ECT The Gospel Proper

[Rosenritter]

Just want to make one point about this post...

It wasn't Christ's death that "shot down the elephant", as you put it, it was the death of Stephen.

This MAD story gets crazier and crazier. .

 

[MennoSota]

What Is the Gospel?

There is no greater message to be heard than that which we call the gospel. But as important as that is, it is often given to massive distortions or over simplifications. People think they’re preaching the gospel to you when they tell you, ‘you can have a purpose to your life’, or that ‘you can have meaning to your life’, or that ‘you can have a personal relationship with Jesus.’ All of those things are true, and they’re all important, but they don’t get to the heart of the gospel.

The gospel is called the ‘good news’ because it addresses the most serious problem that you and I have as human beings, and that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness–or lack of it–or the righteousness of another. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.

The great misconception in our day is this: that God isn’t concerned to protect His own integrity. He’s a kind of wishy-washy deity, who just waves a wand of forgiveness over everybody. No. For God to forgive you is a very costly matter. It cost the sacrifice of His own Son. So valuable was that sacrifice that God pronounced it valuable by raising Him from the dead–so that Christ died for us, He was raised for our justification. So the gospel is something objective. It is the message of who Jesus is and what He did. And it also has a subjective dimension. How are the benefits of Jesus subjectively appropriated to us? How do I get it? The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith–and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him–and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity.
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-is-the-gospel/

 

[Clete]

What Is the Gospel?

There is no greater message to be heard than that which we call the gospel. But as important as that is, it is often given to massive distortions or over simplifications. People think they’re preaching the gospel to you when they tell you, ‘you can have a purpose to your life’, or that ‘you can have meaning to your life’, or that ‘you can have a personal relationship with Jesus.’ All of those things are true, and they’re all important, but they don’t get to the heart of the gospel.

The gospel is called the ‘good news’ because it addresses the most serious problem that you and I have as human beings, and that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness–or lack of it–or the righteousness of another. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.

The great misconception in our day is this: that God isn’t concerned to protect His own integrity. He’s a kind of wishy-washy deity, who just waves a wand of forgiveness over everybody. No. For God to forgive you is a very costly matter. It cost the sacrifice of His own Son. So valuable was that sacrifice that God pronounced it valuable by raising Him from the dead–so that Christ died for us, He was raised for our justification. So the gospel is something objective. It is the message of who Jesus is and what He did. And it also has a subjective dimension. How are the benefits of Jesus subjectively appropriated to us? How do I get it? The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith–and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him–and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity.
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-is-the-gospel/

Great copy paste job!

:troll:

 

[Clete]

This MAD story gets crazier and crazier. .

You wouldn't know because you don't care to learn.

 

[MennoSota]

Great copy paste job!

:troll:

Why not? Excellence should be copied and pasted... especially when the website gives approval.
Clete, are you a Yooper?

 

[7djengo7]

The factuality of something is not the same as faith. To know is but one component of faith, the other two components being trust and assent.

Obviously, knowledge is not a component of faith, since somebody who has faith that, say, the O.T. book of Daniel was written pseudonymously in the 2nd century, B.C. (rather than by the prophet, Daniel, in the 6th century, B.C.), has faith in a false proposition, and it is impossible to know a false proposition. One cannot know what is not true, and what is false is not true. One cannot know that, say, the earth is a disk, though he may believe--that is, have faith--that the earth is a disk. True propositions, alone, are facts, and are the objects of knowledge. All knowledge, of course, is faith, but some faith is not knowledge. As for the synonyms, 'trust' and 'assent', these are merely synonyms of one another, and of 'belief', and of 'faith'. It's been years since I read Dr. Gordon H. Clark's excellent book, Faith And Saving Faith, but, if I remember anything from reading it, it is that he, therein, completely exploded the view of the nature of faith that you are handing out, here.

Unless you believe at least one fact, you know no thing--you have no knowledge. And, if you believe no fact, but believe something, that which you are believing is falsehood.

 

[glorydaz]

The Gospel preached to the Jews was without the cross, and was a salvation from the world's unrighteous rulers. Then Israel would be ruled by Messiah seated upon the Throne of David here on earth. It was said to be "near at hand"...although it was postponed.

But where did you get the rest of that? "Jesus ... preached a Gospel to the Jews without a cross, and was a of salvation from the world's unrighteous rulers?" and "... Israel would be ruled by Messiah seated upon the Throne of David here on earth ... [but] it was postponed?" Is my rewording accurate?

No, your rewording was not accurate, but no matter.

Rewording what is said is pretty important: it helps ensure that there isn't misunderstanding. I used almost the exact words. What is the difference?

Yes, rewording is pretty important, and that's why you should just use quotes. Leaving off a couple of words and adding another changes what I said. Close isn't good enough, since your rewording made no sense at all.

 

[glorydaz]

Just want to make one point about this post...

It wasn't Christ's death that "shot down the elephant", as you put it, it was the death of Stephen.

Since that first "elephant" was the kingdom gospel, you must be right because they continued to preach that gospel for quite some time after Christ's death.

So why did it change after Stephens's death? Was it the catalyst for Paul being sent to preach his gospel?

Acts 22:19-21
19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: 20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. 21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.​

 

[7djengo7]

Why not? Excellence should be copied and pasted... especially when the website gives approval.
Clete, are you a Yooper?

I give you credit for the fact that you actually had the honesty to cite, by means of a link, the source of your quotation, rather than trying to pass off the quote as though it were something you, yourself, had written! I can tell you, firsthand, that I have, just today, adventitiously discovered that that policy has not been rigorously adhered to by all in these forums, which, of course, may or may not come as a surprise to others, here.

 

[7djengo7]

People think they’re preaching the gospel to you when they tell you, ‘you can have a purpose to your life’, or that ‘you can have meaning to your life’, or that ‘you can have a personal relationship with Jesus.’ All of those things are true, and they’re all important, but they don’t get to the heart of the gospel.

Those things are all actually good news, and things to cheer over. But, since "Calvinism is the gospel", and Calvinism is the doctrines that God infallibly predestined some portion (perhaps the vast majority?) of one's fellow human beings to be inexorably excluded from having a personal relationship with Jesus, and that He predestined them to suffer unfathomable, unmitigated, fiery torment, forever, you'll, perhaps, excuse rational, humanoid-type humans for scratching their heads as to how such things can, in the slightest degree, rationally be considered good news!

 

[7djengo7]

The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him–and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity.
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-is-the-gospel/

"The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him"

But, unfortunately, you can't receive it, because regeneration (as per Calvinism) precedes faith, and you are not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit. So, then, how do you receive the benefit of being regenerated by the Holy Spirit while being yet unregenerate? Since regeneration by the Holy Spirit is a benefit of Christ's life and death, the only way you can receive that benefit--regeneration--is by putting your trust in Him, but, you're out of luck, there, because (as per Calvinism) you can't put your trust in Him unless you have first been regenerated.

Or, do the Calvinism hucksters now wish to claim that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is NOT a benefit of Christ's life and death after all? Well, Calvinist John Piper already shot down any such attempt they might make when he wrote:

This means that our regeneration is owing to the historical work of Christ.

How can regeneration be "owing to the historical work of Christ" without being a "benefit of Christ's life and death"?

 

[glorydaz]

"The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him"

But, unfortunately, you can't receive it, because regeneration (as per Calvinism) precedes faith, and you are not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit. So, then, how do you receive the benefit of being regenerated by the Holy Spirit while being yet unregenerate? Since regeneration by the Holy Spirit is a benefit of Christ's life and death, the only way you can receive that benefit--regeneration--is by putting your trust in Him, but, you're out of luck, there, because (as per Calvinism) you can't put your trust in Him unless you have first been regenerated.

Or, do the Calvinism hucksters now wish to claim that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is NOT a benefit of Christ's life and death after all? Well, Calvinist John Piper already shot down any such attempt they might make when he wrote:



How can regeneration be "owing to the historical work of Christ" without being a "benefit of Christ's life and death"?

It's actually His resurrection life. His death and resurrection life.

 

[turbosixx]

I anticipated from the start that this would generate a discussion about water baptism and/or dispensationalism so have at it.

That's why I threw it out there with a smiley face. I knew you were expecting it but probably didn't really care to discuss it. I figured, as you said, have been debating baptism for years.

I am fully convinced that baptism is part of the gospel and is required to "wash away your sins". Let's take your hypothetical, someone believes but dies before being baptized. I strongly suggest hypotheticals shouldn't be used to go against what scripture says.

You said "I had remarked that Acts 16:31 states simply that "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved..."" That is absolutely 100% true.

Then you said, Therefore, since one makes no mention of baptism, the only way for both verses to be true is if it's belief that's required and not both.
I'm going to disagree with you here.
1, baptism is mentioned in this passage. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Just like all the conversions(that have any detail) before and like Mk. 16:16 says, believers are to be baptized.
2, by this time in scripture there is really no need to mention baptism. It has been commanded and established that believers are to be baptized. To believe the gospel is to be baptized. About 20 years after he was sent by Jesus to proclaim the gospel, Paul is baptizing believers just as Peter did on Pentecost.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

I am a dispensationalist, but I draw the line at the cross.
Think about it. If Satan was going to pervert the gospel and baptism is part of the gospel, wouldn't discrediting baptism be a good tactic?

 

[Right Divider]

1, baptism is mentioned in this passage. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Just like all the conversions(that have any detail) before and like Mk. 16:16 says, believers are to be baptized.

And yet you completely ignore ALL the rest of the "great commission" that Christ gave to the TWELVE (eleven at the time) apostles that will judge the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

Mar 16:17-18 KJV And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.​

Think about it. If Satan was going to pervert the gospel and baptism is part of the gospel, wouldn't discrediting baptism be a good tactic?

Think about it. If Satan was going to pervert the gospel and baptism is NOT part of the gospel, wouldn't pushing water baptism be a good tactic?

 

[turbosixx]

Turbo, I am not disagreeing with your other points, but I think you took John 3:5 out of context. The context shows that it isn't talking about water baptism. Here's the statement of Christ which triggered that dialogue:

John 3:3 KJV
(3) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:4-6 KJV
(4) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

A man is physically born of water, and everyone that has ever lived (save Adam and Eve) was born of water being born of a woman. Nicodemus heard the word "born" and understood this in the literal physical sense as evidenced by his reference to the mother's womb. Jesus responds that a man must be born of both water and spirit.

To clarify his meaning of "water" Jesus continues with "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." Being born of water is being born of the flesh. The parallel continues: that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

Born of water = born of the flesh = IS flesh
Born of the Spirit = born of the spirit = IS spirit.

Why the word "water?" The mother's womb is surrounded by water, and a flow of water signals the beginning of the birth.

I disagree. Please consider this. What Jesus means in telling Nicodemus that he must be born again, is that Nic can't rely on his birth into the nation of Israel(God's people) for salvation. Thus he must be born again in to the new people of God, Christ.
John the Baptist makes the same point.
Luke 3:8 Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.
John's point is their lineage is a good as those stones.

Also, if Jn. 3 is talking about water at birth, then why did Jesus command baptism? Here we see people who had received the Holy Spirit and Peter commands them to be water baptized.
Acts 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Water and Spirit just like Jesus said. There are other passages that prove this but this should be sufficient.

 

[steko]

And yet you completely ignore ALL the rest of the "great commission" that Christ gave to the TWELVE (eleven at the time) apostles that will judge the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

Mar 16:17-18 KJV And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.​

Thinks about it. If Satan was going to pervert the gospel and baptism is NOT part of the gospel, wouldn't pushing water baptism be a good tactic?

Yep, 'ministers of righteousness'. 2Co 11:15

 

[turbosixx]

Mar 16:17-18 KJV And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.​

Continue with the context.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
The purpose of those signs were to confirm the word that they proclaimed was from God. We don't need them anymore because the word has been confirmed.

Thinks about it. If Satan was going to pervert the gospel and baptism is NOT part of the gospel, wouldn't pushing water baptism be a good tactic?

If baptism is NOT part of the gospel, then why did Paul ever do it, even 20 years after being sent?

 

[Right Divider]

Continue with the context.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
The purpose of those signs were to confirm the word that they proclaimed was from God. We don't need them anymore because the word has been confirmed.

How convenient.

If baptism is NOT part of the gospel, then why did Paul ever do it, even 20 years after being sent?

Paul did NOT water baptize those in Acts 19. This has been explained to you, but you are too stubborn to believe it.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why Paul was glad that he baptized so FEW, if it's a requirement for salvation.

You are a WORKS salvationist and are an enemy of the gospel.

 

[turbosixx]

Paul did NOT water baptize those in Acts 19.

Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

What does it mean to be baptized "in the name of" Jesus? I believe it's water and here is my supporting scripture.
Acts 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

What do you believe it means and what scripture do you have to support it?

 

[glorydaz]

If baptism could wash away sins, our Lord Jesus Christ need not have died upon the cross.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:​

The Gospel, itself, is the power of God unto salvation.

Eph. 5:6 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.​