesus' prayer for unity in His church is indeed being fulfilled, but not as immediately as we might like to see. And isn't that just one more time-oriented miracle?

I don't see much unity in the Church. I could be wrong.

 

[Sonnet]

We don't 'get' to qualify His salvation. He does. John 6:44 1 John 2:2

No Calvinist will argue over verses, they will argue how one best understands these verses and others like them. There is no other name, under heaven, given to men, whereby they may be saved. Acts 4:12

I am not really bothered over such a disagreement. You think Jesus shed His blood "for" everyone. The Calvinist will see "for" as saving power, thus sees Universalism. IOW, 'If' the Lord Jesus Christ died and shed His blood 'for' all men, then all men would be saved. However, that isn't what most who disagree mean. They are rather arguing that the blood is 'available' for all men, not that all men are saved. IOW, expectations and definition of 'for' isn't agreed upon, therefore the disagreement is over the light shone on aspects being seen. Every Calvinist I know of believes the blood of Christ is sufficient for salvation of all who believe. The message doesn't change at all and, despite dispute, the scope doesn't either because neither you nor I save. IOW, a disagreement doesn't make any difference whatsoever in who comes to Christ by the gospel. I'm glad for the man working extra hard to bring every man to the Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot do better than plant and water sun-up to sun-down. Move on. Your only business, saved or unsaved, is the work of a workman, not interfering and arguing with other workman.

If you want to work, work. That really is the only point in the Calvinist/Arminian debate: To do our own work the way we see it. It is the only thing, practically, that matters: Calvinists and Arminians (and others) doing the work of an evangelist. Once that is done, this academic debate is over and comes to naught. The sinner will hear from two people: "Christ died for sinners, of which you as an unbeliever are. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." You'd insist on "Christ died for you." I believe quoting scriptures verbatim is the most effective. This whole thread is summed and ended, by simply quoting scriptures verbatim to one needing God's saving grace. -Lon

I appreciate your post Lon. If I were to 'simply quote scripture' then I might quote 1 Corinthians 15:11. No reader of the simplicity of such words would consider for one moment that Jesus did not die for all.

This thread isn't about my salvation.