User Tag List

Page 171 of 181 FirstFirst ... 71121161168169170171172173174 ... LastLast
Results 2,551 to 2,565 of 2706

Thread: What is the Gospel?

  1. #2551
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    17,693
    Thanks
    7,822
    Thanked 25,275 Times in 12,789 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by Dressed.In.Red View Post
    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post5120894

    GD rebuking BBK for saying Christ died for all and using the argument that men reject salvation as validation that Jesus did not die for all.

    She gets much more blatant... but this is a small fragment of proof.

    Iíll find the rest later.
    Yep, there you go, folks. This is his "proof".

    I stand by every word of it.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    patrick jane (November 14th, 2017),Tambora (November 14th, 2017)

  3. #2552
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Yep, there you go, folks. This is his "proof".

    I stand by every word of it.
    You are employing Sophistry...

    As you still deny that All means All by failing to affirm scripture that says exactly that.

  4. #2553
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    The YEP was merely an acknowledgment of you making a "limitation" once again.

    Proving also, how you read things into my posts.
    Thank God!

    I, the correct proud person didnít want to have to apologize to you, the more proud, incorrect person.


  5. #2554
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Yep, there you go, folks. This is his "proof".

    I stand by every word of it.
    That was merely you pretending to “correct” someone that agrees that humanity can reject Jesus, but Jesus died for ALL.

    It merely proves your employment in Sophistry...

    Thread history is chalked full of coffin bailable to your assertions and “assertion “ that you are denying that He died for Unbelievers.

    White lies are lies too... ; )

  6. #2555
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Coffin nails*

  7. #2556
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    @Jerry Shugart ...

    I wasn’t directing any words towards you in my multi quote... that was for Glorydaz... who I don’t dislike or even hate or anything, but hold in Christian esteem...

    I’m simply trying to figure out why they are at issue with the scripture you posted... as it affirms Jesus died for all... and I haven’t seen a “Universalist” on this thread... as the follow up scripture affirms and we all agree...

    Just wanted to be clear...

    It’s good to see you posting again! I’ll be reading your posts, though I won’t be on for alonnnnnng Time.

    I came on to answer Derf and got caught in discussion...

    Anyhow... all of His best to you, which is really all... except the whole sword and winepress thing that comes in the end... which I see none of us in line to receive...

    - Philip

  8. #2557
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by musterion View Post
    EE,



    Someone who believes that automatically cannot believe in LA.
    Going to bed now.
    They are obfuscating how that offer got there... for the record...


  9. #2558
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    @Sherman ... if you perma Ban this sock and EE... this name will make absolutely no sense at all!

  10. #2559
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    I meant... if you ... don’t perma ban...

  11. #2560
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,147
    Thanks
    133
    Thanked 755 Times in 648 Posts

    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    53235
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I think the sin of unbelief is indeed a special case--the same special case that Jesus called "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" (Mark 3:29). It is knowing and rejecting the provision of God for your sins, and results in eternal damnation.
    Which was unforgivable - so why would you equate them? Or are you just saying the equivalence is only in being a special case?

  12. #2561
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,061
    Thanks
    3,302
    Thanked 3,007 Times in 1,806 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147672
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnet View Post

    Bitten, dying Israelites equated with sinful humanity - and the bronze serpent / Jesus's death on the cross for ALL OF THEM.
    No.

    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post5128520

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    ó Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    glorydaz (November 14th, 2017),patrick jane (November 14th, 2017)

  14. #2562
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,147
    Thanks
    133
    Thanked 755 Times in 648 Posts

    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    53235
    Quote Originally Posted by musterion View Post
    Sonnet is just playing games.
    Why are doing this musterion? The issue of for whom Christ died has always been controversial and is not unique to this thread.

    Your integrity is just as questionable as mine.

  15. #2563
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    17,693
    Thanks
    7,822
    Thanked 25,275 Times in 12,789 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnet View Post
    Why are doing this musterion? The issue of for whom Christ died has always been controversial and is not unique to this thread.

