What is the Gospel?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Actually, he had asked about this part of that passage - "What does Paul mean EXACTLY when he says [that] THE CROSS of Christ CAN BE MADE OF NO EFFECT?"

Rom. 5:8.

Actually, his post specifically asks about a passage from 1 Corinthians. I am therefore confused.

The passage I directly responded to is more about Paul's contention with the fickle Corinthians. If the intent of the asking of the question was to make some larger point that will have to be made explicit and substantiated. Romans 5:8 has nothing to do directly with 1 Cor. 1:17. Yes, there are a couple of larger lessons to be had when one takes into account the entire 1 Cor. 1:10-17 pericope, followed by 1 Cor. 1:18-31, but the question was about a phrase in one verse alone.

Therein that phrase warns of the desire for shows and flowery speech of those the Corinthians were adoring, such that these methods would obscure the simplicity of the Good News, thus not having the intended effect of the means of the Good News (which is promiscuously proclaimed), the Good News being the ordinary means by which God's children are brought into the Kingdom.

AMR

 

[glorydaz]

The issue the Apostle Paul is addressing is their having been convinced by someone, that their belief in The Resurrection, had been in vain - that there was therefore in fact, no resurrection for them either, simply because Christ Himself had never risen from the dead, to begin with.

Towards addressing THAT two-fold issue, he first reminds them that he had based his words to them on that, on the Scripture itself.

Now, he is not asserting that they were who the Scriptures had been talking about - a mistake some within MAD make.

Rather, he is asserting that he had been instructed to apply those Scriptures concerning Christ's having died for sins, to them also.

That is a Dispensational Distinction but is another topic within all that.

Anyway, he then moves on from his first assertion there, to add to it the further distinction that various people - then alive back then that anyone could have checked with - had actually been eyewitnesses of the Resurrection of Christ that Paul had preached to these Corinthians.

He then moves on from that, into more of what he is actually addressing - the two-fold issue not only that Christ DID rise from the dead, but that as a result - THEIR resurrection was a SURE promise.

Re-read the chapter; see if these two things, are not the things he is merely breaking down to them ONCE MORE (for he is merely reminding them of what he had preached unto them, back when he had first met them).

Rom. 5:8.

Then you have two Gospels.



And preached it to all - v.11.


I do.



Ok.

Actually there are two Gospels, but Paul only had the one and it includes belief (faith in the blood).

 

[glorydaz]

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.

I already argued it. You're entitled to your own opinion of the wording.

 

[Sonnet]

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.

...If He had died for all, then all would be saved. Are all saved? No.

So, why would I say something that isn't true?...

...Christ took the sins of mankind to the cross, so man could come freely before the throne of Grace. Those who REFUSE to be reconciled to God have REFUSED the BLOOD, therefore their sins are not forgiven...

So, NO, I will not tell an unbeliever that Jesus died for his sins...

 

[Sonnet]

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?

You believe that God / HS speaks to all men without exception then? That scripture is not the sine qua non some think it to be?

Regarding the mass shootings - has there been a study?

 

[Danoh]

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?

As you often prove you have done - you reason YOUR reasoning INTO a thing, it appears to make sense to you absent of the obvious you have failed to consider, and so, you conclude it sound.

Fact of the matter as to your above...

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

In other words...

Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

What then had been the intent behind The Law to begin with?

3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Reason away, Jer.

Nevertheless, Rom. 14:5 towards, you as to this - in memory of Rom. 5:8.

 

[Caino]

There was a gospel of Jesus before the cross. Had the Jews accepted Jesus and his gospel, they would be preaching that gospel today from Jerusalem.

After Jesus left a new Gospel about Jesus was born out of preexisting Pagan ideology.

 

[Danoh]

Actually, his post specifically asks about a passage from 1 Corinthians. I am therefore confused.

The passage I directly responded to is more about Paul's contention with the fickle Corinthians. If the intent of the asking of the question was to make some larger point that will have to be made explicit and substantiated. Romans 5:8 has nothing to do directly with 1 Cor. 1:17. Yes, there are a couple of larger lessons to be had when one takes into account the entire 1 Cor. 1:10-17 pericope, followed by 1 Cor. 1:18-31, but the question was about a phrase in one verse alone.

Therein that phrase warns of the desire for shows and flowery speech of those the Corinthians were adoring, such that these methods would obscure the simplicity of the Good News, thus not having the intended effect of the means of the Good News (which is promiscuously proclaimed), the Good News being the ordinary means by which God's children are brought into the Kingdom.

AMR

AMR, hope you are well.

Your observation may well have been the point.

As for why I cited Romans 5:8 - actually, I end most of my posts with "Romans 5:8" - as the lens through which I am consciously looking at, by faith, whomever it is I happen to be addressing, dealing with, agreeing with, not agreeing with, speaking out against, or not, and so on.

As in my longer version of my citing of "Romans 5:8" - my phrase "Nevertheless, Romans 14:5 towards you - in memory of Romans 5:8."

That is just a decided on, conscious focus on my part towards that individual, out of a sort of...

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

That kind of thing.

Nevertheless, Romans 14:5 towards you - in memory of Romans 5:8

Or Rom. 14:5; 5:7, 8.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

As you often prove you have done - you reason YOUR reasoning INTO a thing, it appears to make sense to you absent of the obvious you have failed to consider, and so, you conclude it sound.

What makes sense to me is the fact that Paul actually wrote that the commandment was ordained to life:

"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).​

Since Paul's words there contradict your pre-conceived ideas you just deny what Paul wrote:

Paul is NOT asserting that the commandment was ordained to life, rather, that that is what it promised.

Who can take you seriously?

I can't!

 

[Danoh]

What makes sense to me is the fact that Paul actually wrote that the commandment was ordained to life:

"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).​

Since Paul's words there contradict your pre-conceived ideas you just deny what Paul wrote:



Who can take you seriously?

I can't!

Paul is talking about having understood that the promise made by the Law, the Law had been unable to deliver because the Law was weak through the flesh.

This is why he asks "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin?" or does that mean then, that the was Law lying? "God forbid."

In other words the issue had never been about the Law being able to deliver what it promised to deliver; but about what it could not because it was weak through sin.

Thus, the issue had actually been proving man a sinner.

You forget Israel's Covenant prior to the Law - an Unconditional Covenant.

And...you always were too serious :chuckle:

So no, I don't expect you to take many "serious" at all - you're too serious to.

Not that any of us are not, at some point, or another.

Rom. 14:5; 5:7, 8.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You always were too serious

I know of no other way to approach the Scriptures. When Paul wrote that the commandment was ordained to life I believe what he said.

You don't because that fact contradicts your pre-conceived ideas!

 

[Danoh]

I know of no other way to approach the Scriptures. When Paul wrote that the commandment was ordained to life I believe what he said.

You don't because that fact contradicts your pre-conceived ideas!

No. That is just you.

You are very serious.

Stam was like that.

Both in person and in his writings.

In contrast, one does not get that sense of "too serious" say, about Baker, or O'Hair, from their writings.

There is ever a warmth towards others in their writings.

In contrast, you are more like most others on here are towards anyone who does not agree with them - out comes the taking of issue with them themselves.

This is exactly what other posters on here are ever actually talking about, when ever they assert there is no actual grace in our supposed "gospel of the grace of God."

Because there isn't.

We are forever spitting on anyone who voices a different view.

Only to get o so serious when that is pointed out to us.

In the end I largely turned it onto my own.

You'll recall the good dose of your own medicine I used to give you :chuckle:

In the end I largely turned that on most of my own.

Not as a dose of our own medicine as a sort of a payback, but as a "here; this is how people we are constantly spitting on feel; and what they end up focused on - on our consistent failure to be examples of the grace that we are forever going on about..."

The last thing said people being spit on are seeing or are focused on during such spitting on them by us - is any sort of sense that "these grace gospelers certainly have found the victory in Christ they are forever going on about - I want some of that victory in my life..."

We "claim" - "we follow Paul."

Apparantly forgetting others also have Bibles and can easily "compare the things that differ" as to the difference between how we conduct ourselves when met with opposition, with how the Apostle we claim we follow would conduct himself, when face to face with opposition....

2 Corinthians 6:3 Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: 6:4 But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, 6:5 In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; 6:6 By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, 6:8 By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true; 6:9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; 6:10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

You...are far too serious.

I call you on that - in the spirit of Rom. 5:7, 8 towards you.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This is exactly what other posters on here are ever actually talking about, when ever they assert there is no actual grace in our supposed "gospel of the grace of God."

You are so typical of many on this forum. When you can't answer the message you attack the messenger in the hope that no one will notice that you have no intelligent answer to the message.

All you did was to try to pervert the plain words of Paul at Romans 7:10 since what he wrote there doesn't conform to your ideas.

You criticize me for doing the exact thing Paul told Christians to do here:

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Tim.4:2-4).​

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen!

 

[Derf]

You believe that God / HS speaks to all men without exception then? That scripture is not the sine qua non some think it to be?

Regarding the mass shootings - has there been a study?

I believe God and the Holy Spirit DID speak to all men without exception--through Jesus' life and death and resurrection. Is there more He needs to say to all men?

There are certainly some to whom the Holy Spirit speaks (or spoke) more than others. I don't necessarily put these kinds of speaking in the same category as the message of the cross. Examples would be the inspiration of the biblical authors. The latter is about the former, the former being preeminent in importance.

 

[Sonnet]

I believe God and the Holy Spirit DID speak to all men without exception--through Jesus' life and death and resurrection. Is there more He needs to say to all men?

There are certainly some to whom the Holy Spirit speaks (or spoke) more than others. I don't necessarily put these kinds of speaking in the same category as the message of the cross. Examples would be the inspiration of the biblical authors. The latter is about the former, the former being preeminent in importance.

Why did?

If only in past times, wherefore did you write this:
Since the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin (John 16:8)?

 

[Derf]

Why did?

If only in past times, wherefore did you write this:
Since the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin (John 16:8)?

Who said just in past times? How do you think the Holy Spirit talks to people? Is it not through the voices of the apostles, the bible, disciples, and the churches? Do you hear something different? And the message they speak (or should speak) is that gospel you are asking about.

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; [Heb 1:1-2 KJV] Of course, the writer of Hebrews was not Jesus, so the Holy Spirit was speaking to his audience through him.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [Rom 10:14 KJV]

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or [one] unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on [his] face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. [1Co 14:24-25 KJV]

 

[Sonnet]

Who said just in past times? How do you think the Holy Spirit talks to people? Is it not through the voices of the apostles, the bible, disciples, and the churches? Do you hear something different? And the message they speak (or should speak) is that gospel you are asking about.

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; [Heb 1:1-2 KJV] Of course, the writer of Hebrews was not Jesus, so the Holy Spirit was speaking to his audience through him.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [Rom 10:14 KJV]

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or [one] unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on [his] face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. [1Co 14:24-25 KJV]

Do you exclude the HS speaking directly to the unbeliever / seeker?

 

[Sonnet]

#2318 remains unchallenged by anyone willing to debate.

Prove that the cure offered (by God through the bronze serpent) wasn't for all and prove God was disingenuous.

 

[Derf]

Do you exclude the HS speaking directly to the unbeliever / seeker?

No.

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Sonnet]

No.

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

As in without a mediator? Just the HS directly to the person.

Yes, I am being pedantic...apologies.