A Peculiar Kind of Gospel

Status
Not open for further replies.

1PeaceMaker

New member
Originally posted by Sozo

"For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

"...whoever believes may in Him have eternal life"

"...whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life".

He who believes in the Son has eternal life!

"It is the Spirit who gives life "

"Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?"

"...your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own"

"for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Salvation is receiving the very LIFE of God!
:thumb:
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by lighthouse

When all that changed me was a change in belief, I am more prone to believe that hormones and behavioral conditioning had no part in it. I was presented with what the Bible said, and I believed it over what i had previously believed. From that moment on I was changed. I was free of the fear of condemnation, and I revel in the freedom. For I now know, not merely tout, that I am free from sin and cleansed of all unrighteousness.
Pavlov's subjects might have expressed similar positive assertions. ;)
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by elohiym

So if you EVER lapse, and look at pornography again, then He never affected YOU, and, in fact, NEVER knew you. Isn't that correct? Or do you just apply that standard to homosexuals?
I don't apply that standard to anyone, who is in Christ. Lapses are not the issue, and they never were. Persistent behavior, with the beleif that it isn't wrong is the sign of one who does not know Christ.

Under the law, all you did was sin, and if your natural body were alive, it would be condemned by the law right now. The only reason you do not persist in sin is because God freed you from the law by using the law itself. Without that gift from God your righteousness is filthy rags and you are no better than the worst of sinners.
:dunce::duh:

You are condemned, if you judge and condemn others.
There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ. And the Bible does not tell us not to judge. It tells us to judge with righteous judgment. And I don't condmemn anyone. People condemn themselves.

The parable of the wicked servant that was forgiven his debt, but would not forgive his neighbor's debt is a great example of that.
No one owes me a debt. So what have I to forgive?

Then allow the homosexual to be free from the law, without having to modify her behavior as a condition of salvation, especially since your body is dead because of sin.
Freedom from the law comes with freedom from sin. And a homosxual who enters into Christ will no longer be a homosexual. For they are no longer a sinner. And their behavor will be affected, not modified. God brings change. It is not a necessity of salvation, it is an effect. As is all repentance.

Allow her body to be dead because of sin, too. And if you don't expect her to modify her behavior as a condition of salvation, then for God's sake don't expect her to cease from what she cannot cease as evidence of her salvation.
We cannot cease from sin, at all. It is Christ who affects us, with grace and love. It is then that we walk in Him, according to the Spirit, and not according to the flesh.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by godrulz

"Born Again" is a metaphor for new life in Christ or spiritual birth from above/anew (see Greek words). It is one of several analogies/metaphors to describe salvation (cf. flesh/sin).

I previously posted the differences between spiritual and physical birth. The context and cultural/grammatical background of Jn. 3 is relevant. Nicodemus made the same mistake taking the metaphor too literally leading to absurdity. Jesus corrected him and showed what spiritual birth is (different than physical birth). You make the logical error of assuming that physical and spiritual birth are identical in every sense. This analogy has been used by OSAS as a feeble argument to support the doctrine. 'You can't be unborn' assumes salvation is metaphysical, not moral or relational. This is a fundamental error.

Life in the Son by Robert Shank (Ch. 7 'Born of God') describes the nature of spiritual rebirth contrasted with physical birth. In the end, it is not an argument to support OSAS.
You know what, forget it. You obviously don't understand it. And you definitely don't have a clue what Christ accomplished on the cross.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

I thought I would step in for a moment to remind everyone that godrulz is FULL OF CRAP!!





"For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

"...whoever believes may in Him have eternal life"

"...whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life".

He who believes in the Son has eternal life!

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life".

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life"

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life"

"I came that they might have life"

"I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand"

"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies"

"And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent"

"...these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

Salvation is life! The life of God! It is eternal!

What do we receive when we believe? LIFE!!


"Go your way, stand and speak to the people in the temple the whole message of this Life"

"For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ"

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."

"...as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord"

"For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me".

"For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God"

"When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory"

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life in Christ Jesus"

"...but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel"

"...being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life"

"And this is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life."

"And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son"

"He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life"

"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life "

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

If you have the Son, you have LIFE! You don't get life, you have life.

"It is the Spirit who gives life "

"He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive"

"...you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

"Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?"

"...your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own"

"for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise"

"And we know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us."

"By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit."

Salvation is receiving the very LIFE of God!

I love you too. I agree with all the above verses. Being born again is receiving the life of God. My issue was that spiritual birth is not identical to physical birth in every sense. This is self-evident.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by LightSon

Interesting.

I tend to side with godrulz on most everthing; I can think of 2 exceptions.

I'm compelled to give this point to Sozo. My salvation (actually the Life of Christ) is given to me based upon the obedience of One (that is Christ), and that salvation is kept by His obedience. My salvation can't be lost based upon my own disobedience.

The Hebrew Christians were warned against returning to Judaism. If they returned to trusting animal sacrifices after trusting Christ (some did= free will; deception of enemy; weakness of flesh), they would not remain 'in Christ' with His promise of eternal life (Heb. 6:4 ff....comments please?).

A modern application would be Charles Templeton who knew Christ and effectively preached the Gospel in great crusades. By the end of his life, he renounced and opposed Christianity and probably died reprobate.

Judas was a true follower of Christ, but rejected Him in the end.

If your Christian child (grew up knowing, loving, and serving God) turns to Satanism and mocks Christianity in the end, he does not have the hope and promises of Christ. Lighthouse would say that he was never a Christian. This is contrary to experience and Scripture (true in many, but not all cases). Others would say they were and are Christians, but God will overlook the Satanism and rebellion because we are 'perfect in Christ' and cannot sin (?sozo).

I believe the more biblical view is that genuine faith must involve continuing in the faith. If we cease to believe (will, intellect=image of God), then our new state reverts to our state of unbelief and its consequences (Hebrews and other passages is clear on the possibility of falling away from the truth). This person may or may not repent in the end.

The root issue is whether salvation is a passive, physical, irreversible change (TULIP) or is it primarily relational and in the realm of morals/choices (repentant faith is a condition of salvation)? The latter does not have to be incompatible with God giving us His life (He just does not foist life on us against our wills, nor does He remove our wills and the possibility of falling from innocence as Lucifer and Adam did...against great light without a 'sin nature').
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by lighthouse

You know what, forget it. You obviously don't understand it. And you definitely don't have a clue what Christ accomplished on the cross.

There are 5 major views on the atonement. The literal payment of a debt/commercial transaction theory is only one possible evangelical view. Albert Barne's and others governmental view (public vs retributive justice) is also a legitimate view held by evangelicals. Your contention is tantamount to saying that only Calvinism (OSAS; TULIP) or Arminianism will save you. There are genuine, godly believers who are Calvinists, Arminians, or Open Theists.

I would not be so dogmatic about the gospel of sozo/lighthouse when you misrepresent other views out of ignorance.
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

I love you too. I agree with all the above verses. Being born again is receiving the life of God. My issue was that spiritual birth is not identical to physical birth in every sense. This is self-evident.

godrulz...

How do you mean that spiritual birth is not identical in any sense?

Is the believer born of the Spirit or not? Are they a new creation or a moral transformation through mental ascent?

Your answer will determine if you are in fact who you claim to be.
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

There are 5 major views on the atonement. The literal payment of a debt/commercial transaction theory is only one possible evangelical view. Albert Barne's and others governmental view (public vs retributive justice) is also a legitimate view held by evangelicals. Your contention is tantamount to saying that only Calvinism (OSAS; TULIP) or Arminianism will save you. There are genuine, godly believers who are Calvinists, Arminians, or Open Theists.

I would not be so dogmatic about the gospel of sozo/lighthouse when you misrepresent other views out of ignorance.

You blind dog!

Are you telling us that God accepts a variety of views that contradict each other?

Give us a break! :rolleyes:
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I said spiritual birth and physical birth are not identical in EVERY sense. YOU said not in ANY sense. Jesus used the metaphor because there are parallels. Nicodemus took it too literally and went beyond what Jesus said and meant. I am suggesting that born again means to be born from above, born anew, etc. (alternate Greek translations). I am suggesting that it does not mean a literal, physical change in our bodies.

Unless we are born of the Spirit, we are not children of God (?Romans). The question is what does it mean to be born of the Spirit?

2 Cor. 5:17 If we are in Christ, we are a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come!

Again, what does this mean? Is it an instant physical change that precludes growth and spiritual maturity? Is it starting new life in Christ with our past sins totally forgiven and a clean slate to live for God rather than Self? I would not read your assumptions back into the text and go beyond what the text is saying to make a big doctrine out of a simple sentence.

Just as there are major views on the atonement, there are also 5 major views on sanctification held by godly evangelicals. The exact relationship between God's provision and man's role/responsibility is debatable. All of us must live the Christian life. The academic understanding of how or why this is done should not cause you to label me a 'Christ-hating pervert'.

You have lost credibility by your assumption that only your unique view is perfect in understanding and all others are impossible or lead to damnation. Your character and intellect is more shallow than you realize. Your pride and arrogance are greater than you realize.

Go pick on someone your own size:p
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

You blind dog!

Are you telling us that God accepts a variety of views that contradict each other?

Give us a break! :rolleyes:

Nope. God wants us to know the truth and not all views are equally valid or true. However, there is a difference between core, essential truth and peripheral truth. The Bible is not a systematic theology book. We must wrestle with doctrine to formulate a correct understanding.

Are you saying that one cannot be a Calvinist, Arminian, or Open Theist and be a genuine Christian?

Are you saying that we must agree on eschatology in every detail to be saved?

Are you saying that if we disagree on consubstantion vs the Zwinglian view of the Lord's Supper that this is a salvation issue?

Modes of baptism?

Spiritual gifts?

Sovereignty vs foreknowledge?

Predestination?

OSAS?

Deity and resurrection of Christ? Yes...this is core, essential truth.

The NT believers differed in doctrine and practice. This has been true through the centuries.

Yet, if anyone here disagrees with sozo's spin on things, they cannot possibly be saved?!

I have defended the Deity of Christ (as you have on your thread) in the face of unbelieving heresy. This is far more important than getting me to understand your view of sanctification!

If God did not accept a variety of academic views on sanctification, the poor new believer in India who cannot read or have a clue about these academic issues could not be saved?!

Lighthouse has not always believed sozo's view, yet he apparently was a true Christian. How is it that I have to bow to your view before I can be a true Christian?

This I know...sozo is not Paul (Paul tolerated a variety of views while proclaiming the true view and leading believers into greater understanding), he is not Jesus (who spoke truth in love), and I am certainly glad sozo is not God, because only 10 family members and friends/7 billion people would be saved?!

God honors faith in the true person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Gospel), not theological excellence and perfection (Jn. 3:16,36; Acts 4:12).

:doh:
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

I am suggesting that it does not mean a literal, physical change in our bodies.
No, it is a complete change of the spirit! That is why it is refered to as being born of the Spirit. Idiot!

I said spiritual birth and physical birth are not identical in EVERY sense. YOU said not in ANY sense.
Hey brainless, I want to know in what sense they are not alike.
The question is what does it mean to be born of the Spirit?
Oh... well... ummm...let's see... :think: Could it possibly mean that the spirit must become something that it never was before? The spirit was alienated to God, dead. To be born of the spirit is to reveive life to the spirit, the Life of God.

Gee... that was tough. :rolleyes:
2 Cor. 5:17 If we are in Christ, we are a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come!

Again, what does this mean?

First of all, I fully understand why you would ask what that means, because those who are NOT born again (like yourself) are incapable of comprehending the things of God.

It means that we are a new creation. Who we were (dead) is no longer true. Who we are (alive) is now true.

Is it an instant physical change that precludes growth and spiritual maturity?
The physical body is still dead to God. The spirit is alive to God and now has the capicity to be taught the things of God through the Spirit which now dwells in us.
Is it starting new life in Christ with our past sins totally forgiven and a clean slate to live for God rather than Self?
It is not a "clean slate" doofus. The slate was nailed to the cross.
Just as there are major views on the atonement, there are also 5 major views on sanctification held by godly evangelicals.
Who gives a flying rip! There is only ONE truth regarding the reality of sanctification, NOT 5! And only a completely Godless Christ hating jerk would be stupid enough to think that God tolerates any thing else than the truth of what sanctification actually is!
The exact relationship between God's provision and man's role/responsibility is debatable
I'm sure God's thrilled with your diplomacy.
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

God wants us to know the truth and not all views are equally valid or true.
But you have no problem with accepting at least 5 of them.
However, there is a difference between core, essential truth and peripheral truth.
So why do you reject the core, essential truth that anyone who preaches another gospel concerning the revelation of the righteousness of God is not saved.
Are you saying that one cannot be a Calvinist, Arminian, or Open Theist and be a genuine Christian?
I am saying that anyone from one of those camps who preaches another gospel concerning the righteousness of God is not saved.
Are you saying that we must agree on eschatology in every detail to be saved?
If the eschatological teaching does not agree with the gospel that reveals the righteousness of God.
Are you saying that if we disagree on consubstantion vs the Zwinglian view of the Lord's Supper that this is a salvation issue?
If it adds to or detracts from the righteousness of God, then it is a core essential issue.
Modes of baptism?
Same answer
Spiritual gifts?
see above
Sovereignty vs foreknowledge?
see above
Predestination?
see above
see above
Deity and resurrection of Christ?
see above
The NT believers differed in doctrine and practice. This has been true through the centuries.
So... what's your point?
I have defended the Deity of Christ (as you have on your thread) in the face of unbelieving heresy. This is far more important than getting me to understand your view of sanctification!
No it's not. Believing the gospel that reveals the rightousness of God is far more important than the deity of Christ.
If God did not accept a variety of academic views on sanctification, the poor new believer in India who cannot read or have a clue about these academic issues could not be saved?!
The new believer in India would have needed to hear the gospel to be saved. If you preached to him the gospel that YOU believe, he could never be saved.
How is it that I have to bow to your view before I can be a true Christian?
You do not bow to my view, you bow to the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus... something you repeatedly fail to do.
 

Lawless

New member
Quote: godrulz

The Hebrew Christians were warned against returning to Judaism. If they returned to trusting animal sacrifices after trusting Christ (some did= free will; deception of enemy; weakness of flesh), they would not remain 'in Christ' with His promise of eternal life (Heb. 6:4 ff....comments please?).


I'll try to comment:

The book of Hebrews was written to the " Hebrews " not to the boby of christ.
Do you remember the controversy between Paul , and Peter? Paul did not want his "gospel" that he preach to be put back under the Law.
Peter and the hebrews on the other hand were not of the "Body of Christ" which is ( not under Law), but Peter and the hebrews were of the"Kingdom of Christ" which was under the Law. During the thousand year reign of Christ in the kingdom (Isreal) He ( Christ) will reign with a rod of Iron!!.....That's Law! There is a differance between the two. Hope this helps.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by godrulz

There are 5 major views on the atonement. The literal payment of a debt/commercial transaction theory is only one possible evangelical view. Albert Barne's and others governmental view (public vs retributive justice) is also a legitimate view held by evangelicals. Your contention is tantamount to saying that only Calvinism (OSAS; TULIP) or Arminianism will save you. There are genuine, godly believers who are Calvinists, Arminians, or Open Theists.

I would not be so dogmatic about the gospel of sozo/lighthouse when you misrepresent other views out of ignorance.
I am not a Calvinist, or Arminianist. I'm an Open Theist, and you know that. And I never said that opposite beliefs on some things determines whether or not your saved. But only the truth will make you free.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Zakath

I'm not the one shutting off my brain everytime I think of religion... ;)
If I shut off my brain when I thought of religion, then I would still think Sozo was an idiot, and a heretic. And you are the one who doesn't give any credence to any religion, or theology. You won't even study any, or seek to find out if any are true. So you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite, by accusing me of what it is that you do. There's a plank in your eye.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Lawless

Quote: godrulz




I'll try to comment:

The book of Hebrews was written to the " Hebrews " not to the boby of christ.
Do you remember the controversy between Paul , and Peter? Paul did not want his "gospel" that he preach to be put back under the Law.
Peter and the hebrews on the other hand were not of the "Body of Christ" which is ( not under Law), but Peter and the hebrews were of the"Kingdom of Christ" which was under the Law. During the thousand year reign of Christ in the kingdom (Isreal) He ( Christ) will reign with a rod of Iron!!.....That's Law! There is a differance between the two. Hope this helps.

Mid-Acts dispensationalism? Enyart? Hebrews was written to Hebrew CHRISTIANS, as opposed to those with Gentile background. There is only one type of Christ after the resurrection of Christ (neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, but one in Christ). Hebrews was written to a different target audience and group of churches (cf. Colossians was not directed at the Church in Phillipi, though the letters were applicable and often circulated; Corinthians dealt with problems in the Corinthian church, though the principles were applicable to all churches). There are not 2 gospels. There are believers from different backgrounds. Hebrews does resonate with those from a Jewish background. Its principles apply to all believers. Mid-Acts is controversial and an unlikely view (there are 2 target audiences in the early church, not 2 different gospels after the resurrection).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top