    Your integrity is just as questionable as mine.
    No, what is unique to this thread is the sowing of discord, and that falls on your doorstep. You argued with me for pages on end, and we didn't even really disagree. It was a a matter of semantics. You did the same thing to AMR. You had already made up your mind that you disagreed with his general doctrine, so you read that into one simple statement, that did NOT say what you claimed. Just as I did not say what you were claiming, either. You need to adjust your way of argument, because this isn't going well at this point in time.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (November 14th, 2017),patrick jane (November 14th, 2017)

  17. #2564
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,061
    Thanks
    3,302
    Thanked 3,007 Times in 1,806 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147672
    I am not against the offer being well-meant in the proper sense that God genuinely intends to give salvation to all who believe. The problem with the "universal desire" theory is that it makes God's offer to be less than genuine. By universally extending the God's desire to save to "all men" it effectively makes that desire ineffectual and casts doubt on the promise of God to save those who believe.

    In the Calvinist view the promise of God is to save all who believe, and all are invited to faith in order to be saved. The gospel warrants sinners as sinners (sinners qua sinners) to believe in Christ for the salvation of their souls. Therefore unbelief, and only unbelief, prevents a sinner from being saved. The sinner's own unbelief is to blame for his damnation.

    In the view of universal thinking ("all men") salvation as promised in the gospel to all men is only hypothetical: Christ has died for the sinner's salvation only IF the sinner believes. It is only made real in the event that God gives faith to the elect sinner to enable him to believe. In that case the person is damned not only because of his unbelief, but also because God has not given him the faith which was necessary to make God's promise real. This view ends up making God responsible for the unbelief and damnation of the non-elect.

    The gospel certainly isn't insincere; neither is the charge to repent and believe. The gospel itself is sincere in the message it contains. It is not capricious, unfair, or rigged. It is sincere in that it effectually accomplishes the author's (God's) intent.

    God sincerely offers salvation to all who believe in Christ. The offer is therefore conditional on faith. The so-called "well meant" offer advocates remove the condition on which God's sincerity is expressed.

    The two parts of a covenant are command and promise. The covenant of grace as administered in the preaching of the gospel is believe (command) and be saved (promise). Preaching the gospel to every creature entails the declaration of both the command and the promise. Hence we should be careful to emphasize that all men are commanded to believe in Jesus Christ, and also that God sincerely promises eternal life to all who will believe. The offer is general, indefinite, and conditional enough that it can be made to all men without bringing in the question of whether or not they are elect. At the same time it goes forth on the understanding that only those who are elect will be given the grace to exercise the condition of faith and thereby appropriate the promised blessing.

    Keep the following in mind:

    1. God has no unfulfilled desires, He will accomplish all that He wills to do.
    2. The beautiful and condescending anthropomorphic language of the Scriptures must be understood in light of God's impassibility. He is without parts or passions (therefore, singular in His Eternal Will).
    3. The will of precept, and the will of decree are not contradictory, to be parsed, or divided, but work together to bring about the objective of the Divine Mind.
    4. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked who repents (Ezek. 18:23), yet He is “angry” (anthropopathically) with the wicked every day (Psalm 7:11).
    5. The Gospel is to be preached without distinction or condition to every creature in its fullness with the purpose that sinners should turn and live.
    6. Christ is offered to sinner as sinners (sinners qua sinners)
    7. The free offer of Christ to sinner stands as a beacon any poor and needy soul.
    8. All who are under the sound of the Gospel are truly, sincerely, and unfeigned called to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. When the Word of Life is rejected, the fault lies wholly in themselves.
    9. In God, there is a general love to man as a creature (love of beneficence and complacency), because of His image in them, which has no Gospel in it. This love terminates on the creature, and has no aspect of love of benevolence in it.
    10. All aspects of the free offer, with its pleadings, warnings, wooings, and commands set to accomplish two objectives; to melt the heart of the elect, and to leave the reprobate without excuse.

    Words function within domains. If the "offer" were merely a matter of exhibition, then the meaning of the word would be restricted to the idea of bare presentation. However, the gospel is not merely presented to view, but also tendered for acceptance by the hearer. It carries with it the call and command to believe, with accompanying invitations, exhortations, promises, and threatenings. As such it cannot be restricted to the idea of bare presentation. It carries moral force and obligation with it. And the gospel of Christ must be more than a bare presentation because it is the blessed means of bringing the elect to saving faith, Romans 1:16; 10:17.

    God offers salvation by Jesus Christ to sinners. Sinners as such are called to believe in Christ. The promise of salvation is to as many as believe. There is no desire expressed in the gospel for the salvation of those who do not believe. Those who say that there is a desire to save men who will not believe in Christ have effectively devised their own message of salvation. Holy Scripture never separates the offer of the gospel from the purpose of God to save sinners by faith in Jesus Christ.

    The reason why we Reformed adhere to the indefinite term, "sinner," is because it gives the hearer the warrant to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation as He is offered in the gospel. Any and every hearer has this warrant to believe in Christ without determining whether or not he is elect. It also requires him to assent to the judgment of the law that he is a condemned sinner and to see his need of a Savior.

    With regard to individual election and reprobation the purpose of God remains a secret at the point the gospel is offered.
    - But the purpose of God for the salvation of sinners indefinitely is revealed in the gospel.
    - Likewise the purpose of God to save those who believe in Christ is also revealed in the gospel.
    - Likewise the purpose of God to leave unbelievers in a state of condemnation is also revealed in the gospel.
    - Furthermore, those who believe to the saving of their souls demonstrate they are elect. Otherwise the apostles could not have addressed anyone as "elect," not even in the judgment of charity. Saving faith reveals the purpose of God to save individuals, and that faith is a witness of God in their souls concerning God's purpose.
    - Likewise, those who remain unbelievers and never exercise faith demonstrate the purpose of God to leave them in their sins and to suffer the punishment of them. Their actions also reveal the secret purpose of God.

    In short, some of God's decrees remain a secret, not all of them; those who are elect and those who are reprobate at the time of the gospel offer is one of those secrets. Nevertheless we depend upon the revelation of God's decrees in the gospel to understand the doctrine of salvation, as well as to be able to discern between those who are saved and those who perish.

    Faith is only required as a condition to interest the sinner in the Savior, and God gives this faith to those whom He desires to save. Salvation is not a precept that is left unfulfilled. It is a promise which is truthfully fulfilled in the salvation of those who believe. To deny this is to deny the doctrines of grace.

    Universalizing salvation makes the offer insincere. God has not purposed salvation for all men. Christ has not accomplished salvation for all men. The Spirit does not apply salvation to all men. To offer universal salvation is to make God say one thing and do another. It is the definite salvation of a particular people which is offered in the gospel. Hence the requirement of faith, and the threatening of judgment on those who will not believe. It is stated in indefinite terms because the offer is made by preachers to sinners indiscriminately, without respect to election and reprobation.

    Let me put this in the plainest possible terms. Advocates of the so-called well-meant offer preach that God desires to save those who will not believe; and they claim that this is God's revealed will. This is not the biblical offer of the gospel. The biblical offer of the gospel is, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. The true gospel reveals that God desires the salvation of those who believe. There is no desire for the salvation of men irrespective of faith.

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    ó Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    glorydaz (November 14th, 2017)

  19. #2565
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,147
    Thanks
    133
    Thanked 755 Times in 648 Posts

    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    53235
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    No, what is unique to this thread is the sowing of discord, and that falls on your doorstep. You argued with me for pages on end, and we didn't even really disagree. It was a a matter of semantics. You did the same thing to AMR. You had already made up your mind that you disagreed with his general doctrine, so you read that into one simple statement, that did NOT say what you claimed. Just as I did not say what you were claiming, either. You need to adjust your way of argument, because this isn't going well at this point in time.
    I fail as a human but I did not come here to sow discord. Your posts have been full of ad hominems GD. I'd prefer to debate without them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. Derf

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us