Sonnet
New member
Agreed.
What is the Gospel?
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
Agreed.
Sonnet
New member
It is refreshing to hear another Christian affirming this unequivocally.
Sonnet
New member
Not believing the Gospel is part of every person's experience is it not? What exactly do you mean?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Justification of faith is not "instruction in righteousness". It's a part of the Gospel.
Saved by Grace through Faith. You can't leave it out if you're preaching the Gospel.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I figured we were on the same page, and I even had an inkling why you brought it up. You always seem to have my back.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I'm forced to admit nothing. Paul was addressing those who already claimed to believe. He even stipulates, "unless ye have believed in vain." Do you understand what that means?
Paul's Gospel includes justification of faith....faith in the blood....saved by grace through FAITH.
Sonnet
New member
No - the "unless you have believed in vain" refers to unless what they had believed had been in vain, or void of any actual fact.
Yours is the typical mistake of the novice in that.
It fails to follow the flow of what Paul is actually addressing there, and the failure is also due to a failure to compare his words there with other passages where the same issues are the issue.
But argue it how you need to.
Rom. 5:8.
Rom. 5:8; 14:5.
Last edited:
Sonnet
New member
Paul, right there, tells any of those that have not believed - those who believed in vain (without success) - that:
'Christ died for our sins'.
Since there is no explicit restriction made by Paul then anyone may infer that they themselves are being addressed.
Sonnet
New member
Come up with an explicit 'Christ died for less than all' or the equivalent and you would have a strong case.
Are you asserting that she is claiming that Christ did not die for all?
That would be odd, as that is not held by most Mid-Acts Dispys, if any.
AMR, possibly, as he appears to hold to Calivinism - which appears to hold to that - but a person who asserts they hold to MAD?
That would be odd, indeed.
Then again, she does tend to end up at her own ideas on some things :chuckle:
Rom. 5:8; 14:5.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Just like those who follow the fables invented by the Calvinists!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Man has the ability to keep the law perfectly but not the will!
Why did you not address Paul's words where he said this:
"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death" (Ro.7:9-10).
If it is impossible for a person to keep the law perfectly and therefore receive life then why would Paul speak of the commandment being "ordained to life"?
Why didn't you address what Paul wrote here:
"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).
If it was theoretically impossible for those under the law to be justified before God by law-keeping then it certainly would make no sense for Paul to say that "the doers of the law shall be justified."
You addressed neither of these things! Whoops!
You've misunderstood the sense of both those passages.
In the former, Paul is NOT asserting that the commandment was ordained to life, rather, that that is what it promised. And that it promised that only towards proving man unable to do with any consistency what the Law called for towards attaining that promise.
The latter passage is basically asserting the same thing in different words.
For in Romans 1:18 thru 3:20, Paul is basically laying out what had been expected of man towards proving his utter hopelessness at patiently continuing in well-doing, and thus, why he is worthy of the wrath of God, but for God's solution: The Cross, Paul only then goes into.
Whereas by the time of that Romans 7 passage, man is already justified by faith, and Romans 6 thru 8 then proceeds on that basis, and from it, to deal with the issue of living by faith as a justified saint, and what three core issues impede that - giving in to sin, Romans 6; attempting to serve under the Law, Romans 7; or attempting to serve by the strength of one's flesh, Romans 8.
Each of which ends one up resulting in the Believer coming short of what the Believer has been enabled to, through the Spirit, and that he is to access by faith.
But we will probably not see eye to eye on some of this, if any of it, so...
Romans 14:5 to ya, as to all this; in the spirit (heart attitude) and memory of...Romans 5:8
Last edited:
Which means nothing to someone who doesn't believe they sin, or who does not even conceive of sin, of flipping the LORD God the bird, which is what sin is.
It also means nothing if the Lord Jesus didn't rise from the dead. 2nd Timothy 2:8 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)
I wasn't negating that.
Case in point, in Romans 1, Paul touches on the Cross, then proceeds to go at length into how man ended up worthy only of wrath, before Paul only then returns to the issue of God's solution: Christ's having died for that sin.
Paul then does not spend much time on that, but instead moves on to various "establishment" issues the saint will have to contend with and need a perspective on - Romans 4 thru 8.
Romans 5:8.
And I'm not negating anything at all that Paul wrote, or that any scripture says. I've been saying that Easter, the Lord's resurrection, is the tip of arrow of the Christian message, the good message, the good news, the glad tidings, the Gospel, to the whole world. He is risen!
Derf
Well-known member
I'm making an assumption, based on the text of Mark 3:28-30, as well as the similar Matt 12 passage, that there is only one unforgivable sin. Maybe that's a bad assumption, but think about it for a minute.
What was the Holy Spirit's role toward the pharisees Jesus was condemning? The visible means was the miracles Jesus was doing, and the purpose of those miracles was to reveal who Jesus was. For what purpose? Salvation.
Instead, the scribes and pharisees gave the glory belonging to God to demons instead, which was rejecting the truth the Holy Spirit was trying to convey to them--that Jesus Christ is lord over even the demons, and He should have been recognized as lord of the pharisees as well.
What is unbelief? It is rejecting Jesus as lord--not believing that He is who He said he is. Since the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin (John 16:8). If the purpose of convicting the world of sin is to draw them to Jesus, and those being drawn do not believe, then they commit the unforgivable sin--unbelief in Jesus at the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
I think they are one and the same sin.
How does that work with unbelief, you might ask, since most of us have spent some time in unbelief? The pharisees also spent some time in unbelief, but they still had the opportunity, even after Jesus' death, to believe, and I think many did (you can tell because of the "men from James" passage (Gal 2:12) and Paul's constant struggle against those who wanted to impose the Mosaic law on the Gentiles). Thus, the unbelief spoken of is more of a lifelong rejection, or a rejection so strong that at some point God gives up on them and allows their depraved minds to go full bore.
Not necessarily related, but doesn't it seem like these school and church shootings are by people who have kind of gone off their rocker, and there is no longer anything that holds them back from the evil in their hearts?
And, doesn't it seem like the more our society turns its back on the truths of scripture and the influence of God, the more of these shootings there are?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why would you say that Paul is not asserting that the commandment was ordained to life since that is EXACTLY what he said?:
"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death" (Ro.7:9-10).
In those verses Paul is saying that the LORD will judge men according to their "works" or "deeds" and those who continue in well-doing will obtain eternal life. If it were impossiblefor anyone to continue in well-doing it would make no sense for him to say anything about anyone continuing in well-doing.
According to Paul it is indeed theoretically possible for a person to obtain life by his works or deeds by keeping the law perfectly. And that is why he says later that "the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13). If it was not possible, at least in theory, for a person to be justified before the LORD by doing the law then Paul's would be saying things which are not true.
And what about the Lord Jesus? When asked what a person must do to inherit eternal life He said--"if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).
According to your ideas people do not have the ability to obtain eternal life by keeping the commandments even though the Lord Jesus said that a person can obtain life in that way.
Who am I to believe, you or the Lord Jesus?
Last edited: