What is the Gospel?

[glorydaz]

Ok, but Titus 2:11, John 3:14-16, John 1:29, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 2:2 would justify a preacher to do just as Paul and the apostles did in 1 Corinthians 15:11. The pronoun 'this' refers to verses 3ff.

Paul does not anywhere precaution against the simple inference of what I and others make. If Paul considered 1 Corinthians 15:3 as words only for believer's ears then he could have explicitly made such an argument - like some here take the time to do.

NOBODY HAS SAID THE WORDS SPOKEN THERE WERE ONLY FOR BELIEVERS. :dunce:

Are you so seriously obtuse that you did not hear what I said quite clearly?

Believers talk about the DBR all the time. We do it right here.

No one has suggested otherwise. :doh:

Idiot. :troll:

 

[Sonnet]

Easter cinches it though. If Easter's fictional, then zero of this matters, it's all a huge waste of our time and thought. I've narrowed it down to a single, concise proposition---Easter---and you've seen where the Christian Bible itself clearly backs me up. This is your choice. It's that simple. Believe the Bible, or don't. And Bible = Easter.

I appreciate your words.

 

[Sonnet]

NOBODY HAS SAID THE WORDS SPOKEN THERE WERE ONLY FOR BELIEVERS. :dunce:

Are you so seriously obtuse that you did not hear what I said quite clearly?

Believers talk about the DBR all the time. We do it right here.

No one has suggested otherwise. :doh:

Idiot. :troll:

I asked for clarification and thought you had done so until this post.

Nobody?

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.

AMR

(No provocation here AMR. I am just quoting you in response to glorydaz).

 

[glorydaz]

The point is clear to me. You said the Gospel of 1 Cor. 15:3ff is preached to unbelievers but we know consistent Calvinists will not do so. AMR will not do so - that was clear from the quote.

I don't know how I can make it clearer.

No, we don't. YOU read into what others say, and I'm tired of explaining how you manage to do so.

Go back to school, and study up on how to read without inserting your own notions onto what you read.

No we don't preach 1 Cor. 15:3 to unbelievers?

This is so sophomoric. :doh:

Let me spell it out, once again.

No, we don't know "Consistent Calvinists will not do so."

"AMR will not do so - that was clear from the quote.

Nor do I agree that AMR said what YOU CLAIM he did in that quote.

You misread what I said, and what AMR said. I call that doubling down on stupid. :thumb:

 

[Sonnet]

This is so sophomoric. :doh:

Let me spell it out, once again.

No, we don't know "Consistent Calvinists will not do so."



Nor do I agree that AMR said what YOU CLAIM he did in that quote.

You misread what I said, and what AMR said. I call that doubling down on stupid. :thumb:

Ok GD - perhaps you or AMR will clarify the words in question - these:

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.

 

[glorydaz]

I asked for clarification and thought you had done so until this post.

Nobody?



(No provocation here AMR. I am just quoting you in response to glorydaz).

Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

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.

AMR

Paul seems to agree. "ALL THAT BELIEVE".

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.​

I would tell a crowd of people that Jesus's death was sufficient for all, but not effectual for all. Only those who believe have forgiveness of sin. To say otherwise would be universal salvation.

That Jesus died for the sins of the world means the way has been made for salvation and forgiveness of sins. (The prison door has been opened.) Christ's death is the Grace of God, but we do not access that Grace except through faith.

Christ died for those who walk through the open door.

You are simply straining at gnats and swallowing camels. :nono:

 

[glorydaz]

Ok GD - perhaps you or AMR will clarify the words in question - these:

Find yourself a new horse to beat. That one is dead. :deadhorse:

 

[Sonnet]

Paul seems to agree. "ALL THAT BELIEVE".

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.​

I would tell a crowd of people that Jesus's death was sufficient for all, but not effectual for all. Only those who believe have forgiveness of sin. To say otherwise would be universal salvation.

That Jesus died for the sins of the world means the way has been made for salvation and forgiveness of sins. (The prison door has been opened.) Christ's death is the Grace of God, but we do not access that Grace except through faith.

Christ died for those who walk through the open door.

You are simply straining at gnats and swallowing camels. :nono:

Your words:

"NOBODY HAS SAID THE WORDS SPOKEN THERE WERE ONLY FOR BELIEVERS."

But when questioned you actually affirm in this post you won't say them to unbelievers.

 

[Sonnet]

Find yourself a new horse to beat. That one is dead. :deadhorse:

Since 1 Corinthians 15:3 is described by the apostle Paul as THE GOSPEL but you won't express such words to a crowd of unbelievers then I'd say the OP has made it's point.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ok GD - perhaps you or AMR will clarify the words in question - these:

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.

Can my words be any plainer?

Imagine a pastor in the pulpit, looking down at Bob in the pew and saying, "Bob, Jesus Christ died for you."
If Jesus did in fact die for Bob, then Bob will be saved in the time appointed by God.
If Jesus did not in fact die for Bob, then Bob will not be saved...ever.

So the pastor making this statement is either a liar half the time or a wonderful prophet half the time. In other words, he is guessing by making such a definitive statement.

Now, how can the pastor make such a statement specifically to Bob unless the pastor has infallible knowledge of the will of God concerning Bob?

Yet, there is no doubt that these sort of things are actually stated from pulpits today. It is because of a lack of understanding of what the atonement of Jesus Christ actually accomplished. It was not a potential atonement, but an actual atonement. God's wrath was not potentially propitiated, but actually propitiated. For whom? Those that believe, the believing ones. Not for those that do not believe. If Jesus' sacrifice was for all mankind, then all mankind will be saved. Obviously, all are not saved, so that sacrifice cannot possibly be for all mankind. If Jesus' sacrifice truly propitiated the wrath of God for all mankind, then those in Hell are being unjustly punished, for their debts owed have been fully paid by Jesus' sacrifice. This is manifest nonsense.

The scope of the atonement of Jesus encompasses all who have, are, or will believe upon Him. Was the atonement capable of saving all of mankind? Indeed. But the issue here is not the value of the atonement, but its actual scope, as the nicely worded statement below indicates:

I would tell a crowd of people that Jesus's death was sufficient for all, but not effectual for all. Only those who believe have forgiveness of sin. To say otherwise would be universal salvation.

I cannot make these things more plain. If you have an actual follow up question, make it plain and concise. I will try to answer it.

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

Can my words be any plainer?

Imagine a pastor in the pulpit, looking down at Bob in the pew and saying, "Bob, Jesus Christ died for you."
If Jesus did in fact die for Bob, then Bob will be saved in the time appointed by God.
If Jesus did not in fact die for Bob, then Bob will not be saved...ever.

So the pastor making this statement is either a liar half the time or a wonderful prophet half the time. In other words, he is guessing by making such a definitive statement.

Now, how can the pastor make such a statement specifically to Bob unless the pastor has infallible knowledge of the will of God concerning Bob?

Yet, there is no doubt that these sort of things are actually stated from pulpits today. It is because of a lack of understanding of what the atonement of Jesus Christ actually accomplished. It was not a potential atonement, but an actual atonement. God's wrath was not potentially propitiated, but actually propitiated. For whom? Those that believe, the believing ones. Not for those that do not believe. If Jesus' sacrifice was for all mankind, then all mankind will be saved. Obviously, all are not saved, so that sacrifice cannot possibly be for all mankind. If Jesus' sacrifice truly propitiated the wrath of God for all mankind, then those in Hell are being unjustly punished, for their debts owed have been fully paid by Jesus' sacrifice. This is manifest nonsense.

The scope of the atonement of Jesus encompasses all who have, are, or will believe upon Him. Was the atonement capable of saving all of mankind? Indeed. But the issue here is not the value of the atonement, but its actual scope.

I cannot make these things more plain. If you have an actual follow up question, make it plain and concise. I will try to answer it.

AMR

Your words were crystal clear to me.

 

[God's Truth]

Can my words be any plainer?

Imagine a pastor in the pulpit, looking down at Bob in the pew and saying, "Bob, Jesus Christ died for you."
If Jesus did in fact die for Bob, then Bob will be saved in the time appointed by God.
If Jesus did not in fact die for Bob, then Bob will not be saved...ever.

So the pastor making this statement is either a liar half the time or a wonderful prophet half the time. In other words, he is guessing by making such a definitive statement.

Now, how can the pastor make such a statement specifically to Bob unless the pastor has infallible knowledge of the will of God concerning Bob?

Yet, there is no doubt that these sort of things are actually stated from pulpits today. It is because of a lack of understanding of what the atonement of Jesus Christ actually accomplished. It was not a potential atonement, but an actual atonement. God's wrath was not potentially propitiated, but actually propitiated. For whom? Those that believe, the believing ones. Not for those that do not believe. If Jesus' sacrifice was for all mankind, then all mankind will be saved. Obviously, all are not saved, so that sacrifice cannot possibly be for all mankind. If Jesus' sacrifice truly propitiated the wrath of God for all mankind, then those in Hell are being unjustly punished, for their debts owed have been fully paid by Jesus' sacrifice. This is manifest nonsense.

The scope of the atonement of Jesus encompasses all who have, are, or will believe upon Him. Was the atonement capable of saving all of mankind? Indeed. But the issue here is not the value of the atonement, but its actual scope.

I cannot make these things more plain. If you have an actual follow up question, make it plain and concise. I will try to answer it.

AMR

Jesus dying for the sins of the whole world is grace,and we enter that grace when we have faith that Jesus' blood washes away the sins we repent of doing.

Romans 5:2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.

God doesn't make anyone have faith.

God doesn't stop anyone from having faith.

 

[Sonnet]

Jesus dying for the sins of the whole world is grace,and we enter that grace when we have faith that Jesus' blood washes away the sins we repent of doing.

Romans 5:2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.

God doesn't make anyone have faith.

God doesn't stop anyone from having faith.

That sounds reasonable as it has universal good news.

 

[Derf]

Can my words be any plainer?

Imagine a pastor in the pulpit, looking down at Bob in the pew and saying, "Bob, Jesus Christ died for you."
If Jesus did in fact die for Bob, then Bob will be saved in the time appointed by God.
If Jesus did not in fact die for Bob, then Bob will not be saved...ever.

So the pastor making this statement is either a liar half the time or a wonderful prophet half the time. In other words, he is guessing by making such a definitive statement.

Now, how can the pastor make such a statement specifically to Bob unless the pastor has infallible knowledge of the will of God concerning Bob?

Yet, there is no doubt that these sort of things are actually stated from pulpits today. It is because of a lack of understanding of what the atonement of Jesus Christ actually accomplished. It was not a potential atonement, but an actual atonement. God's wrath was not potentially propitiated, but actually propitiated. For whom? Those that believe, the believing ones. Not for those that do not believe. If Jesus' sacrifice was for all mankind, then all mankind will be saved. Obviously, all are not saved, so that sacrifice cannot possibly be for all mankind. If Jesus' sacrifice truly propitiated the wrath of God for all mankind, then those in Hell are being unjustly punished, for their debts owed have been fully paid by Jesus' sacrifice. This is manifest nonsense.

The scope of the atonement of Jesus encompasses all who have, are, or will believe upon Him. Was the atonement capable of saving all of mankind? Indeed. But the issue here is not the value of the atonement, but its actual scope, as the nicely worded statement below indicates:



I cannot make these things more plain. If you have an actual follow up question, make it plain and concise. I will try to answer it.

AMR

I have a follow up question (a few, actually), if I may take your statement to [MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION] as generally applicable (like common grace, I suppose). What does it mean to be saved? What are we saved from? If the answer is death, then resurrection is what we would look for to determine if Bob was saved, correct? (If the answer is sin, I'll get to that below).)

Shall we discuss further what we are saved from? Adam and Eve were promised death if they disobeyed and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because of their sin, all mankind is under the same sentence (discussions about why can be left to other threads). If Adam's sin is to be applied universally, we would expect all men to die. If Jesus' death is to be applied universally, then what would we expect regarding everybody that dies?

That they would be resurrected.

Are they?

Yes, all will be resurrected, except, perhaps, for a limited number (the beast and his prophet, for two--not sure if there are others--but they don't experience the first death either). Revelation talks about 2 resurrections. Which seem to include all people in one or the other. Thus, if Bob is part of either group, he will be resurrected, thus, Jesus' sacrifice applies to Bob, as well as all people, and Bob's pastor can rest easy.

Despite this, many people will not experience the same end result. The difference appears to be whether they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. This, of course suggests a different meaning of "saved"--a different thing we are saved from, which thing is called "second death".

Why is it that we are threatened with a second death, when the penalty (wages) of sin is death (singular)? And why is the one thing that stands between us and the second death merely (if I can use that word so lightly on such a deep and somber subject) a belief in the Lord Jesus Christ?

Is it possible that Jesus' death is universally applied, but rejection of Jesus' Lordship (belief in Him to a point <gasp> that we are actually willing to do what He says) is a second category of sin? One that results in a second death that is much more grievous than the first?

What does such an hypothesis do for our discussion?
1. It allows for the universal statements of good news/gospel to all men to be true! Jesus really did die for "whosoever" and "the world".
2. It still requires belief for the eternal part
3. It explains why everyone is "saved" (resurrected), despite not all being "saved" (living with God for eternity).
4. It disassociates the horror of eternal punishment from temporal sins: eternal punishment is for rejecting the infinite goodness of Jesus' sacrifice--not just his death on the cross, but His eternal subjection of Himself to being in a form of one of His creations.

It doesn't explain very well (sorry) that some people are chosen to be saved from all eternity based on some unknowable reason in God's mind.

Derf

 

[Derf]

Either the answer is already in the question, or please survey some of my dozens of posts in this thread, to make your question less ambiguous for me.

[MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION] is looking for what the gospel is. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead is good news for Jesus, but why is it good news for anyone else?

Your answer to [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] was decently applicable to my question. I agree that Easter is the climax of all of Christianity, but it doesn't spell it all out. Sonnet is asking you to spell it out for him.

Maybe you did already. I apologize for not having read all your posts. I tried going through everything before commenting, but gave up halfway through--must have missed your poignant ones.

 

[God's Truth]

I have a follow up question (a few, actually), if I may take your statement to [MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION] as generally applicable (like common grace, I suppose). What does it mean to be saved? What are we saved from? If the answer is death, then resurrection is what we would look for to determine if Bob was saved, correct? (If the answer is sin, I'll get to that below).)

Shall we discuss further what we are saved from? Adam and Eve were promised death if they disobeyed and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because of their sin, all mankind is under the same sentence (discussions about why can be left to other threads). If Adam's sin is to be applied universally, we would expect all men to die. If Jesus' death is to be applied universally, then what would we expect regarding everybody that dies?

That they would be resurrected.

Are they?

Yes, all will be resurrected, except, perhaps, for a limited number (the beast and his prophet, for two--not sure if there are others--but they don't experience the first death either). Revelation talks about 2 resurrections. Which seem to include all people in one or the other. Thus, if Bob is part of either group, he will be resurrected, thus, Jesus' sacrifice applies to Bob, as well as all people, and Bob's pastor can rest easy.

Despite this, many people will not experience the same end result. The difference appears to be whether they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. This, of course suggests a different meaning of "saved"--a different thing we are saved from, which thing is called "second death".

Why is it that we are threatened with a second death, when the penalty (wages) of sin is death (singular)? And why is the one thing that stands between us and the second death merely (if I can use that word so lightly on such a deep and somber subject) a belief in the Lord Jesus Christ?

Is it possible that Jesus' death is universally applied, but rejection of Jesus' Lordship (belief in Him to a point <gasp> that we are actually willing to do what He says) is a second category of sin? One that results in a second death that is much more grievous than the first?

What does such an hypothesis do for our discussion?
1. It allows for the universal statements of good news/gospel to all men to be true! Jesus really did die for "whosoever" and "the world".
2. It still requires belief for the eternal part
3. It explains why everyone is "saved" (resurrected), despite not all being "saved" (living with God for eternity).
4. It disassociates the horror of eternal punishment from temporal sins: eternal punishment is for rejecting the infinite goodness of Jesus' sacrifice--not just his death on the cross, but His eternal subjection of Himself to being in a form of one of His creations.

It doesn't explain very well (sorry) that some people are chosen to be saved from all eternity based on some unknowable reason in God's mind.

Derf

Hi Derf, I hope you don't mind if I say something about what you said here about the first resurrection and the second.

Those in the first resurrection will not have part in the second death, which is the lake of fire.

The first resurrection is that of our spirits when we are saved.

Christ is living in the saved now, and scriptures that support the first resurrection, that of our spirits living in Jesus, before we die a physical death…


1 Corinthians 6:17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

John 6:56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Ephesians 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

Colossians 3:1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Colossians 3:3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.

Colossians 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

 

[Derf]

Hi Derf, I hope you don't mind if I say something about what you said here about the first resurrection and the second.

Hi GT. If I can jump in on Sonnet's and AMR's interchange, you can certainly comment on my post.

Those in the first resurrection will not have part in the second death, which is the lake of fire.

The first resurrection is that of our spirits when we are saved.

Christ is living in the saved now, and scriptures that support the first resurrection, that of our spirits living in Jesus, before we die a physical death…

(my bolding in your quote) I don't disagree that there is an aspect of the resurrection that manifests itself in our current lives. But the "first" resurrection as described by John in the following verses is clearly not that, unless you can chop off a spirit's head:

[Rev 20:4 KJV]
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
[Rev 20:5 KJV]
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.
[Rev 20:6 KJV]
Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


Since you acknowledge that the "first resurrection" participants are not harmed by the second death (from Rev 20:6), and you acknowledge that Rev 20 is talking about the first resurrection (from Rev 20:5), then you must either acknowledge (from Rev 20:4) that the "first resurrection" participants have physically died prior to their resurrection (thus the need for it), or you must acknowledge that there are a bunch of Christians running around without heads. I haven't noticed the latter, but perhaps I'm going to the wrong churches.

Plus, if we are already resurrected "in spirit", but we still die physically (I don't think you will deny such), then we still need some kind of physical resurrection, unless our hope is in vain.

[1Co 15:16 KJV]
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
[1Co 15:17 KJV]
And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins.

That gospel chapter [MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION] quoted numerous times is clear that we are being saved from death, and not from some other thing. Which I think we can all admit is good news. I would suggest it's the very best news, and worthy to be called "The Gospel".

And if we need some kind of resurrection after the first resurrection, which you allocate to a spiritual one, what would it be called? Maybe "second resurrection"? Revelation doesn't name anything by that title, but ch 20 continues with a description of a second resurrection, putting the "first" in proper context. If, however, the first is a spiritual one, and a second one (physical one) is needed, then the participants of the first are being judged after the second, which is clearly a physical one, after they have "lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years", to see if they are in the book of life (Rev 20:15). Does that make sense to you?

Derf

 

[Nihilo]

@Sonnet is looking for what the gospel is. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead is good news for Jesus, but why is it good news for anyone else?

Many reasons. I'd say that chiefly, Easter promises that we can live forever.

Your answer to @glorydaz was decently applicable to my question. I agree that Easter is the climax of all of Christianity, but it doesn't spell it all out. Sonnet is asking you to spell it out for him.

Much like her answer to the problem of evil, the Church, in my estimation, spells Easter all out, with the Christian faith as a whole.

Maybe you did already. I apologize for not having read all your posts. I tried going through everything before commenting, but gave up halfway through--must have missed your poignant ones.

I've said that Easter is the tip of the Gospel's arrow or spear. ITT, we've been discussing internal matters, answering the question What is the Gospel? from the position of previously chosen faith; we're all already Christians. So for us, the question is muddled a bit, because we're sort of looking back on what the Gospel is, but I've been all along trying to say what the Gospel is primarily to the unbeliever. For the unbeliever, the Gospel is Easter. Easter is the door or gate, into the spelling out of the whole Christian faith, and of all of the rest of the Good News contained therein, first and foremost Good Friday.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I have a follow up question (a few, actually), if I may take your statement to [MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION] as generally applicable (like common grace, I suppose). What does it mean to be saved? What are we saved from? If the answer is death, then resurrection is what we would look for to determine if Bob was saved, correct? (If the answer is sin, I'll get to that below).)

Shall we discuss further what we are saved from? Adam and Eve were promised death if they disobeyed and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because of their sin, all mankind is under the same sentence (discussions about why can be left to other threads). If Adam's sin is to be applied universally, we would expect all men to die. If Jesus' death is to be applied universally, then what would we expect regarding everybody that dies?

That they would be resurrected.

Are they?

Yes, all will be resurrected, except, perhaps, for a limited number (the beast and his prophet, for two--not sure if there are others--but they don't experience the first death either). Revelation talks about 2 resurrections. Which seem to include all people in one or the other. Thus, if Bob is part of either group, he will be resurrected, thus, Jesus' sacrifice applies to Bob, as well as all people, and Bob's pastor can rest easy.

Despite this, many people will not experience the same end result. The difference appears to be whether they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. This, of course suggests a different meaning of "saved"--a different thing we are saved from, which thing is called "second death".

Why is it that we are threatened with a second death, when the penalty (wages) of sin is death (singular)? And why is the one thing that stands between us and the second death merely (if I can use that word so lightly on such a deep and somber subject) a belief in the Lord Jesus Christ?

Is it possible that Jesus' death is universally applied, but rejection of Jesus' Lordship (belief in Him to a point <gasp> that we are actually willing to do what He says) is a second category of sin? One that results in a second death that is much more grievous than the first?

What does such an hypothesis do for our discussion?
1. It allows for the universal statements of good news/gospel to all men to be true! Jesus really did die for "whosoever" and "the world".
2. It still requires belief for the eternal part
3. It explains why everyone is "saved" (resurrected), despite not all being "saved" (living with God for eternity).
4. It disassociates the horror of eternal punishment from temporal sins: eternal punishment is for rejecting the infinite goodness of Jesus' sacrifice--not just his death on the cross, but His eternal subjection of Himself to being in a form of one of His creations.

It doesn't explain very well (sorry) that some people are chosen to be saved from all eternity based on some unknowable reason in God's mind.

Derf

:e4e: I hope you saw that our last discussion ended on your observations because I enjoyed them too thoroughly to add to or subtract from.

I gather you know we all screw up... and thus we all fall short daily. I also gather that unlike some MAD theologians that may bash confession of sin to God, daily... I think I’m reading that you see it’s profit... and honestly ... so do I. I don’t see daily confession as a requirement for salvation... but I do see it as paramount to a healthy sincerity towards God and self. And... I see admission or confession of my “inability” to save myself through works... of any kind... as paramount to salvation... or in other words... perpetual expression of my need for Jesus Christ’s complete work of salvation... apart from anything beyond my admission of need and gratitude.

And in this light... I’m fully in line with You this far.

Lordship... as in Love one another... and 1 John 4:8? Lordship as in Judge not lest ye be judged?

Lordship as in forgive others as God forgives us?

Derf... I want to thank your post, but I am making certain... Do you ascribe to Romans 4 and Ephesians 2:8f good news of eternal salvation by faith... in HIS work... alone?

Please note... I came here specifically to hear your understanding and not debate. I have enormous respect for your perspective and appreciate your words here.

And Derf... This is to you alone... and any cross chatter from Nihilo, Sonnet, Danoh or You is all I am interested in. Any other response to this post from any other... besides you... Nihilo, Danoh or Sonnet will go ignored by me.

Thank you in advance for always edifying my understanding...

- Me

Oops... sorry [MENTION=15579]1Mind1Spirit[/MENTION] ... I wouldn’t ignore your post either...

 

[glorydaz]

Your words:

"NOBODY HAS SAID THE WORDS SPOKEN THERE WERE ONLY FOR BELIEVERS."

But when questioned you actually affirm in this post you won't say them to unbelievers.

Guess you can read my words however you like. I can't stop you. :deadhorse:

:deadhorse: