What is the Gospel?

[Sonnet]

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.

God is the author of their damnation but holds them responsible?

 

[Sonnet]

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.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?126873-What-is-the-Gospel&p=5109288&viewfull=1#post5109288

 

[Sonnet]

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

I am a little confused by you post - are you saying that you do not think Jesus was enjoining the Jews of John 10:37,38 to believe through the miracles in order that they might be saved?

 

[Sonnet]

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?

Certainly, if Christianity cannot define the Gospel then there's nothing for me to believe or disbelieve.

If we 'cannot' accept the Gospel and we inherit total depravity, then we have no recourse to salvation what so ever.

 

[Sonnet]

Read Isaiah 54. That's where it was written.

I think I was asking intojoy to prove that such teaching and learning isn't about the any or all potential believers.

 

[Sonnet]

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, -

Hello.

1 Cor 15
9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

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.

I think it's obvious that a man called Jesus existed - but whether scripture is an accurate account of Him etc is moot.

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:

I think scepticism is healthy.

 

[patrick jane]

Certainly, if Christianity cannot define the Gospel then there's nothing for me to believe or disbelieve.

If we 'cannot' accept the Gospel and we inherit total depravity, then we have no recourse to salvation what so ever.

I contend that we have 7.2 billion people on earth and therefore, 7.2 billion different world views. Some are completely different, some very different, some only slightly different. I'm not saying there are 7.2 billion ways to interpret the words in the Bible, but you get the idea. There ARE too many doctrines and contradictory doctrines, yet we have to fight through that. Reading the Bible myself, especially Paul's letters finally made perfect sense, where before, years earlier it didn't. I was convinced and/or persuaded by Paul's words, which are directly from the risen ascended Jesus Christ. When it clicked, I was just starting on the internet in 2015 when I found TOL somehow. It didn't take long to realize I most aligned with MAD. I hope you read more and see more scripture and it all makes sense. You seem to know quite a bit already, I hope your faith grows.

 

[Sonnet]

I contend that we have 7.2 billion people on earth and therefore, 7.2 billion different world views. Some are completely different, some very different, some only slightly different. I'm not saying there are 7.2 billion ways to interpret the words in the Bible, but you get the idea. There ARE too many doctrines and contradictory doctrines, yet we have to fight through that. Reading the Bible myself, especially Paul's letters finally made perfect sense, where before, years earlier it didn't. I was convinced and/or persuaded by Paul's words, which are directly from the risen ascended Jesus Christ. When it clicked, I was just starting on the internet in 2015 when I found TOL somehow. It didn't take long to realize I most aligned with MAD. I hope you read more and see more scripture and it all makes sense. You seem to know quite a bit already, I hope your faith grows.

Thanks.

For me, the Gospel becomes powerful, arresting and attention grabbing when it claims that someone (Jesus) died for me (and, of course, everyone else); my (our, everyone's) greatest fear (death) defeated by a man/God through love (Romans 5:8). The idea of Jesus rising in victory over death does resonant deeply.

Replace that with limited atonement and inherited total depravity, then it's a completely different picture.

 

[Sonnet]

Huh? By "consistent ones" are you attempting to lump in the hyper-Calvinist? A cheap shot. They are heretics. Plain and simple.

Hyper-Calvinism......................

You also assert the following:

Pre-fall -- able to not sin -- able to sin
Post-fall-- able to sin -- not able to not sin
Regenerate-- able to sin -- able to not sin
Glorified-- not able to sin -- able to not sin​

That explicitly has everyone born in a condition without the ability to turn to God.

You further add:

"If you deny the doctrine of original sin from Scripture, then of course you will deny God's warrant to dispose of His creatures justly and pour out His mercy on a great amount no man can number from those fallen in Adam whom He will. Such is the result of one's error."​

This is the real Gospel according to you AMR.

 

[intojoy]

I am a little confused by you post - are you saying that you do not think Jesus was enjoining the Jews of John 10:37,38 to believe through the miracles in order that they might be saved?

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[intojoy]

Certainly, if Christianity cannot define the Gospel then there's nothing for me to believe or disbelieve.

If we 'cannot' accept the Gospel and we inherit total depravity, then we have no recourse to salvation what so ever.

There are more than two hundred places in the New Testament where the condition for salvation is spelled out, and in all these, cases faith or belief is given as the one and only condition.

One must believe that Jesus has accomplished the salvation work on one's behalf. To be saved, one must believe not just that He died, but that He died for one's own sins. If one believes that Yeshua the Messiah died for his sins, that presupposes that one has confessed that he is a sinner. If Yeshua died for one's sins, obviously it means that he is a sinner. So one must believe that Yeshua died for his sins as his substitute, was buried and rose again, and therefore has provided salvation. Thus, one trusts Yeshua for his salvation.

This is the condition of salvation: faith must be placed in the Messiah as one's substitute for and as one's Savior from the penalty of sin.

First the word “faith” is used as “conviction that something is true.” Secondly, faith is used as “trust.” Thirdly, faith is used as “persuaded,” and it is stronger than mere opinion, though it is weaker than foreknowledge. Fourthly, faith is used as “belief based upon the facts of knowledge” (Rom. 10:14). And fifth, faith must have an object. The object of faith is God, while the content of faith is the death of the Messiah for one's sins, His burial and Resurrection.

If we are saved because of our faith then we aren't saved by what our faith is in. We are saved thru believing in the finished work not because we believe the finished work. The work of God saves and we receive the benefit of that work by trusting that that work alone is sufficient payment in the eyes of God our Father to satisfy His requirement for our sins, that payment is the blood of the only begotten Son of God.
Indeed my brothers and sisters the blood of Messiah is of infinite value.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nihilo]

Certainly, if Christianity cannot define the Gospel then there's nothing for me to believe or disbelieve.

Then read the Bible, if you can't tease it out from all the differing vying factions. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

Confer Romans 10:9 (KJV) and 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

 

[Sherman]

@Sherman ... what AMR has articulated here is enormous and important...

People like AMR... Lon... George Affleck and others who are reformed... get misunderstood because of the “Hyper” group... this is the most precise articulation of this matter and I’m simply drawing attention to it... because it could legitimately be a go to pinned post of sorts.

I’m focusing on the Hyper aspect of his post because it zeros in on the contentious nature of some that fully misrepresent reformed theology.

It is an Anti-Thesis to the false nature of the Hyper proclamations... and it indeed zeros in on what @Sonnet is so conflicted about. I know Sonnet is teetering on belief... but legitimately... this is a priceless post...

I’m not Reformed by any measure... but this work of AMR’s is priceless!

- EE

Sonnet should not be, at this point, as a non believer be focusing on the differences in the Christian denominations. He should, instead, be looking at the Bible. Examine what the Bible says about salvation and then make that important step. You can google Scriptures about Salvation. That would actually be a lot more productive.

 

[intojoy]

Certainly, if Christianity cannot define the Gospel then there's nothing for me to believe or disbelieve.

If we 'cannot' accept the Gospel and we inherit total depravity, then we have no recourse to salvation what so ever.

That is an evaluation by a created being's vantage point based in human emotions. The proper attitude from created beings is that the plan of salvation is the outworking of the love of God.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[glorydaz]

Would you like to prove your assertion?

Read Isaiah 54. That's where it was written.

I think I was asking intojoy to prove that such teaching and learning isn't about the any or all potential believers.

Jesus is quoting from Isaiah, which speaks of a future time for the chosen nation Israel.

Isaiah 45:6 For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. 7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. 8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.​

We aren't there yet. They rejected our Lord when He came to rule over them.

Isaiah 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children. 14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee. 15 Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake. 16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. 17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.​

 

[Epoisses]

It just so happened that Paul's gospel version won out, as his appeal and acceptance among gentiles was greater, and Jerusalem (The temple, etc. fell) and the original Jewish followers of Jesus dispersed. Within the first few centuries, there was a diversity of branches influenced by Jesus or a 'Crestus' figure, who were also called 'Chrestians' by the earliest term, a word which was later changed to 'Christian' in the centuries following, but thats another thread. So, sure you have the community of Jesus followers in Jerusalem still holding to the the essential tenets/traditions of Judaism, with some innovations brought in by Jesus own teaching, and then Paul's gospel that was quite different, so that some with more Jewish proclivities held to the Jerusalem centered religious teaching (upheld by Jesus original apostles, the pillars Peter, James, John, etc.) and then Pauls gospel was another tangent, if not its own unique dispensation.

Do note the distinguishing content of the teachings and that Paul himself boasts about having his own gospel, and even dissing the original apostles, elevating himself as God's messenger more or less (see Galations, etc.). There are messianic believers in Jesus as Messiah who reject Paul, and hold to some messianc form of biblical practice, or somehow reconcile Paul's teaching. That the greater Gentile world accepted Paul's gospel and the NT interpreted as a synergistic whole, is a matter of biblical 'convention'. Of course the greater percentage of modern day Christianity champions Paul's gospel of grace, interpreting all thru the lens of it, but I think there's more to it, and this is more often brought up by secular and religious studies scholars, that do not play to traditional concensus but strive for a more objective approach without having any religious presuppositions or bias. Anyways,...just saying there is more involved outside of conventional belief systems, mythological motifs and hand me down theologies.

Since the death of Jesus, and his resurrection is a central theme in the NT, naturally the doctrine and theology will be based/contextualized upon the 'event', 'theme' or 'allegorical context' of the 'story', all the gospel narratives serving that story line, where then Pauls letters and other epistles offer deeper explanations of various aspects of 'doctine', Paul's letters being earlier than the gospels, and then some later epistles reflecting the ecclesiastical leanings and church politics beginning their formations.

Judaism revolved around the temple and it's ceremonial services. The temple was still standing for 40 years after Pentecost so it was a different time than we live in today. Paul's gospel is the pure gospel and the reason it is pure is because it was grace alone without works or law. There is no such animal as a 'kingdom gospel' except in the deluded minds of the Dispies!

 

[freelight]

The Kingdom gospel is eternal, since His Kingdom is eternal......

The Kingdom gospel is eternal, since His Kingdom is eternal......

Judaism revolved around the temple and it's ceremonial services. The temple was still standing for 40 years after Pentecost so it was a different time than we live in today. Paul's gospel is the pure gospel and the reason it is pure is because it was grace alone without works or law. There is no such animal as a 'kingdom gospel' except in the deluded minds of the Dispies!

Yet a reading of the 4 gospels, has Jesus preaching and teaching the gospel of the kingdom. You cant flush or bypass that seminal theme at the heart of Jesus ministry, the same good news he sent his apostles out to proclaim. - "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand".

If the original Jerusalem Church continued, it would likely just be a reformed branch of Judaism with Jesus as their Messiah, but Paul's gospel to the Gentiles, one different and made more palatable to Gentiles gained popularity by survival and innovation of doctrine, since one did not have to abide by a strict formality of Jewish laws or customs, and a good mix of Gnosticism, mystery religion mythos and greek philosopical concepts also gave it a universality accomodating all peoples.

Even if you adopt Paul's gospel message, this does not dispense with the core concept of the kingdom of heaven taught by Jesus, which focuses on repentance, entering the kingdom of God and doing God's will in loving service. This gospel also reveals God as 'Our Father' and humanity as His children, as in the 'Fatherhood of God & Brotherhood of man'. While it appears to be a pre-crucifixion gospel, its fundamental importance or foundation STILL HOLDS.

 

[George Affleck]

Indeed my brothers and sisters the blood of Messiah is of infinite value.

Amen!

 

[Epoisses]

Yet a reading of the 4 gospels, has Jesus preaching and teaching the gospel of the kingdom. You cant flush or bypass that seminal theme at the heart of Jesus ministry, the same good news he sent his apostles out to proclaim. - "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand".

If the original Jerusalem Church continued, it would likely just be a reformed branch of Judaism with Jesus as their Messiah, but Paul's gospel to the Gentiles, one different and made more palatable to Gentiles gained popularity by survival and innovation of doctrine, since one did not have to abide by a strict formality of Jewish laws or customs, and a good mix of Gnosticism, mystery religion mythos and greek philosopical concepts also gave it a universality accomodating all peoples.

Even if you adopt Paul's gospel message, this does not dispense with the core concept of the kingdom of heaven taught by Jesus, which focuses on repentance, entering the kingdom of God and doing God's will in loving service. This gospel also reveals God as 'Our Father' and humanity as His children, as in the 'Fatherhood of God & Brotherhood of man'. While it appears to be a pre-crucifixion gospel, its fundamental importance or foundation STILL HOLDS.

Jesus also lived during a time when the temple was still standing and it's requirements on Jews were mandatory. Many of the requirements of Jesus involved offering sacrifice and showing oneself to the priest. You can't really compare that to the good news of the gospel that went out after his death and resurrection. He also said those who do not experience the 'new birth' cannot even see the kingdom of God so your fixation on the word 'kingdom' is just a pretense to ignore the direction that God was leading Jews and Gentiles towards, which was out of the law and into grace. God was leading Jews and Gentiles into grace and today the exact opposite is happening. Christians are abandoning grace to go back to a law that was never even for them and the Jews never came out of it to begin with.

 

[Sonnet]

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Jews had asked Jesus if he was the Messiah...

John 10:25-28
Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

You don't think salvation continued to be the context in the following verses, included vv.37,28?