ECT The Gospel of God

[Nang]

What exactly is the Gospel of God?

This quote from glorydaz prompts this question. She claims:

"I would point out that the Gospel is a matter of believing in our HEARTS...not believing with our mouths or even our heads."

And I am led to ask, is the Gospel a matter of what we believe? Or is the Gospel the truth of what God has promised and done.

IOW's, is the Gospel message about us, or about God?

I say the latter.

The Gospel is not what sinners might believe, but it is the scriptural message of what God has provided to save His children. The sacrifice of His Son.

Thus, the Gospel has nothing to do with us, but all to do with God and His works of grace.

That is the premise of only one Gospel, versus many gospels.

The entire history of mankind, centers around what God has done since the fall of Adam to atone and deliver and redeem His fallen creatures under many circumstances. Their salvation is in His hands alone; ultimately demonstrated and achieved in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ alone.

That is the Gospel message. It is all about and only about what God has done.

(The gospel is not about human compliance, obedience, religious beliefs, church dogma, charitable works, etc. or whether "the Gospel is a matter of believing in our HEARTS...not believing with our mouths or even our heads.")

Nang

 

[Interplanner]

why is it so hard for people to distinguish cause and effect today, or subject and object?

The Gospel was a historic event. Our response to it is not "the good news" but is a side effect of.

 

[jsanford108]

The Gospel of God

What exactly is the Gospel of God?

This quote from glorydaz prompts this question. She claims:

"I would point out that the Gospel is a matter of believing in our HEARTS...not believing with our mouths or even our heads."

And I am led to ask, is the Gospel a matter of what we believe? Or is the Gospel the truth of what God has promised and done.

IOW's, is the Gospel message about us, or about God?

I say the latter.

The Gospel is not what sinners might believe, but it is the scriptural message of what God has provided to save His children. The sacrifice of His Son.

Thus, the Gospel has nothing to do with us, but all to do with God and His works of grace.

That is the premise of only one Gospel, versus many gospels.

The entire history of mankind, centers around what God has done since the fall of Adam to atone and deliver and redeem His fallen creatures under many circumstances. Their salvation is in His hands alone; ultimately demonstrated and achieved in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ alone.

That is the Gospel message. It is all about and only about what God has done.

(The gospel is not about human compliance, obedience, religious beliefs, church dogma, charitable works, etc. or whether "the Gospel is a matter of believing in our HEARTS...not believing with our mouths or even our heads.")

Nang

I would agree that the Gospel is a fact, but obedience and belief are results of that fact.

God created man. This is a fact. Yet some people do not believe this. That is also a fact. Belief in a truth is still an act of will. So, while I understand your point, Nang, I believe you may have mistaken what glorydaz meant, or others when they speak of belief. Granted, I do not actually know this, as I am ignorant to the conversation you are referring to.

I hope this helped. If not, just negate it.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nang]

I would agree that the Gospel is a fact, but obedience and belief are results of that fact.

So, is the Gospel an objective message about God, or a subjective observation about us?

Nang, I believe you may have mistaken what glorydaz meant, or others when they speak of belief.

Belief is the effect of God's grace, not the cause . . so when anyone says WHAT they believe is the only "gospel" and cause of their salvation, they prove to be off track and subjective regarding the true, objective Gospel cause.

 

[Nang]

why is it so hard for people to distinguish cause and effect today, or subject and object?

The Gospel was a historic event. Our response to it is not "the good news" but is a side effect of.

Exactly . . so our "response" is not the cause of the Gospel, right?

Our response of belief is the evidential effect of the Gospel.

And the one true Gospel of God has been revealed since the beginning of time, in one historic (biblical) event after another. All events providentially testifying to the promised and atoning, forgiving, delivering, redeeming, saving grace of God towards His people.

My only point . . .

The Gospel of God IS His objective Truth; not our subjective beliefs.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Romans 1:1-4 (KJV)

Pretty simple.

 

[jsanford108]

So, is the Gospel an objective message about God, or a subjective observation about us?




Belief is the effect of God's grace, not the cause . . so when anyone says WHAT they believe is the only "gospel" and cause of their salvation, they prove to be off track and subjective regarding the true, objective Gospel cause.

The Gospel is objective. I was not in disagreement with you.

I am simply asserting that people can believe or dismiss fact (a bad and grave decision, in the case of the Gospel). Some, as you highlight, say they "only believe the Gospel," when in fact, they are dismissing aspects and teachings found therein. In essence, they do not really believe, as you stated, but instead create their version of "gospel," errant to the objective truth.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

Romans 1:1-4 (KJV)

Pretty simple.

Only if you believe the Bible.

 

[Interplanner]

Only if you believe the Bible.

You don't know your Bibles and you don't know our culture. It is at war on objective truth. A person has to ask whether the Bible only meant a subjective faith or was talking about objective truth. It's the latter.

It is obviously made much more difficult by D'ism because it changes the normal meaning of everything in the NT to a maze, a labyrinth, an esoteric knowledge. Chunks of the NT are not for Gentiles to read. A kingdom that is not a legal entity is chided as nonsense. The Seed is supposed to be Christ, but D'ists complicate it all with their 2 programs that they think are running in the NT. Even though Lk 21 and I Th 1 say all of God's wrath has been poured out on Israel, the only thing D'ists are interested in is a future race of Israel in its land that is said to be eternal, even though the earth is destroyed by God's fire and fury and a NHNE is made. In short, D'ism forces irrationality to be seen as normal.

A person's response to the cross is not the Gospel, and no 'invitation' type language when wanting someone to respond is the Gospel. The Gospel is the fact that God was in Christ fixing the debt of sin for mankind, who may enjoy that solution by faith in Christ.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You don't know your Bibles and you don't know our culture. It is at war on objective truth. A person has to ask whether the Bible only meant a subjective faith or was talking about objective truth. It's the latter.

It is obviously made much more difficult by D'ism because it changes the normal meaning of everything in the NT to a maze, a labyrinth, an esoteric knowledge. Chunks of the NT are not for Gentiles to read. A kingdom that is not a legal entity is chided as nonsense. The Seed is supposed to be Christ, but D'ists complicate it all with their 2 programs that they think are running in the NT. Even though Lk 21 and I Th 1 say all of God's wrath has been poured out on Israel, the only thing D'ists are interested in is a future race of Israel in its land that is said to be eternal, even though the earth is destroyed by God's fire and fury and a NHNE is made. In short, D'ism forces irrationality to be seen as normal.

A person's response to the cross is not the Gospel, and no 'invitation' type language when wanting someone to respond is the Gospel. The Gospel is the fact that God was in Christ fixing the debt of sin for mankind, who may enjoy that solution by faith in Christ.

Made up, commentary speak.

 

[Right Divider]

You don't know your Bibles and you don't know our culture. It is at war on objective truth. A person has to ask whether the Bible only meant a subjective faith or was talking about objective truth. It's the latter.

Talk about irony.... look in a mirror sometime if you want to see someone that needs to know the Bible.

 

[Danoh]

Romans 1:1-4 (KJV)

Pretty simple.

More like, only if you believe your understanding of what Paul meant in Romans 1:1-4, is sound.

Your understanding of it is off, because your approach to it is off.

Fact is, that there is often a difference between any word, phrase, or passage meaning what it says, and what it means by what it says.

And how one approaches a thing, impacts what one ends up concluding.

Case in point, of the above distinction.

John 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 11:12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 11:13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

When the Lord said to the Twelve "Lazarus sleepeth" He'd meant what He'd said.

In other words, He'd meant it; He wasn't, joking, for example.

At the same time, what He'd meant by that turned out to be, not that the guy was "counting zzzs"* but that he was dead.

...there is often a difference between the fact that any word, phrase, or passage means what it says, and what it means by what it says.

Those who, for example, believe in soul sleep, use that account in John 11, as one of their proof texts.

They believe He'd meant what He said, at the same time; they fail to understand what He had actually meant by it.

Due to their study approach.

Anyway, perhaps someone else on here will be challenged by this post to reflect on the distinction between the two :chuckle:

Nehemia 8:8, 12.
Acts 17:11,12.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8

__________________

* Just as the phrase "counting zzzs" does not mean what it appears to, at the same time that the individual using it as a descriptive, means what he said.

 

[DAN P]

More like, only if you believe your understanding of what Paul meant in Romans 1:1-4, is sound.

Your understanding of it is off, because your approach to it is off.

Fact is, that there is often a difference between any word, phrase, or passage meaning what it says, and what it means by what it says.

And how one approaches a thing, impacts what one ends up concluding.

Case in point, of the above distinction.

John 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 11:12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 11:13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

When the Lord said to the Twelve "Lazarus sleepeth" He'd meant what He'd said.

In other words, He'd meant it; He wasn't, joking, for example.

At the same time, what He'd meant by that turned out to be, not that the guy was "counting zzzs"* but that he was dead.

...there is often a difference between the fact that any word, phrase, or passage means what it says, and what it means by what it says.

Those who, for example, believe in soul sleep, use that account in John 11, as one of their proof texts.

They believe He'd meant what He said, at the same time; they fail to understand what He had actually meant by it.

Due to their study approach.

Anyway, perhaps someone else on here will be challenged by this post to reflect on the distinction between the two :chuckle:

Nehemia 8:8, 12.
Acts 17:11,12.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8

__________________

* Just as the phrase "counting zzzs" does not mean what it appears to, at the same time that the individual using it as a descriptive, means what he said.

Hi and STP quoted the right verse and Paul is ONLY 2 people that use this phrase " THE GOSPEL OF GOD by Paul 6 times !!

#1 Rom 1:1

#2 , Rom 15:16

#3 , 1 Cor 11:7

#4, 1 Thess 2:2

#5, 1 Thess 2:8

#6 1 Thess 2:9

And these examples concern the MYSTERY GOSPEL , so Gospel just means good news about God !!

And there is one that Peter uses in 1 Peter 4:17 BUT it concerns the Gospel of the Kingdom message to Israel !!

dan p

 

[Interplanner]

Talk about irony.... look in a mirror sometime if you want to see someone that needs to know the Bible.

You must mean something else, because people who don't know their bibles can't write material like 10 propositions about NT eschatology.

What you mean is I'm not D'ist. Which to me is like hearing that I'm not Mormon, and I howl each time.

 

[Danoh]

Hi and STP quoted the right verse and Paul is ONLY 2 people that use this phrase " THE GOSPEL OF GOD by Paul 6 times !!

#1 Rom 1:1

#2 , Rom 15:16

#3 , 1 Cor 11:7

#4, 1 Thess 2:2

#5, 1 Thess 2:8

#6 1 Thess 2:9

And these examples concern the MYSTERY GOSPEL , so Gospel just means good news about God !!

And there is one that Peter uses in 1 Peter 4:17 BUT it concerns the Gospel of the Kingdom message to Israel !!

dan p

lol, you're more in agreement with me there then you are with him and his pals.

Their mis-understanding is that all seven of those references refer to that which was PROPHESIED.

But basically, the gospel of God refers to God's good news.

It is a generic phrase.

When Paul uses it, he is referring to that aspect of the gospel of Christ within the gospel God he was called unto that was a Mystery until Paul.

In contrast, Peter's use of it refers to that aspect of the gospel of Christ within the gospel of God, that was Prophesied.

My wasted point to him/them was that he/they are misinterpreting what Paul means by it.

The phrase the gospel of God is generic.

In both uses, it concerns His Son.

In one, as He was Prophesied within PROGRESSIVE Revelation.

In the other, according to that which was kept secret since the world began, until Paul - a NEW Revelation altogether.

That is not how STP and company see that.

In short, pay attention, DP :chuckle:

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You must mean something else, because people who don't know their bibles can't write material like 10 propositions about NT eschatology.

:chuckle:

Sure they can, if they make up stuff....like you do.

 

[Right Divider]

You must mean something else, because people who don't know their bibles can't write material like 10 propositions about NT eschatology.

:mock: "Real writer" and "grammar scholar"?

Your material simply shows your totally WRONG bias and ridiculous theories about "NT interp". That's no threat, at all, to the rest of us that properly understand the Bible.

What you mean is I'm not D'ist. Which to me is like hearing that I'm not Mormon, and I howl each time.

:french:

 

[Danoh]

You must mean something else, because people who don't know their bibles can't write material like 10 propositions about NT eschatology.

What you mean is I'm not D'ist. Which to me is like hearing that I'm not Mormon, and I howl each time.

Yo, incompetent - knowing a thing well, and knowing how to write "10 propositions about" it are two different skill sets.

As in the "know how" difference between a Professional Athlete and a Professional Sports Commentator.

Geez are you endlessly proven by your "generalizations" you have made yourself dumb by them.

Not that most of your opponents on here fair any better.

It's why you and many of them are both blind Trump supporters - your shared generalizations within said different, abstraction :doh: :chuckle:

Fascinating dynamic; that.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8

 

[Interplanner]

:mock: "Real writer" and "grammar scholar"?

Your material simply shows your totally WRONG bias and ridiculous theories about "NT interp". That's no threat, at all, to the rest of us that properly understand the Bible.


:french:

Unless you don't understand and are defensive and narrow minded and are smug and mindless cartoon/icon posters instead of people who show they can think and articulate and demonstrate something they believe to be true.

No wonder you have not posted at 'The Essential Irrationality of D'ism'. There are no comebacks.

 

[Right Divider]

Unless you don't understand and are defensive and narrow minded and are smug and mindless cartoon/icon posters instead of people who show they can think and articulate and demonstrate something they believe to be true.

No wonder you have not posted at 'The Essential Irrationality of D'ism'. There are no comebacks.

:banana: