Steve,<br><br>I would suggest that the gospel message is objectively good. Jesus died for the elect and secured their salvation according to God's eternal purpose in Christ. This is indeed good news. We might look at it this way. "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." Man was condemned already, prior to Genesis 3:15, the first issuance of the redemptive promise (i.e., the gospel). The bad news is that mankind rejected the only way of life in the garden. Added to this, without electing grace resulting in the efficacious work of the Spirit man will always reject the only remedy for his sinful plight. The "bad news", therefore, is the objective biblical truth that some reject the way of life because they love darkness. The condition of man, which results in man's willful rejection of the good news, precedes the discharge of the gospel. Accordingly, the "bad news" of man's sin-condition cannot be attributed to the good news of the gospel simply because this bad report concerning man's condition precedes very issuance of the good news. In sum, the "bad news" of man's condition, which results in his willful rejection of the gospel, does not make the good news somehow bad; it simply underscores the pre-existing bad news concerning the plight of man.<br><br>Having said that, YES, it would be better to have never heard the gospel than to have rejected it. Accordingly, the gospel message when heard and rejected results in increasingly bad news for the reprobate. Notwithstanding, the good news does not somehow become bad news, though it does result in increasingly more bad news for the reprobate. There is a double jeopardy so to speak, which may have been the point of the original query. <br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron<br>
