What is the Gospel?

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
I am a non-believer interested in knowing what the good news is. I ask because, in my experience, Christians do not seem to agree on the specifics. One might point to the issue of the scope of Christ's salvific provision as being particularly relevant.

If the Gospel isn't clearly defined then, surely, the non-believer may legitimately ask, 'Believe in what?'

Dear Brother... Sonnet...

I’ve followed this thread and grown angry at any insinuation that Jesus didn’t die for all. I wonder why a wretch like me gets so angry at lesser wretches than myself in theological discussions... but then I remembered... I’m “Barabbas”...

What is the gospel and why is it so divided? Because men like to create an “Inside” to claim... Men like to say... I’m on the Inside and all the rest that aren’t as I are on the outside. Men like to think words save and ideas save and theology saves... but M8... from my heart... we are all Barabbas...

I found this video and I genuinely back its every word... because whoever this is... whatever else they’ve said... I don’t care... because they GOT THIS 8 minutes right...

Sonnet... Hebrews 13:13 shows that Christ looks and travels outside the camp... and I love all, and fail at loving all, as well... but I will speak as sincere as I can...

If you tell a child to Love... it comes natural... if you tell a child to hate... they must learn how to hate... Children don’t hate other skin colors, religions, people not of their sexual orientations, people of a different country, people of any differing view point... Children love naturally...

They learn to hate from fellow humanity! So... What is the Gospel?

If someone says Jesus didn’t die for all and they say that to a child that has been taught age old songs like “Jesus Loves Me”... the child instantly will know that person is a liar!

I think this video says much... and I’ll post one more... immediately after...

But... Sonnet... It’s not okay for anyone to defend the idea that Jesus didn’t die for all. That is the real ABOMINATION... and Sonnet... it is Blasphemy against the Spirit of Grace...

We are all forgiven debtors... and woe unto us when we beat our fellow forgiven debtors for any reason whatsoever!

I am indignant that fancy words spoken here attempt to empty the cross of its power, but I can only forgive those that do so... because I am “Barabbas”...


[MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] ...

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] ...

[MENTION=11892]blackbirdking[/MENTION]

[MENTION=15579]1Mind1Spirit[/MENTION] (you reminded me of 1 Timothy 4:10)... And...

Thanks for shooting straight about the Gospel...

[MENTION=5235]RightDivider[/MENTION] ... I’m sorry I ever suggested we should ever be at peace with anyone that tries to replace the Cross with a Tulip... or any other lie that “Limit’s” God Incarnate!

[MENTION=15685]musterion[/MENTION] ... Your blunt honesty about “TULIP” is forever justified...

Jesus... did exactly as scripture says...

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe

[MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION] ... many will answer to Jesus for smearing those words of scripture and for using vein sophistry to suggest anything else... and to those Barabbas’s ... I say... may God show you the same Grace He shows me...

All Love in Christ to you...

[MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION]
 
Last edited:

glorydaz

Well-known member
I don't know why folks don't get this.
It's no different than the concept of free samples at the supermarket.
They are free for all, and you can choose to take it or pass it by and do without.

And I see than Lon has already shown the correlation to Israel in the wilderness being bitten by snakes.
Moses had a brazen serpent on a pole made and raised it up as a free cure if they looked upon it for free healing.
Those that looked upon it for free healing were cured.
Those that didn't were not cured.
Which is prophetic of the like manner of Crist being lifted up.

John 3:14-15
(14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Right, I don't get it. It's so simple. :idunno:


A bone of contention that has no flavour or smell and doesn't even look tasty.

I think it's a decoy. :dog:
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Who was the idiot that said that? You want perfect knowledge of what God's will is in regards to being saved? Read the book God wrote! It's the self same book that tells us what the gospel is in the first place or that there even is a gospel, for that matter.

Who was the idiot that took that paragraph out of context would be the better question.
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Oh dear, the Evil One has risen as Barabbas, and he's "angry" once again.:comeout:

I forgive you from my heart for what you have done on this thread and regret expressing my anger in poor taste. I must say... I was as sincere as I could be... On the matter... but I also recognize I Fail Christ daily and whatever is driving you to desire to stir up contention ... and discourage Sonnet... through demand and pride... of your own choosing... is no more condemnable than anything any human being is guilty of...

