Sonnet
New member
You have asserted that only those divinely enabled can believe - so imploring belief in Him as if they could do so would be misleading. Every offer of salvation would require an explanation of divine election.
What is the Gospel?
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
You have asserted that only those divinely enabled can believe - so imploring belief in Him as if they could do so would be misleading. Every offer of salvation would require an explanation of divine election.
Nanja
Well-known member
Unbelief is a symptom of being condemned already John 3:18, and nothing they do can please God Rom. 8:8, but are still held accountable for their sin of unbelief and must themselves pay the wages for their own sins in the second death Rom. 6:23a.
Rev. 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Sonnet
New member
Predetermined to inherit the total depravity which means they cannot understand God - and condemned for it? Yet, even so, Jesus enjoins them to believe Him? Jesus enjoins them to do that which they cannot?
Nanja
Well-known member
Sonnet
New member
'They are held accountable for that which they cannot do' - you don't disagree with this?
No, even when you comprehend that way. Gospel is about a gift with no human effort but pure sacrifice from Jesus. Thus Jesus has the right to grant whoever this gift He wishes to. Those unbelievers are thus condemned by the Law they are subject to due to their sins, instead of the lack of the gift.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
This is absolutely untrue. True consistent Calvinists preach the Gospel to every creature.
You are speaking of hyper-Calvinists who have descended into fatalism - whatever will be will be - that is not the Gospel at all. They think that they are protecting God's sovereignty by negating the evangelistic call. But this is mostly a theology of convenience and means they can eat, drink and be sombre without engaging the lost. Correct theology is a sign of Godly wisdom but does not save.
We have no knowledge of who God will save. He is still calling men and women to the praise of His glory. To that extent we preach Christ to all men.
Hyper Calvinists are "whited sepulchres" and "tinkling cymbals". Arminianism mostly thrives in righteous opposition to them.
Sonnet
New member
But Ninja was arguing, I believe, that the 'cannot understand' of 1 Corinthians 2:14 relates to the Gospel.
Please correct me if I'm incorrect.
Sonnet
New member
Limited atonement is part of TULIP - so telling unbelievers that, 'Christ died for our sins,' would be disingenuous.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Not at all. The blood of Christ is sufficient to save all. For all we know it is God's intention to save everyone we come in contact with from now on. We do not preach theology, just Christ crucified and risen. We leave the rest to Him. Anything else is way above our pay grade. It is enough that He has told us to be His arms and legs and carry the good news to those who have not heard.
Theology is for those who get saved and have a genuine desire to learn more. Much can be learned but putting the cart before the horse will just mix you up.
It's really very simple. Do you know the Lord? If not, why not? Is it because, when He came to your town, you did not press through the crowd to touch the hem of His garment? If so, will you join with the hyper-Calvinists and say; "It was not meant to be." Who will you blame for your inaction at the end of your days? A doctrine that you have no ability to understand?
As I said before. You cannot believe because you do not have faith. You do not have faith because you will not ask. But if you ask, you will receive.
My sense, after talking to you a bit, is that you have asked and have received. What you don't have yet is assurance of having received.
What is the Gospel?
Oh ok thx. Yeshua was offering the Jewish people the Messianic Kingdom. Had they believed the miracles and accepted Him as the Jewish Messiah He would have set up the Kingdom in the first century. He would have been arrested for treason against Rome (as He was) sentenced to death by a Roman court (as He was), and died for sin. But that was not the plan. The miracles were to authenticate His Messiahship and right to the throne.
There is and was a difference in the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom from the gospel of salvation. You could argue that to enter the kingdom as a Jew one first had to be regenerated by believing the gospel however technically the miracles were performed to authenticate the Kingdom message rather than the salvation message.
Furthermore, using miracles to authenticate Himself as a means of drawing the elect to Him is not out of bounds in my opinion.
You might argue that miracles couldn't draw the non elect and thereby is misleading. However, because of the fact that each member of humanity has already been judged and is already condemned it doesn't make a difference for them anyway.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh ok thx. Yeshua was offering the Jewish people the Messianic Kingdom. Had they believed the miracles and accepted Him as the Jewish Messiah He would have set up the Kingdom in the first century. He would have been arrested for treason against Rome (as He was) sentenced to death by a Roman court (as He was), and died for sin. But that was not the plan. The miracles were to authenticate His Messiahship and right to the throne.
There is and was a difference in the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom from the gospel of salvation. You could argue that to enter the kingdom as a Jew one first had to be regenerated by believing the gospel however technically the miracles were performed to authenticate the Kingdom message rather than the salvation message.
Furthermore, using miracles to authenticate Himself as a means of drawing the elect to Him is not out of bounds in my opinion.
You might argue that miracles couldn't draw the non elect and thereby is misleading. However, because of the fact that each member of humanity has already been judged and is already condemned it doesn't make a difference for them anyway.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The non elect do understand the gospel but cannot accept it.
A Muslim understands clearly that I believe salvation is a free gift but he cannot accept this. He condemns the idea that I don't need to do anything to be saved other than have faith.
An atheist understands clearly that I believe I have eternal life by virtue of the propitiation of the Son of God but he refuses to accept God's existence.
The scripture categorizes men on their ability to understand the Word of God 1 Corinthians chapter 1. Only the saved can understand and only the full grown spiritual saved can understand the deep things in the Word. The unregenerate man understands non of it but he does have the capacity to understand the gospel message. You are quite an example of this, you understand the gospel message of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone plus nothing but you wrestle with accepting this news by seeking differences in doctrinal understandings of it in order to disavow the whole idea. Do you not?
From my perspective the differences are election, all humanity already condemned headed to hell. If the Calvinist rejects this he is still saved because he accepts the finished work of the cross. If the non Calvinist rejects the idea that babies die because of sin they too are still saved etc. election is not a part of the message of the cross. But it is part of the salvation package. If the elect get saved by hearing the message of the cross then they don't need to hear about election to be regenerated, the doctrine of election falls under the category of the deep things of the Word.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Obviously the thread has gone off into the woods of Calvinism, but this is still the Gospel.
Since this is Sonnet's thread I believe we should follow his direction of questioning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Obviously the OP can do whatever they want, but I have answered the OP directly, and without any need to talk about predestination, TULIP, providence, or anything else. The OP does not believe that the Lord Jesus is risen; and that's the Gospel. These other matters are more like detailed mechanistic discussions of how one person believes, and another does not believe, within the realm of Christian theology.
Anyway,
glorydaz
Well-known member
Read Isaiah 54. That's where it was written.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
good news universal.............
good news universal.............
Hi sonnet,
it depends on who you ask
I Cor. 15 is Paul's opinion of what the gospel is, or more specifically HIS own gospel (version), and he claims he did not receive it by any man but by 'revelation' (visions, voices, insights, illuminations, etc.) and from what he assumed is in the 'scriptures'. Therefore we cant be sure it was the very same 'gospel' taught by the original 12 apostles in the Jerusalem Community, of which he was at odds with on various points as we see in his letter to the Galations, and subtle hints elsewhere, - also in the book of Acts, however the author there tries to make Paul more 'friendly' with the original apostles as if he were accepted 'whole heartedly', but deeper research challenges that 'picture'. I'll throw in for 'extra' that both Jesus and Paul's historical existence (also 'identity') is becoming more in question among some scholars, and this question is breaking more into the public domain of interest, see my former posts here. - I'm focusing on Jesus currently with a book review to come on Lataster's work 'Jesus did not exist, a debate among atheists' - Paul is another curious fellow, having his own nuance and context of controversy.
So, you have various 'spin' out there on what the 'gospel' actually is, depending on who you ask (and of course your own 'interpretation'). 'Christianity' has developed from the 1st century onwards with so many different 'versions' of this or that, that only your own personal research on the matter will avail to your own satisfaction. - all views that can be modified in any way ARE subject to change. Yes, you may embrace what you think is the 'gospel', or in another season of your life experience, reject it totally. You never know. As a student of 'truth' however, you would be prepared and expect that some of your former beliefs, opinions and assumptions may be flushed down the toilet, and if so needed in the light of better more accurate, rational and truthful conclusions, all the better
This is why I ever remain a 'freelight' or 'freespirit' in my religious and philsopical studies. Eclectic :surf:
good news universal.............
Hi sonnet,
it depends on who you ask
I Cor. 15 is Paul's opinion of what the gospel is, or more specifically HIS own gospel (version), and he claims he did not receive it by any man but by 'revelation' (visions, voices, insights, illuminations, etc.) and from what he assumed is in the 'scriptures'. Therefore we cant be sure it was the very same 'gospel' taught by the original 12 apostles in the Jerusalem Community, of which he was at odds with on various points as we see in his letter to the Galations, and subtle hints elsewhere, - also in the book of Acts, however the author there tries to make Paul more 'friendly' with the original apostles as if he were accepted 'whole heartedly', but deeper research challenges that 'picture'. I'll throw in for 'extra' that both Jesus and Paul's historical existence (also 'identity') is becoming more in question among some scholars, and this question is breaking more into the public domain of interest, see my former posts here. - I'm focusing on Jesus currently with a book review to come on Lataster's work 'Jesus did not exist, a debate among atheists'
- Paul is another curious fellow, having his own nuance and context of controversy.So, you have various 'spin' out there on what the 'gospel' actually is, depending on who you ask (and of course your own 'interpretation'). 'Christianity' has developed from the 1st century onwards with so many different 'versions' of this or that, that only your own personal research on the matter will avail to your own satisfaction. - all views that can be modified in any way ARE subject to change. Yes, you may embrace what you think is the 'gospel', or in another season of your life experience, reject it totally. You never know. As a student of 'truth' however, you would be prepared and expect that some of your former beliefs, opinions and assumptions may be flushed down the toilet, and if so needed in the light of better more accurate, rational and truthful conclusions, all the better
This is why I ever remain a 'freelight' or 'freespirit' in my religious and philsopical studies. Eclectic :surf:
Hi sonnet,
it depends on who you ask
I Cor. 15 is Paul's opinion of what the gospel is, or more specifically HIS own gospel (version), and he claims he did not receive it by any man but by 'revelation' (visions, voices, insights, illuminations, etc.) and from what he assumed is in the 'scriptures'. Therefore we cant be sure it was the very same 'gospel' taught by the original 12 apostles in the Jerusalem Community, of which he was at odds with on various points as we see in his letter to the Galations, and subtle hints elsewhere, - also in the book of Acts, however the author there tries to make Paul more 'friendly' with the original apostles as if he were accepted 'whole heartedly', but deeper research challenges that 'picture'. I'll throw in for 'extra' that both Jesus and Paul's historical existence (also 'identity') is becoming more in question among some scholars, and this question is breaking more into the public domain of interest, see my former posts here. - I'm focusing on Jesus currently with a book review to come on Lataster's work 'Jesus did not exist, a debate among atheists'
So, you have various 'spin' out there on what the 'gospel' actually is, depending on who you ask (and of course your own 'interpretation'). 'Christianity' has developed from the 1st century onwards with so many different 'versions' of this or that, that only your own personal research on the matter will avail to your own satisfaction. - all views that can be modified in any way ARE subject to change. Yes, you may embrace what you think is the 'gospel', or in another season of your life experience, reject it totally. You never know. As a student of 'truth' however, you would be prepared and expect that some of your former beliefs, opinions and assumptions may be flushed down the toilet, and if so needed in the light of better more accurate, rational and truthful conclusions, all the better
This is why I ever remain a 'freelight' or 'freespirit' in my religious and philsopical studies. Eclectic :surf:
Gaylight
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Huh? By "consistent ones" are you attempting to lump in the hyper-Calvinist? A cheap shot. They are heretics. Plain and simple.
Hyper-Calvinism can be defined as believing in any one of these:
- God is the author of sin and evil
- Human beings have absolutely no will whatsoever
- Individuals are not responsible for their own decisions and actions
- Justification occurs in eternity, not in time
- God does not command all people to repent of sin
- Not everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation
- God creates unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect
- Assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
- Election is evident simply by a profession of faith, regardless of sanctification (antinomianism)
- Saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination (only Calvinists are Christians)
- Limited atonement must be believed in order to hear the gospel and be saved
- Evangelism is unnecessary, or even wrong
- God has no love whatsoever for humanity in His providence
On the other hand, the orthodox Calvinist obeys the command to preach the Good News promiscuously for it by means of the foolishness of preaching by which's God's redemptive ends for all His chosen will ordinarily be brought into the Kingdom.
What you will not find is the Calvinist telling a specific person "Our Lord died for you, {Bob, Mary, Pete, Jane, etc.}" for we understand that Our Lord's active and passive obedience was particularly intended to actually save, not potentially save, those so given to Him by God the Father, persons (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9; John 17:22; John 18:9) that no man can number from among the peoples of the world (Rev. 7:9). We also understand that we do not know exactly who God has chosen (Deut. 29:29), so we obey the command to preach the Good News to all.
Calvinists also reject the hypothetical aspect (the potentially saving view of the Atonement, of the anti-Calvinist's view:
Hypothetical universalism teaches that God gave Jesus Christ to save all men on condition they believe; but He has not elected all men to believe and be saved. This means that God gives Jesus Christ to all men but then takes Him away from some. Election comes in to exclude the application of the merits of Christ to a whole class of men. Christ's merits call for faith and justification but God says "No" to His dearly beloved Son. Hypothetical universalism teaches that God is not well-pleased to save all men for whom Christ died. This is a distortion of the gospel of free grace.
All your (and anyone's) questions begin and end with the beginning in the Garden. Just how fallen did those in the loins of Adam become? If you think those after Adam still possess some "seed" of righteousness such that they can still reach for and grasp the life preserver tossed to them as they are drowning in the sea of sin, then you end up outside of Calvinism.
On the other hand, if you think those in the sea of sin are actually morally dead at the bottom of that sea and will remain so if and until God does something to resurrect them from their state of moral death, such that they are enabled and made irrevocably willing to believe (Eze. 36:26), then you end up in the Calvinist camp.
All discussions of soteriology begin with the understanding of the fall of man and the universe in the Garden. You keep implying that Calvin somehow invented all of this. As I have pointed out in earlier posts, the proper understanding of the fall of man precedes Calvin by well over a thousand years. It is not something new to Calvin nor Calvinism. It was also just one of the many things the Reformers were calling the church back to during the Reformation.
Are there differing opinions on the matter? No doubt this site gives ample evidence of the same. I am confident no one comes to grip with all the questions you are raising until that person is actually born anew. Afterwards, in their walk of faith not a few will come to a deeper understanding of how they came to be where they are now. You just cannot rationalize yourself into the Kingdom.
AMR
M8,
Even if you think it’s funny... you didn’t even offer a respectful response. Could you please retract your playful jab at FL?
I’m sincere... I’m avoiding a search for the report button. And... half of me likes you...