What is the Gospel?

[Derf]

Spoiler

If Christ did not die for every man, to make it possible for every man to "do" something different than "the things men do to deserve hell", it says something about the character of God. God created men who had no chance of not going to hell.

If Christ died for every man, so each man can stop doing "the things men do to deserve hell", it says something different about the character of God.

What a man believes God has done, influences what a man believes about God. You can take it from there...

I wondered which way you would go.



Seems a bit contradictory; "...He chose to limit Himself in this way in order to achieve the goal mentioned above--that His will is done on earth..."; or you're rationalizing around Calvinism, or maybe it's definition of terms.

I disagree with what you imply and it goes back to what you said about why men go to hell.
It shows in what you say here.
Where is submission required in the 'Gospel'? What is the first and greatest commandment?


There is something missing in what you're saying.



And I think this is what it is. God didn't have to limit Himself. It's about love and it goes back to what you believe about men being saved. The requirement of God for man's salvation is not man striving to do something. The first and greatest commandment is love. You can't force a man to love. A man cannot make himself love. It must be free or it's not love; God wants man to love Him, so by definition, man's will is free. When a man loves God, submission is not an issue. A man loves what he thinks is good; therefore, what a man believes God is, directly impacts his love for God.


I feel that you're making God out to be like a mechanical zombie, or something just out there, rather than a person, a real live thinking being, one capable of actually loving. He is not forced to love us, else it wouldn't be love. He really loves me, and you, and the whole 'damn' world; therefore, Jesus died for every man, so every man could learn of Him, and love Him. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. It is not good that the wicked die. That's why the death of Christ.


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.

Again, all men love that which they believe to be good; therefore, each man must know that Christ died for him. Christ is God's goodness, good news, gospel, being made known to man.

Thus:




The end result is not the same.

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).

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.

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".

So there really is no bad. Much ado about nothing. A man lives his life, dies, and in the end it's all good.

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.

[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". 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. 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).

So, answer #1 to question "What is bad"? Not loving God more than anything else.

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")?

I think I've back-doored my way into your other question:

Where is submission required in the 'Gospel'? What is the first and greatest commandment?

My answer is, "Why would anyone who loves God NOT want to submit to Him?"

 

[glorydaz]

#2073

Q: Do you include everyone in 'our'?
A: Believers or Jews, which believers may include Christians. Also, everyone.

Me? It isn't Paul's Gospel without FAITH IN THE BLOOD.

The word "OUR" includes all those with FAITH IN HIS BLOOD.

Everyone who believes has the same access to the blood of Christ ie through FAITH in His blood.

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;​

 

[blackbirdking]

Sorry, didn't realize that 'The bishops' were the biblical definition of good. That's great because as long as I believe Easter I can molest children, and...; thanks for your wonderful insight into the Biblical definition of good.

Vs. what I actually said, which is, "That which [the Church's bishops] teach." lain:
:freak:
Reading comprehension is also good.

You are right; thanks for :freak:; that explains it well. Just don't understand how you can claim "That which [the Church's bishops] teach." lain: is a definition of Biblical good when they are as fallible as they are.
And, the church at times tried to cover it up.

I was not making child abuse frivolous. I made a point and you got it because you said :freak: about your 'bishop's' behavior.

 

[Nihilo]

Understated.
That's why I gave scripture.




Didn't say it does. :nono:

No amount of wickedness and evil perpetuated by a teacher can render what they teach that is true, false.

 

[DougE]

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and awherein ye stand; 2 bBy which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless cye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins daccording to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day eaccording to the scriptures: 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4

This is the gospel. Christ died for our sins; we are all sinners but Christ died for our sins, he paid the full penalty and debt for our sin. He is our substitute.
He was buried; he really died.
He rose again for our justification so we could stand before God having his righteousness imputed(deposited) to our account, we have forgiveness of all sin ; his resurrection gives us eternal life.
We just believe it.
That's all, just believe the gospel.

 

[Nihilo]

The RCC is still abusing today.

No. And certainly not with indulgences.

The church which is His body is not an organization, it is made up of all believers.

The Catholic Church teaches that. You must have stole it from them.

 

[Nihilo]

You are right; thanks for :freak:; that explains it well.

You're welcome.

Just don't understand how you can claim "That which [the Church's bishops] teach." lain: is a definition of Biblical good when they are as fallible as they are.

Maybe you should read the Bible closer then. They're the bishops, elders, overseers, pastors, of the Church. That makes them special. Specialer than you or I, when teaching on matters of faith and morals.

And, the church at times tried to cover it up.

They weren't given any special gifts on how to deal with pederasts, that's true. They had to learn the hard way. :idunno:

I was not making child abuse frivolous. I made a point and you got it because you said :freak: about your 'bishop's' behavior.

No, apparently I did miss your point, because :freak: was just because of the words you chose, and their prima facie meaning.

 

[Sonnet]

What in God's name are you reading into that post?

Your attempt to sow discord has been duly noted.

I have always disagreed with AMR on certain things. That there is a specific number of people who are saved is one of them. I say all those who believe are saved, and all those who believe are forgiven of sin.

I'm beginning to think it's your reading comprehension that is faulty. :think:

No attempt to sow discord GD - I am merely seeking to clarify your position. I am happy to lay off if you wish.
Since you thanked this post by Clete, then I infer you believe Christ died for all:

I don't see a thing in this post that I disagree with. Well done.

The heads of all the Calvinists here on TOL will explode but they'll not offer any arguments to refute your post. If they offer any arguments at all, they'll ignore your post and just present the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement as though that counts as a rebuttal.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete supports Robert Pate's OP which declares:

Does this mean that everyone is saved? No, this means that salvation has been provided for everyone, Hebrews 2:9, by the doing and the dying of Jesus. Jesus has reconciled us and the world unto God.

Do you believe salvation has been provided for everyone without exception GD? If you do, then it would be natural to tell unbelievers about Christ's death for them wouldn't it? Such a magnanimous act (Jesus dying for all) would make a powerful impact would it not? It would say something about God's character wouldn't it? 1 John 4:8.

 

[Sonnet]

Ok on all the above. That last one, specifically, is one we take for granted based on our understanding of God's character and the nature of grace (that it isn't our ability to do something that saves us, but His), even if not explicit--we just don't know about those circumstances. Maybe there were no israelites in that condition at the time--after all, they were all wandering in the desert for 40 years, and their shoes weren't wearing out.

I agree.

Is the same true for faith as well? In other words, those that couldn't move to go see the snake, or had no sight to see the snake would still be saved from the poison by the desire to obey, presumably, as evidenced by, perhaps, their efforts to get to the place where they could, right? So a blind man might ask people to guide him to the snake and even point his face toward it, and an invalid might asked to be carried.

Yes - thus the salvation offer is genuine. Nobody is without access - but we know that the Reformed movement teaches otherwise.

I guess it depends on how you define "sovereignty". I've offered this in other threads, but it's worth the re-typing, I hope. I'd like to propose that God's sovereignty as exercised over humans is not unlike human kings' sovereignty. They have several options for enforcing their wills on "unbelieving" subjects. ("Unbelieving" I'll define here as not really thinking they have to obey the king--they don't believe he has the power to make them obey, or they just don't want to.) They can

1. punish
2. imprison
3. banish
4. execute

A human king can't "twiddle" with a subject's brain to make them "believe" that the king really does make the rules. He has to show his subjects his power or his goodness to convince them. If the goodness exhibition doesn't work, the power exhibition begins, in some order like the list above.

I'd suggest that while God can "twiddle" as described, He also desires true obedience/relationship/worship (English kings were into "worship", just as others have been throughout time, I suppose, hence the terms: "Your honor", "your worshipfulness", "your majesty", "your eminence"), which is not achieved by forcing one to bow. Neither is it a lasting relationship if the subject merely bows as a show until a better time occurs to break free from the king's subjection.

Thus He might use those methods or threats as a way to tell the subject the true result of disobeying, even while not wanting to have to use such methods (much like a parent disciplining a child) at all, or at least not for long.

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?

Indeed! So you can at least envision a non-fairy-tale-like Tower of Babel story, right?

I have to admit it - yes.

I offered a different definition of "believe" above. Do you think it applies here?

? The call is to trust and believe Jesus. What other alternative is there?

Yet the difference between belief in "the gospel" and belief in "Jesus" is not so hard to bridge, once mercy is brought into the picture. If Jesus is the direct descendant of God (which is how kings are usually determined), and He was sent to take our punishment in a combined stroke of justice and mercy, then belief in Him IS belief in the good news.

Ok.

Sure, but once I consider it, I have to join the apostle Peter in saying, "Where else can we go? Only You have the words of eternal life." (Jhn 6:68)

Which he immediately followed with: [Jhn 6:69] And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

That's very honest.

 

[glorydaz]

No attempt to sow discord GD - I am merely seeking to clarify your position. I am happy to lay off if you wish.
Since you thanked this post by Clete, then I infer you believe Christ died for all:



Clete supports Robert Pate's OP which declares:



Do you believe salvation has been provided for everyone without exception GD? If you do, then it would be natural to tell unbelievers about Christ's death for them wouldn't it? Such a magnanimous act (Jesus dying for all) would make a powerful impact would it not? It would say something about God's character wouldn't it? 1 John 4:8.

I thank many posts, and I don't always agree totally with everything that is posted. I thank posts when I see a point I agree with....sometimes when I see a heartfelt effort made in what is posted. I love seeing Clete here posting, so I'm thankful he takes the time, period. So, if you're wasting time going back and seeing who I've thanked, you're on a fool's errand.

As I have said over and over. A provision is simply that. It's an offer that can only be accessed by faith. The blood is shed, but it must be accessed to be effectual.

 

[Sonnet]

I thank many posts, and I don't always agree totally with everything that is posted. I thank posts when I see a point I agree with....sometimes when I see a heartfelt effort made in what is posted. I love seeing Clete here posting, so I'm thankful he takes the time, period. So, if you're wasting time going back and seeing who I've thanked, you're on a fool's errand.

Fair enough.

As I have said over and over. A provision is simply that. It's an offer that can only be accessed by faith. The blood is shed, but it must be accessed to be effectual.

No shedding of blood for all means no provision for all does it not? One couldn't even preach the resurrection if that were so - Paul did though.

 

[Clete]

No attempt to sow discord GD - I am merely seeking to clarify your position. I am happy to lay off if you wish.
Since you thanked this post by Clete, then I infer you believe Christ died for all:



Clete supports Robert Pate's OP which declares:



Do you believe salvation has been provided for everyone without exception GD? If you do, then it would be natural to tell unbelievers about Christ's death for them wouldn't it? Such a magnanimous act (Jesus dying for all) would make a powerful impact would it not? It would say something about God's character wouldn't it? 1 John 4:8.

Has someone suggested that we shouldn't do this? Even Calvinists do this. It's inexplicable, but they do it. What is your point?

 

[Sonnet]

Has someone suggested that we shouldn't do this? Even Calvinists do this. It's inexplicable, but they do it. What is your point?

#1311

"No pastor must stand in the pulpit and declare to all present that "Jesus died for each and every one of you present here today." This is an abomination of what Scripture teaches unless the pastor is in possession of infallible knowledge of the will of God about each and every one present in that church today."

The point is to clarify what the Gospel is.

 

[Right Divider]

No. And certainly not with indulgences.

You are blind.

The Catholic Church teaches that. You must have stole it from them.

No, I got it from God and His Word.

 

[Nihilo]

You are blind.

No I'm not.

No, I got it from God and His Word.

Where do you think that the Catholic Church got it from?
And where do you think that you got the Word of God from?

 

[Right Divider]

No I'm not.

You are.

Where do you think that the Catholic Church got it from?

The RCC has added to and perverted the Word of God since it began.

And where do you think that you got the Word of God from?

From God and not from the perverted RCC.

 

[Nihilo]

You are.

Nope.

The RCC has added to and perverted the Word of God since it began.

No she hasn't.

From God and not from the perverted RCC.

God canonized the Bible through the Church.

 

[Right Divider]

Nope.
No she hasn't.
God canonized the Bible through the Church.

The Word of God was already in place long before the RCC came along to pervert it.

 

[Clete]

#1311

"No pastor must stand in the pulpit and declare to all present that "Jesus died for each and every one of you present here today." This is an abomination of what Scripture teaches unless the pastor is in possession of infallible knowledge of the will of God about each and every one present in that church today."

The point is to clarify what the Gospel is.

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.

 

[Tambora]

Everyone who believes has the same access to the blood of Christ ie through FAITH in His blood.

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.