We all need Jesus and in this... I find peace..

:e4e:

I’m sorry you dislike being wrong so much... but if I conceded to the idea that Jesus didn’t die for all... I would be speaking against the Spirit of Love that indwells all that will surrender to Him...

So... I know you feel inclined as if you had St. Vitas dance to keep railing against anyone in this thread that dare puts witness and Christ’s gesture of Love to ALL as 1 Timothy 4:10 says... Above your INCORRECT opinion...

But... you are wrong. No amount of theological contortions can Free you from your error.

So I have two choices...

1) wait for you to apologize to all that you have misrepresented here... in support of the doctrine of (Limited Atonement)

2) wait for hell to freeze over...

I’m waiting for hell to freeze over.

:e4e:
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you t Lk a child to Love... it comes natural... if you tell a child to hate... they must learn how to hate... Children don’t hate other skin colors, religions, people not of their sexual orientations, people of a different country, people of any differing view point... Children love naturally...

They learn to hate from fellow humanity!
Infants are born whiny selfish little love terrorists.
Everything is me me me RIGHT NOW!
You have to guide them (sometimes by threat) to not snatch another kids toy, to not hit someone when they don't get their way, to not throw a tantrum, to stay away from things they have no business with, and to stay away from people they have no business being with, etc.
And when you tell them "NO" they look at you like who the hell do you think you are, and go right on doing the same thing.
They finally straighten up a bit when they realize there is an additional aspect to his action if he does not heed the "NO". SPANK!
At this point you might have a chance with them.

They may be cute and tiny and helpless, but a love machine they are not.
They should thank their parents every day for the rest of their lives that they showed enough restraint and patience to not strangle them before they reached childhood.

:D
 

Derf

Well-known member
Yes - thus the salvation offer is genuine. Nobody is without access - but we know that the Reformed movement teaches otherwise.
They do and they don't. What they say is that since we don't know who God will choose for salvation, anybody that we come in contact might be one that God will choose (has chosen). Thus, in terms of how applicable Jesus' sacrifice is to a particular person--we only know if they believe or don't believe during their life. Since their life isn't over, and our knowledge is limited, they may or may not be one of the chosen.

If that bothers you, then you don't have to believe in Calvinism--that would be my recommendation, and the path I took. But rejecting the gospel as you seem to understand it (not Calvinism) because of how someone that you disagree with (a Calvinist) believes is foolish in the extreme.

So, for example, 30 pieces of silver instead of 20 was achieved by God implanting the thought in the chief priests' minds? And God foreknew Judas's intentions? Genuine ability to do other than what might have been predetermined must, surely, render the betrayal as unsure?
I used the word "twiddle" as a way of being vague enough to be accurate. I may have a hard time defining "twiddle". You may have the same difficulty with "implanting". For instance, if God used "30 pieces of silver" in 3 passages in the Old Testament, and the priests knew the Old Testament front to back, does that count as "implanting" in someone's mind? Were other factors at play to make them offer 30 pieces, such as the going rate for betrayal in Jesus' time?

Is Judas necessary in the scenario? From how far back? Seems like Jesus knew it at least as early as when He chose the 12 (John 6:64, 70-71). Maybe Jesus even chose him because He knew his heart. And maybe he knew exactly the things to say that would cause Judas to betray Him, based on his inclinations, but it was only external stimulation (not internal twiddling). Jesus knew before the other disciples that Judas was pilfering from the money bag. And He knew Nathaniel had no guile in him, so He likely knew that Judas had some guile, and knew what kind it was. Maybe Jesus gave him charge of the money bag because it would fan the greedy flame in his heart, and maybe Jesus caused the money bag to be empty right at the right time (and perhaps some investment of Judas's to fail) at exactly the right time for him to need some quick cash. And maybe, just to enflame Judas's mind with a desire to get the money however he could, a young woman might bring an expensive vial of perfume and "waste it" on Jesus in front of Judas (John 12:3-7). Maybe Jesus's rebuke of Judas's fake concern for the poor was enough to send him over the edge to go immediately to the chief priests and ask for money for betrayal (Mat 26:13-14)*.

Are Judas's intentions necessary? Is it possible there were factors from his parents or grandparents or friends or some disagreement between him and other disciples, or...or...or...?

Would it have been possible to do it a different way and still fulfill the prophecies?

What if the priests captured Judas and tortured him, and he was too weak to withhold the info they wanted (where to find Jesus away from crowds)?

I don't know the answer to these questions, and I suspect neither do you. To suggest we have found or can find a way to show that God isn't the way He says He is is likely a fool's errand.


I have to admit it - yes.
Is it then possible that your preconceptions have clouded your judgment of the creation story and even Balaam's talking donkey?

Maybe I should ask this way: Do you see anything impossible in the creation story?



? The call is to trust and believe Jesus. What other alternative is there?
I'm certainly not trying to offer an alternative plan of salvation. All I'm saying is that our whole heart and soul and mind and strength should be involved in our trusting and believing Jesus. And that isn't necessarily at the very beginning of our belief--it should grow into a wholehearted, whole-minded, whole-souled (whatever that means), and whole-strengthed trust.


-----------------------
* To continue the story:
Maybe the reason the young woman poore such an expensive vial of perfume on Jesus' head is because she was so grateful for some great service Jesus had done for her or her family.

Maybe that service was that he raised her brother from the dead.

Maybe that brother was dead because Jesus had taken so long to go see him after He had heard that he was sick.

Maybe Jesus took so long to go see him because He wanted him to die so that God would be glorified, and not God only, but Jesus as well.

Is it possible, then, that Jesus had multiple things in mind when He delayed going to see Lazarus, the young woman's brother? 1. that the religious rulers would have no excuse, because even Lazarus was sent back from the dead (Luke 16:19-31), and 2. that it would trigger Judas to do what was necessary at the right time for Jesus to be put to death during the passover?

And what about a third: Is it possible that Mary was not fully committed to Jesus--that she had a faith issue? I get this from a few pieces of information:
1. Mary's limited confession in Jhn 11:32, vs. Martha's full-orbed (though of limited understanding) confession in Jhn 11:21-27.
2. Jesus' admonition to Martha that Mary had chosen the good thing in sitting and listening to Him instead of serving others (Luk 10:38-42). AND
3. Mary's very emotional response to Jesus' presence in Jhn 12:3.

I'm speculating on some of this stuff, but it seems to me that Jesus was providing the necessary events for Mary (and Martha and Lazarus), and the disciples (including Judas), and even the chief priests and pharisees (Jhn 11:45-47) (brothers of the rich man in Luk 16:28?) to grow their faith in Him from whatever point their faith was at. Note that it was not effective in all cases (as Jesus had predicted in Luk 16).

Jesus meets us where we are. He came for sinners and for those whose faith is weak. Even though Abraham was unwilling to send Lazarus back from the dead, Jesus WAS willing, and many believed because of this, probably resulting in the triumphal entry--Jhn 12:9-13. But He knows men's hearts, whether they be open or closed to Him.

It's a good prayer to pray for more faith--you're giving God the permission to provide the evidence, from whatever wonderful storehouses He has, of His love and plans for good for you, if you will accept them.

And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. [Mar 9:24 KJV]
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Who was the idiot that took that paragraph out of context would be the better question.

I’ve debated with [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] before and I’m fairly certain he knows there is no way to take that quote “out of context”...

I’m also sorry you desire to insinuate the OP is an idiot... as it’s pretty clear he doesn’t believe the correctly quoted words that you have been supporting for over 20 pages of posts...

You made an error... and you picked the wrong (hoarse) horse* to bet on... cut your losses... humble up and admit Jesus died for all as 1 Timothy 4:10 says... or remain in indefensible error...

# I know which one you’ll pick... but won’t spoil it for everyone else.
 
Last edited:

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Infants are born whiny selfish little love terrorists.
Everything is me me me RIGHT NOW!
You have to guide them (sometimes by threat) to not snatch another kids toy, to not hit someone when they don't get their way, to not throw a tantrum, to stay away from things they have no business with, and to stay away from people they have no business being with, etc.
And when you tell them "NO" they look at you like who the hell do you think you are, and go right on doing the same thing.
They finally straighten up a bit when they realize there is an additional aspect to his action if he does not heed the "NO". SPANK!
At this point you might have a chance with them.

They may be cute and tiny and helpless, but a love machine they are not.
They should thank their parents every day for the rest of their lives that they showed enough restraint and patience to not strangle them before they reached childhood.

:D

Need for food? Need for Love? Need for Nurture?

Terrorism?

 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I’ve debated with @Clete before and I’m fairly certain he knows there is no way to take that quote “out of context”...

I’m also sorry you desire to insinuate the OP is an idiot... as it’s pretty clear he doesn’t believe the correctly quoted words that you have been supporting for over 20 pages of posts...

You made an error... and you picked the wrong hoarse to bet on... cut your losses... humble up and admit Jesus died for all as 1 Timothy 4:10 says... or remain in indefensible error...

# I know which one you’ll pick... but won’t spoil it for everyone else.
Are you trying to say that the death of Jesus saved all?
Cause I can pretty much guarantee that Clete does not believe that.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I’ve debated with [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] before and I’m fairly certain he knows there is no way to take that quote “out of context”...

I’m also sorry you desire to insinuate the OP is an idiot... as it’s pretty clear he doesn’t believe the correctly quoted words that you have been supporting for over 20 pages of posts...

You made an error... and you picked the wrong hoarse to bet on... cut your losses... humble up and admit Jesus died for all as 1 Timothy 4:10 says... or remain in indefensible error...

# I know which one you’ll pick... but won’t spoil it for everyone else.

I don't bet on "hoarses". :chuckle:

Admit the provision is not accepted by all.

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;​

Admit believing is the condition for having one's sins forgiven.

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

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

You're just so angry with me for calling you out that you've allowed yourself to come unglued.

When you read a verse, you must compare it to other verses, and that's where you fail.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
So I have two choices...

1) wait for you to apologize to all that you have misrepresented here... in support of the doctrine of (Limited Atonement)

2) wait for hell to freeze over...

I’m waiting for hell to freeze over.

:e4e:

And all I have to wait for is you to have another tantrum. :chuckle:
 

blackbirdking

New member
I guess I really got to you with that one, didn't I? Please note that my "end result is the same" comment is limited to the effect of Christ's death in the two views, and not beyond that. The effect/result of Christ's atonement being limited in scope of who it is meant for is the same in terms of who is saved as the the effect/result being only for those who accept/believe it. The mechanism (the "how it works" answer) is a separate issue, and worth the discussion (that's why I'm glad Sonnet hasn't closed the thread).

Everyone receives benefit from Christ's atonement. It is for the non-believer, or the non-believer would be required to not believe. The atonement does something for every man.
It makes it possible for each man to believe. Making it possible for every man to believe, is doing something for every man. If Christ died not for a man, it is impossible for that man to ever believe. Christ's death did something for every man, therefore, Christ died for every man; not only when that man believes.


I tend to think of it in terms of the preciousness of Christ's blood and suffering. If God knows (by whatever means) that, say, 1 billion people will believe, and Jesus' suffering needs to account for that, does it make sense for Him to suffer enough for 10 billion people? Is God sadistic to His own son? (This assumes, of course, a one-for-one relationship between the penalty and Christ's suffering.) And once put in those terms, it is certainly a character of God issue! A question of how much does He love His son.
"If God knows" that a man will not believe, and thereby limits the atonement, it is impossible for that man to believe. Therefore, that man can never make any decision concerning the atonement, and is damned, which is why Calvinism has more points.
Foreknowledge is the existence of something that people pretend doesn't exist; it predetermines 'free will'.
Foreknowledge eliminates God ever having done anything, because it already exists, and nothing ever will be, that He hasn't experienced; and everything that ever will be, always was. Tell me, is God's anger ever kindled? How so?

Christ gave all He could give, everything. He could not give any more. He could not have died for more; He emptied Himself. Every man is benefited by His death.

Your assumption that God doesn't know who is going to be saved is where I am, too, but that is a "nature of God" issue, not a "character of God" issue. The measure of the character of God depends on His nature and the nature of His creation. Again, this goes back to the boy who made a puppy. If he made the puppy, he has the right to destroy the puppy, doesn't he? If it were a work of art, beautiful to all who behold it, beloved the world over (think "Mona Lisa" perhaps), and the boy (who is also a great painter), prior to selling it to anyone, decided to destroy it, would he be guilty of any crime?

Are these examples the same, since it's the same boy? No--because "art" doesn't have feelings. That's one aspect of the "nature of His creation" part of the issue. If I don't forget, I'll come back to this.

Ok, let's talk "bad".
This is disingenuous of you, but maybe I brought it on myself with the emphatic quote marks. What's funny is that your conclusion, supposedly from what I wrote, is one that you seem to purport, like here:
Bad isn't "the things men do to deserve hell", bad is choosing hell over the love of God; therefore , telling a man that Christ died for him, is of utmost importance.
Thus, nothing is deserving of hell except wanting to go to hell. But if God gives man what He wants, is that not loving? Are you now saying God's love is "bad"? I'm confused.
Do you have kids...?
You assume that 'choosing' and 'wanting' are the same thing.
[And do the devil and His angels want to go to hell? If that's who hell was prepared for, and they don't seem to have any option, are we talking about a similar situation?]

I'm sorry for demurring on your "what is bad" question previously. But can we do better than "whatever sends us to hell"? What was "bad" in the Garden of Eden? Eating some fruit. Why was it bad? Because God said so. And because of something that would happen when they ate of the fruit. Did God need to tell them what would happen if they ate the fruit? No, but He did anyway, at least some of it. Satan told them some more, but not completely accurately. Thus I can add to my definition of "bad" to say it as "what God doesn't want".
I'm not sure if what you're saying is what you mean.
I think eating the fruit was good; it showed the truth of what had already happened. Without the fruit, Man would never have known that he was guilty of something. Eating the fruit showed the damage that had already happened to the God/Man relationship.


God may have any number of reasons for wanting us to do (or not do) certain things, but He isn't required to tell us why (after all, who would punish Him?). Now, God gave a direct warning about eating the fruit--that they would die. Did God want them to die? No, at least not before they ate the fruit. Did He want them to die afterward? Yes and no! His love for them said no, but His love for Himself said yes.
Here again there is something more:

I believe God wanted man to die, after eating the fruit; that is if by 'want', you mean 'desire'.
There is no, "Yes and no!". All of God agrees with all of God. All of God wanted Man to die after eating fruit. God knew Man would die if he ate and that's why He warned Man. God also knew that there was another tree; why did He boot man from the Garden? It answers your question about what God wanted.

What if Man would have eaten from the other tree also?

Which love was stronger??? Is it possible for God to love Himself less than one of His creations? That love could be called "justice". And to weaken justice is to give up His sovereignty (see this post to [MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION] for more on God's sovereignty). Can God deny His own sovereignty in order to love His creations? I'd say No. And this principle is embodied in the greatest commandment: "Love God above all else" (my paraphrase).

I cannot agree with your usage of the word 'love'. God's love for man does not compete with God's love for Himself. Justice is not something God does, rather, it is something He is; it's His uncompromisable goodness. Anything that departs from God's goodness (being agreeable with God) becomes bad. Man did not die because he became bad, but because he was bound by a law that God had established to protect him. God did not want Man, in his current condition after the fall, to live forever. Man would have been forever realizing his shame and guilt.
So, answer #1 to question "What is bad"? Not loving God more than anything else.
I don't think so; bad is believing God is bad. What did Satan tell Man?
Also, love is not something to be forced; it is a result of believing something is good.
How do we love God? Jesus said the parts of us that need to love God are: all our Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength. Can I interpret those to mean in our desires (heart), our thoughts (mind), what we do (soul), and the effort we expend in each of the foregoing (strength)? (I'm a little weak on the "soul". Any suggestions?)

How do we do that? Jesus told us that if we love him, we will keep his commandments. (John 14:21, Matt 5:19, Luke 6:46, Mark 3:35). Is it possible that we could love God without keeping His commandments? Or at least without wanting to keep His commandments ("all our heart")?
A man must believe God is good; love automatically follows.
I think I've back-doored my way into your other question: My answer is, "Why would anyone who loves God NOT want to submit to Him?"

Again, submission follows love, love follows believing something is good.
A man who believes God died for only some men, struggles against the goodness of God.
 
Top