The Highway

Gospel truth

Posted By: beloved57

Gospel truth - Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:57 PM

Are there specific truths about christ and his death that must be preached in a gospel message ? Do we need to be specific about who christ is and what and for whom his death
was for ?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:44 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Are there specific truths about christ and his death that must be preached in a gospel message ? Do we need to be specific about who christ is and what and for whom his death was for ?

Here's a down and dirty answer..... read these two articles: rofl

1. A Gospel Summary
2. The Old Gospel and the New

OR... if you want more, go here: Articles on Evangelism

[Linked Image]
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:47 AM

First, Christ should be preached in a gospel message. Second, it is impossible to say everything about Christ--even in a lifetime. Some texts more than others relate more to Christ and his Kingdom, or character, attributes, et. al. and thus in those you would definitely preach more about Christ. In others though you will reveal how they relate to Christ, but expound upon what the text states .....

Third, we must be careful and not overlook the simplicity of such a message as is given in Acts 2. Maybe there ought to more messages like this. grin

Lastly, we have some excellent articles on-line concerning this. Enjoy
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:21 AM

Thanks, acts 2 is an excellent starting point, because I see preached in that sermon, the deity of christ( acts 2:34,35), election( acts 2:36) and limited atonement,(acts 2:39) Gods foreknowledge and predetermine counsel (sovereignty). ( acts 2:23) So you see, the first sermon seems to be full of foundational gospel truth...
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:26 AM

Thanks for the resources..But do you think deity of christ ,election ,particular redemption , God`s sovereignty, sovereign grace should be included in a gospel presentation ?
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:38 AM

Acts 2 is an example of only "one" sermon. Ministers though are to preach the whole counsel of God. This cannot be done in one sermon. Thus, different sermons will, if biblical, emphasize different topics. As in contrast to Peter in Acts 2, Paul emphsized:

Quote
1 Cor. 15:1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,

2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;

Then we need to contrast these to the ones Jesus taught; The Sermon on the mount, etc.
Posted By: doulos

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:58 PM

Whatever you preach just remember that the brain can only absorb what the rear end can endure. That is, about 30-45 minutes total and the average attention span is getting shorter all the time. Its important to structure your messages so that you can get it all in--not easy to do.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:01 PM

Quote
doulos said:
Whatever you preach just remember that the brain can only absorb what the rear end can endure. That is, about 30-45 minutes total and the average attention span is getting shorter all the time. Its important to structure your messages so that you can get it all in--not easy to do.

Some can endure longer because they have lazy boys in their cemeteries, excuse me, churches. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

(all jokes aside, please note though that as long as the sermon is relevant it doesn't matter "to me" how long it is ...preaching conferences last 3 or so days and are great ... I guess some just can't "suffer" for Jesus <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />).
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:12 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Thanks, acts 2 is an excellent starting point, because I see preached in that sermon, the deity of christ( acts 2:34,35), election( acts 2:36) and limited atonement,(acts 2:39) Gods foreknowledge and predetermine counsel (sovereignty). ( acts 2:23) So you see, the first sermon seems to be full of foundational gospel truth...

Methinks it is important to distinguish between "Gospel", meaning the whole counsel of God, i.e., all that God's Word teaches, and "Gospel", meaning in the very narrow sense, a message that deals specifically with the salvation of sinners. And even then, "Gospel" in the narrow sense encompasses a great deal of information.

Today, it would appear that many, if not most, have the mistaken idea that to preach the gospel means that you must squeeze everything into one presentation. And consequently, since this is nearly impossible to do, the "dumb-down" process began. In just about every single case, the result is a distortion of the Gospel at best and just plain untruth in most cases, e.g., the infamous "Four Spiritual Laws"! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> One rarely finds Paul or any of the other Apostles or Disciples giving a "full presentation" of the gospel in one sermon, other than Acts 2. But even there, we are not sure if what is recorded is the entirety of what Peter preached. And, it should be realized that the audience to which Peter preached was far more knowledgeable about the true nature of God, His commandments, prophecy concerning the Messiah, etc., all of which in our day is virtually non-existent among the populace.

Each of the elements that comprise the "Gospel" could alone be expounded on for great lengths. Volumes of books have been written on them and in some cases, one aspect of those elements, e.g., the extent of the atonement. One doesn't need nor should one attempt to create the proverbial "canned speech" which would be the "perfect Gospel presentation". There are just too many variables involved, e.g., time allotted, audience, place, and other circumstances which will and should determine what a person communicates to another, whether an individual or group.

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:03 PM

Thanks for your respond. I think the audience does not make a difference because the gospel is the same to the jew first and also to the greek. I would imagine philip spoke to the ethiopian eunech from the jewish scriptures! Now I agree that a gospel presentation may take more than one setting as in 1 cor 3 , one plants one waters and so on, but if the recipient is regenerated fruit will be borne ! As far as the simple truth , 1cor 15: 1-4 is the gospel in a nut shell if you ask me. To preach christ is to preach who he is and what he has done. You must preach christ substitute death , not just merely for sinners but for chosen sinners , his elect. You must preach christ representative aspect , who he represented on the cross, you also preach who it is he imputes righteousness, and whose sins were imputed to him. I believe in our day of apostacy, these simple truths have vanished. Those of us who God hass called to witness the truth, must witness, and distinguish the christ of scripture from the watered down christ of the apostate religon. Just saying christ was crucified for sinners,( thats not enough) well thats a popular message today, and you know that. God does not mind detail , we can look bact in the ot and see that. Don`t mean to be contetious, but we as Gods witnesses need to be passionate and thorough about the christ of the bible...
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:07 PM

yes lol , paul probably forgot about the human attention span that time he preached all night , when the child fell out the window..
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:13 PM

another good scripture passage ! who is paul talking about when he said christ died for our sins ? according to scripture, what scripture? could you please explain? Thanks..
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:39 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Thanks for your respond. I think the audience does not make a difference because the gospel is the same to the jew first and also to the greek. I would imagine philip spoke to the ethiopian eunech from the jewish scriptures! . . .

Well, methinks you are not considering something very important in this matter. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" /> When you read through the N.T., you will see that what Paul, for example, spoke to his audiences was far different depending who his audience was. What he spoke to unbelieving Jews or even Gentiles who were familiar with the Old Testament was far different than what he spoke to those who weren't, e.g., the Greeks on Mars Hill (Acts 17). And what he spoke to believing Jews was sometimes different than what he spoke to believing Gentiles. The Ethiopian Eunuch was obviously a man who was very familiar with the Old Testament, although he didn't quite understand some things about it.

Why is that? Because Paul knew that one must first start at the beginning with those who know nothing or have false ideas about the truth of God compared to those who are familiar with what the Scriptures teach about God. And then once the basics are known, whether they are embraced or not, then one can move on to other matters that depend upon them. Let me illustrate by taking our present generation which knows virtually nothing about who God is; His being, nature, laws, etc. To assume that the average person knows that God is sovereign and holy would be a serious mistake. Thus, if you did assume this and went merrily along speaking about salvation in Christ, then the one who is ignorant about the God of the Bible would interpret your words according to their idolatrous views of a god of their own imagination. And the end result would be that they would go away with a totally different understanding of what you said rather than what you actually said. Comprende? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> Another example might be when speaking with a Roman Catholic. If you were to simply speak of the necessity of being saved by grace through faith, they would certainly nod their head and agree with you happily. But what the Roman Catholic understands about Soli Gratia is a far different thing than what you understand, i.e., the biblical teaching of Sola Fide and imputed righteousness, the need of being regenerated by an initial and sovereign work of the Spirit which enables a person to repent and believe, etc. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

So, in summary, it is important to first ascertain what a person knows about God, Christ, sin, salvation, righteousness, etc. And from that knowledge one can then speak about Gospel truths and apply them to that particular individual.

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:18 PM

I percieve some wisdom in your words. But if you please allow me, the end is to preach christ, rom 1:16 is the same to either jew or gentile. I believe, being led of the lord of course, that the truths of the gospel as to who christ is= His deity, triunity, his messiahship, and what he has done = bore the wrath and penalty for sin as it regards his elect or choen ones , what he has provided=righteousness, which we could not obtain through our works because of depravity via our first father adam. That God is sovereign in his grace ( acts 20:24) I believe if we labor to set forth the truth in this way, maybe not all in one setting, but nevertheless paul set us preachers an example in preaching the gospel acts 20 : 27 27For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. That is what it is to preach the gospel, it is work !

It would not matter because the key foundational elements are proclaimed ! It would not not matter who hears it, jew, gentile protestant catholic, muslim , seven day, The facts of who christ is and what he has done is the power of God.God has promised to save a people from all ethnos groups. Sure God may give us wisdom to begin differently with different folk, but nevertheless the gospel is the same!!
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:00 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Sure God may give us wisdom to begin differently with different folk, but nevertheless the gospel is the same!!

I think we are in total agreement on this point . . . the Gospel is the Gospel is the Gospel. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> The "message" is unchanged as to content regardless who it is to be spoken to. What I am trying to emphasize is that there is no such thing as a "canned" Gospel message, e.g., "Four Spiritual Laws" or any other such thing. The truths of the Gospel are the same, but they are not to be blurted out in some rote fashion without any consideration given to the hearer.

Again, what Paul said to the Athenians was far different than what Peter preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. Yet, the truths which they spoke were believed by both men. The difference was in WHAT was necessary for their specific audiences to hear. In the case of the Athenians on Mars Hill, Paul had to begin with "square 1", so to speak.

Let me try to make my point a different way. Before you can teach a student Algebra, a knowledge of basic mathematics is essential. If you were to try and teach a 6- year old Algebra who didn't even know basic addition or subtraction, you would be wasting your time. It would be sheer gobbledygook to his ears. It isn't that you teach a 6-year old a different math, but rather you teach the youngster the basics upon which the more advanced elements of math depend. Does that help? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Another example from the Bible is the instance where Priscilla and Aquila sat Apollos down and explained to him the truths concerning Christ (Acts 18:24ff), they did not have to explain to him many things concerning God, the need of salvation etc. They were able to take what he already knew and build upon that, showing him where he erred, etc. In verse 24 it is said of him, "he was mighty in the scriptures". And in the next verse we read, "This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John:". You see, he knew much that was correct, but there were some important things he did was wrong about. And this is how I believe we are to conduct our teaching/preaching as well. We are to first attempt to discern where are hearers are at and build upon those things which are held in truth, correct those things which are in error and then move on to matters which the person(s) do not know. (cf. Heb 5:12-14)

In His grace,
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:04 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
another good scripture passage ! who is paul talking about when he said christ died for our sins ? according to scripture, what scripture? could you please explain? Thanks..

Paul is stating that the gospel is not what he has produced, but that which he received from the Lord (Gal. 1:12). As a steward of the mysteries of God, an apostle, teacher, preacher, et. al., he was obliged to preach to both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 20:21). Paul’s summary is founded upon Scripture, i.e. the OT (Isa 53:5-9; cf. Psa 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:18). Kistemaker summarizes, “for him, the elementary teachings of this gospel are these four redemptive facts”:

Quote
1. that Christ died for our sins,
according to the Scriptures;

2. that he was buried;

3. that he was raised on the third day,
according to the Scriptures; and

4. that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
These facts are the most important ones in Paul’s gospel presentation.
Posted By: J_Edwards

The Audience is important! - Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:12 PM

You must consider their prior learning, their theological depth, their language, their capacities, et. al. Though the Gospel remains the same, it is preached, and that not all at once, in different forms and even with different emphasis, depending on the audience, the Holy Spirit, et. al.

Here are your notes for next week's sermon. Enjoy.

Attached File
61004-Genesis 1 in Russian.doc  (1248 downloads)
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The Audience is important! - Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:42 PM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
You must consider their prior learning, their theological depth, their language, their capacities, et. al. Though the Gospel remains the same, it is preached, and that not all at once, in different forms and even with different emphasis, depending on the audience, the Holy Spirit, et. al.

Here are your notes for next week's sermon. Enjoy.

Sorry, but the sermon for next week has been canceled due to a lack of interest! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Exactly.... and this has been my point, at least that is the point I have been trying to make. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> One of the most pernicious errors of our day is that people assume too much about those outside of Christ (and even those united to Christ). Thus to speak of Christ as if the person you are speaking with has any idea whatsoever who the Lord Christ is a major faux pas. Most people today don't have a clue as to the who the true Living God is. To be sure, everyone has their own ideas (aka: misconceptions) about God, but they are 99% of the time far from having an resemblance to the true God. And isn't this exactly what we are to expect from those we meet according to Romans 1? Although human beings "know" God, i.e., they are exposed to His eternal deity and Godhead, they reject all the testimony around them in the natural creation. And even more so, the truth of God revealed in them, yet they totally reject that knowledge and substitute an idol of their own corrupt hearts and minds, being haters of God by nature.

So, to ask someone to "believe in Jesus" is truly foolishness; Jesus WHO? which Jesus are YOU speaking about? And what do you mean by "believe"? Do you believe such a person existed? exists? was He God incarnate? or is to believe on the Lord Christ unto justification an entirely different thing which involves one's entire being (fiducia).

It is one thing to preach a sermon from a pulpit to an unknown audience where you MUST assume that there are unbelievers in the congregation who have a knowledge of God without having been regenerated and who have repented of their sins and embraced Christ with a whole and living faith. And it is another matter to preach to your own congregation where you know there are true believers sitting there and who need comfort, rebuke, instruction, correction and training in righteousness. Thus Paul's sound words of wisdom to his young protégé Timothy:

Quote
2 Timothy 2:15 (ASV) "Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth."

2 Timothy 4:1-3 (ASV) "I charge [thee] in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;" (cf. 1Cor 3:1, 2; 1Thess 5:14; Heb 5:11-14)

And here are your notes for next month's sermon! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:22 AM

well I can`t argue with that . There will be times when we can begin from a certain observable point. Your example with mars hill , paul observed there superstitous, and proceeded from there, but nevertheless, again the key elements of the gospel were set forth as in 17: 26 Gods sovereignty 26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; vs 29 The trinity 29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. The deity of christ and his lordship vs 31 31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Yes, there will be those in different advancements of the truth and God will send that preacher of the gospel to fill that which is lacking in their faith.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:26 AM

you still did not answer my question sir, no disrespect intended but could you tell me who was paul refering to when he said that christ died for our sins ?
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:08 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
you still did not answer my question sir, no disrespect intended but could you tell me who was paul refering to when he said that christ died for our sins ?

With all due respect why do you need my answer when the text answers this? .... please re-read 1 Cor 15:1 again, ... "Now I make known unto you brethren,"
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:51 PM

You still evade my question sir ! Who do you say is paul refering to, when he said christ died for our sins according to scripture. Is paul preaching limited atonement ? In your opinion, yes or no please..
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:18 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
You still evade my question sir ! Who do you say is paul refering to, when he said christ died for our sins according to scripture. Is paul preaching limited atonement ? In your opinion, yes or no please..

No sir, you are avoiding what the text says! You appear to want to view all preaching with a TULIP approach. The unscriptural sixth sola: Sola Quinque Pedal Declamatio … (Five Pedal Sermons Alone).

As previously posted, Paul was addressing the “brethren” (adelphos). Paul’s statement is not to all the elect (notice that Paul uses the term “if” in verse two, “which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain”). Paul is speaking to the Corinthian Church in a general way, calling them brothers, however, knowing that all are not elect (i.e. the visible church, not the invisible church). Had Paul desired to address only the elect he would have used the term elect.

In 1 Cor 15:3, Paul’s major emphasis is not on Limited Atonement—he does that elsewhere—but rather belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (only the elect can truly believe, but that is not Paul’s emphasis “here”). Paul is saying “here” that it is a historical fact—supported by witnesses—that Christ raised from the dead. Notice he is saying this is the “Gospel” however, it is only part and parcel of the Gospel. Notice verse 3: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” [in other words there are "other" important things, but he is not bringing them out "here"]. Paul’s empahsis “here” is on belief, not election, in the death and resurrection of Christ according to the “scriptures.” Look at the context of these verses in reference to the remainder of the chapter.

Though the preacher would know that his audience is not all elect and that everyone he is preaching to will not, and cannot believe, in preaching this text he should not concentrate (primary point) on Limited Atonement, but on belief in the death and resurrection of Christ. The text is the message of the sermon and not one’s presuppositions that he desires to read upon the text.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:53 PM

You are absolutely wrong on this, Paul clearly states in those verses that christ died for the elect according to the scriptures, what scriptures? The old test scriptures, the old test scriptures shows forth all the way through that the death of christ is limited. Gen 3: 15...when he called abraham, the formation of the people of israel, the sacrifices and what they symbolized..All of old test scripture points to the elect of God as being the ones for whom christ died. Is 53, old test scripture, is referring to the elect, my people is talking about the elct the sheep.
Yes I do espouse that part of the Gospel message that paul preached is limited atonement and election , you can call it points of calvinism if you like but it is the word of God. As far as all the audience being the elect, well listen. This was a group of professed believers at corinth, now can we be sure that all confessed believers are genuine believers ? No. Thats why he said IF. If there would be some that apostacized from the truth, then 1jn applys 2: 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Paul is charitable in addressing all who came together as brethern , for they profess to believe the gospel, but he was aware of some may have been stoney heart believers matt 13: 20 , 21 The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.

You cannot get away from it, the gospel paul preached contained the truth of limited atonement, if you deny it, you deny scripture..period ! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:58 PM

Quote
You are absolutely wrong on this, Paul clearly states in those verses that christ died for the elect according to the scriptures, what scriptures? The old test scriptures, the old test scriptures shows forth all the way through that the death of christ is limited. Gen 3: 15...when he called abraham, the formation of the people of israel, the sacrifices and what they symbolized..All of old test scripture points to the elect of God as being the ones for whom christ died. Is 53, old test scripture, is referring to the elect, my people is talking about the elct the sheep.

Sir, first Paul NEVER says literally in 1 Cor 15:1-4 (“here”) that “christ died for the elect according to the scriptures,” as the term elect is not even used. Is "according to the Scriptures" referring to Isa 53, YES. Is Christ's dying for the elect referred to in Isa 53, YES, but that is not Paul's empahsis in 1 Cor 15. Is it implied here as secondary, yes, but it is not the primary emphasis of this group of verses.

Second, in my previous post, I was very careful to use the term “here,” not “there” (Isa 53, etc.). Paul’s empahsis “here” is on belief, not election, in the death and resurrection of Christ according to the “scriptures.” Though Isa 53 speaks of Limited Atonement, Isa 53 also speaks of the death and resurrection of Christ and belief (Isa 53:1) and this is Paul’s point in 1 Cor 15. Paul is emphasizing a particular part of the Gospel the belief “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:1). Now, does "according to the Scripture", include Limited Atonement, of course, but it also includes a whole lot more ... the major emphasis here is faith, death, and resurrection though, not election--look at the reminder of the chapter ..


Quote
Yes I do espouse that part of the Gospel message that paul preached is limited atonement and election , you can call it points of calvinism if you like but it is the word of God.

I am glad you are a Calvinist, so am I. However, TULIP is not the only sermon in the Bible. This was my point—reread the post.

Quote
You cannot get away from it, the gospel paul preached contained the truth of limited atonement, if you deny it, you deny scripture..period !

Yes, Paul did preach Limited Atonement, but that is not his emphasis in 1 Cor 15:1-4. You are presupposing too much upon the text using your methodology (Isogesis). Its like a Charismatic seeing a demon behind every bush, you are empasizing a TULIP, to the exclusion of other doctrines (i.e. faith), in every verse.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:04 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
You cannot get away from it, the gospel paul preached contained the truth of limited atonement, if you deny it, you deny scripture..period ! bif

Now, now..... let's be nice, shall we? scold The truth here is that you are doing what is infamously called, "eisogesis", i.e., reading into the text. As J_Edwards rightly responded to you, IN THIS SPECIFIC TEXT, Paul is making a general statement concerning the death and resurrection of Christ, i.e., He died for our [sic. sinners] sins according to the Scriptures. This would be similar to me stating, "Christ died for sinners, just like you and me." I would not be making a definitive statement concerning the death of Christ for you in particular, but only that Christ died for a group of individuals who are sinners. Whether you are elect or not is not even implied. It is true that Paul taught "Definite Atonement"; but not in this text.

In a similar fashion, I have seen preachers spend more time making an "apology" for a passage of Scripture that taught man's responsibility than preaching on the text by stressing God's sovereignty. If you are going to preach/teach the Scriptures, then let the Scripture's speak as the Holy Spirit moved those holy men to write it. If one is worried about such things, then preach the next time on the complimentary doctrine. And this is what Paul did. He preached the whole counsel of God. But he didn't cram everything into one sermon or teaching session. If the text speaks about the love of God, then preach on the love of God. Don't diminish the depth of that love by constantly interjecting the fact that God is One Who also hates, etc., etc... ad nauseam. grin

One of the crucial things we must do in our teaching, preaching and informal speaking with others from the Scriptures is to be faithful to the CONTEXT. If I may repeat an oft used phrase, "A text out of context is nothing more than pretext!" That the Bible teaches what we call Calvinism or more specifically, the "Five Points of Calvinism" is indisputable, at least among the great majority of those who are members here. But not every text in Scripture teaches them in particular. Handling the Word of God rightly is something we all need to strive for. And from what you have written on this subject so far, it seems that you need to carefully consider this with perhaps a bit more effort. wink
In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:09 PM

Sir, Theres no way around it, you also may deny it, but paul in 1cor 15, yes in the context he is going to speak on the resurrection, I see that plainly, but in getting to that point he plainly lays out that which he recieved as the Gospel. You are being dishonest to scripture if you deny that the phrase( our sins) is generalized ,that can never be and you know it. Paul draws reference to according to scripture , thats very important in determining for whom sins he refers to. You may deny Limited atonement in that verse, but its there and you can`t change it. Don`t mean to mean but truth is truth, don`t twist it...
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:23 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Sir, Theres no way around it, you also may deny it, but paul in 1cor 15, yes in the context he is going to speak on the resurrection, I see that plainly, but in getting to that point he plainly lays out that which he recieved as the Gospel. You are being dishonest to scripture if you deny that the phrase( our sins) is generalized ,that can never be and you know it. Paul draws reference to according to scripture , thats very important in determining for whom sins he refers to. You may deny Limited atonement in that verse, but its there and you can`t change it. Don`t mean to mean but truth is truth, don`t twist it...

No one denied that Limited Atonement may be alluded to in the verse (for it is for whom Christ died), only that it is not the major emphasis of the verse, or group of verses, or that matter the chapter,--belief in the death and resurrection is the major emphasis. Paul goes on from here and describes faith and the final resurrection ... not election.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:09 AM

Alluded to, its proclaimed paul said I declared. And not only that, he says that is of first importance! Look at the niv rendering of vs 3,4 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

And yes in this verse, it is the major emphasis, now grant it the emphsasis begins to merge into the subject of the resurrection, I see that. But in the mean time , the verses preceeding set forth the true gospel that paul received from heaven and that which he was accustmed to preach.

Again i understand what the overall emphasis was leading up to, as it pertained to the resurrection of the body, nevertheless, paul clearly and plainly referred back to the gospel that he had proclaimed to them previously and what it was ! You guys don`t have to agree with me, but it is as plain as day, thank you for responding though..
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:55 AM

Quote
You guys don`t have to agree with me, but it is as plain as day, thank you for responding though..

What is plain as day is ALL you desire to see in the “gospel” is election and Limited Atonement and desire to leave out the rest …. You say LOOK, LOOK, LOOK at Isaiah 53 – SEE, SEE, SEE and all you point out is limited atonement. However, even a brief overview, and very brief at that, reveals that Isaiah 53 is about A LOT MORE than just Limited Atonement:

Quote
Faith, vs 1
There is a message, vs 1
The message is revealed by God, vs 1
Jesus is a real man, vs 2
Jesus was rejected, vs 3
Jesus was despised, vs 3
Jesus bore sin, vs 4
Jesus was afflicted for me, vs 4
Jesus brought me to peace with God, vs 5
Jesus took all my sin, not just part of it, vs 6
Jesus suffered and complained not, vs 7
Jesus was stricken for his elect, vs. 8
Jesus truly dies, vs 9
Jesus sufferings were God’s will, vs. 10
God is satisfied by Christ’s sacrifice, vs 11
Jesus bore the sin of many, vs 12
Christ made intercession for the transgressors, vs. 12

Thus my problem is when you say “according to the Scriptures,” and ONLY SEE – Limited Atonement. One wonders why you are willing to “overlook” the rest of Isaiah and just concentrate on one issue?

In 1 Cor 15, Paul looked at Isaiah and warns us what he is about to do. He said he is going to tell us about the gospel, but not all the gospel (1 Cor 15:3). Paul’s intent is not to preach the whole of chapter 53 here, but to emphasize Christ’s death and resurrection. He does this because he is preparing to explain and make a parallel with the final resurrection (1 Cor 15:35f). Again, as Pilgrim already stated, you need to learn to study scripture within the context of what the author of it intends and not what you desire to “always” read upon it (i.e. Sola Quinque Pedal Declamatio … Five Pedal Sermons Alone). <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:45 AM

anyone can see the context, I know the context, but truths are also taught within the context of other subjects. One reason for me being adament, is because the true gospel has been substituted by a false gospel. The true gospel, look up the word and etomolgy of the word, it's premise is based on a promise titus 1Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— 2a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, back in gen 3:15 promise, and so on.. matt 1:21 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[a] because he will save his people from their sins." People today did not and do not believe the gospel as it was preached back in the day. You referred back to acts 2 earlier as a model on how to preach the gospel, and when I pointed out that that sermon had election, effectual call, limited atonement , predestination, you immediately then changed, you and pilgrim, and started talking about the audience. You made no reference earlier to the audience when you wanted to make your first point, then all the sudden you changed. Let me ask you and pilgrim this. When were you saved ? Did you believe in the five points (gospel)when you first believed? did you believe in universal atonement when you first got saved. I`m not doubting your salvation, so don`t take me wrong, but what form of gospel did you believe when you first confessed christ. I myself was religous and confessed a false christ of arminism in 1976, God brought me into a saving knowledge of the True christ in 1988. i had been to bible college and all that, but I count all dung like paul did, when the excellency of the right knowledge of the true christ flooded my soul...amen and amen.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:37 AM

Quote
One reason for me being adament, is because the true gospel has been substituted by a false gospel. The true gospel, look up the word and etomolgy of the word, it's premise is based on a promise titus 1Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— 2a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,

This is the very same error you are reading into the text of 1 Cor 15. You are looking at the term gospel in 1 Cor 15 and assuming Paul is speaking about the WHOLE gospel. However, he makes it perfectly clear that this is not what he is doing, nor is it his intent (1 Cor 15:3). Thus, you have substituted the definition of the complete gospel (which no one is arguing with you about its definition, yet) for Paul’s partial “use of the term gospel” in 1 Cor 15 (which we are discussing—because you are using it out of context) .

We perfectly understand that there is a false gospel in the churches today. We have spoken of it several times here. However, when you are attempting to do apologetics it pays to use verses in context—which you are failing to do.

Since you addressed the remainder of your post to Pilgrim, I will allow him to address it as he may. However, I will say it may do you much good to get to know us first before you begin casting stones.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:25 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Let me ask you and pilgrim this. When were you saved ? Did you believe in the five points (gospel)when you first believed? did you believe in universal atonement when you first got saved. I`m not doubting your salvation, so don`t take me wrong, but what form of gospel did you believe when you first confessed christ.

Let me first impress upon you that all of my recent comments up until this point have addressed the issue of "hermeneutics" since at the very beginning I made it clear that I have no dispute with you as to the "message/content" of the Gospel understood in its narrow sense. The problem I have is with your "eisogesis"; reading a doctrine/idea into a text which simply isn't there. From what you have now written, it seems that this tendency to see "Limited Atonement" under every rock is due to an over-reaction against Arminianism and Sandemanianism (aka: Easy Believism") stemming from your own personal experience.

You really should have at least familiarized yourself with what we believe and hold dear theologically before making some of your unfounded and nonfactual remarks. A quick perusal of even just the titles of the articles we have online on the subject of Christ's atonement here: The Atonement of the Lord Christ would show that we embrace most assuredly the biblical doctrine of "Definite Atonement". And my own article on the content of the Gospel found here: A Gospel Summary disallows for any idea that I have any "Arminian" leanings or hold to anything less than "Definite/Limited Atonement".

Now, to answer your question above... I did not believe any "gospel". I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as I repented of my sins, being under heavy conviction of them. I knew nothing of "Calvinism", never mind some "Five Points" or "Limited Atonement". What I knew is that I was a sinner under God's wrath and that Jesus Christ was my only hope of being reconciled to God and to receive forgiveness for my sins. That God would love me, despite of who I was/am was incomprehensible yet a truth that was impressed upon my heart as I believed. It was over quite a few months of reading the Scriptures; cover to cover and over and over that I came to understand what is nicknamed "Calvinism", although I had no knowledge of even the word Calvinism . . . nor Arminianism either, for that matter. What I did know is that what I came to believe theologically from my reading and study of the Bible is that it was antithetical to what was being preached in all the churches around where I lived. And I also learned very quickly that my doctrinal views were very unpopular, even hated by those who professed to be Christians.

There was something else I learned too, which perhaps you should ponder with all seriousness. My ability to present and defend those grand old truths, which we often call the "Doctrines of Grace" was founded upon sound biblical hermeneutics (interpretation of Scripture). If I had fallen into the error which you apparently have fallen, i.e., "eisogesis" . . . the reading of doctrines into texts rather than extracting doctrines from texts, then my desire to present the truth would have been tremendously hindered. In all honesty, I can tell you that I have gotten up and walked out of churches during the sermon because the so-called "preacher" took a portion of God's Word which he claimed he was going to preach on and twisted and turned it so badly, it was unrecognizable, in order to make it fit his pet topic or doctrine.

In short, there are more than enough passages in Scripture that DO teach a "Definite Atonement" without having to impose it upon every passage which makes mention of the death of Christ. The doctrine of the atonement of the Lord Christ is like a many-faceted diamond. It has many aspects or sides to it and which can been seen from various perspectives, all of which when combined create a priceless jewel. Each facet reflects light a bit different than the others. When one begins to take note of the uniqueness of each of those facets and appreciate it for itself, then one begins to develop a true appreciation for the whole in a way that beforehand was impossible. Let each passage of the inspired record of God speak as it was intended to speak and teach by respecting its context, purpose, etc. Fail to do so and you will miss out on much of the brilliance which is contained in the knowledge and glory of God.

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:15 PM

Thanks for your response. Well, you seem to be getting a little defensive , and to keep claiming that I`m eisogesis, well thats unfounded. How am I reading something into a text thats already there, in fact I`m extracting out a truth thats in the text, exegeteing ! The content of the gospel message that paul preached is in 1cor 15: 1-4

Now , you make a distinction between believing the gospel and believing on the lord jesus christ. Well pilgrim, guess what, there is no difference. Believing the gospel is the same as believing on the lord jesus, because you are believeing the record that God of his son

1jn 5: 10 10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

eph 1: 13 makes it clear too

13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

so pilgrim why do you make a distinction where the word of God does not ?

as far as your testimony goes as to you falling under conviction, Gods love and repentance, well I have heard that testimony from thousands of arminians, just to find out that they belived a false gospel and christ. I know a young man whose testimony is exactly like yours, but when later asked his conviction on whom christ is that died for his sins, and he replied, he is the son of God, I said yes but he is God, and he said no he is the son of God, and come to find out , he did not except the Deity of Christ. Now he believed he was a sinner, he believed in Gods wrath, he believed in jesus christ death on the cross for sinners, he believed that jesus was the saviour of man, he said he was taught that in sunday school all his life. Now tell me pilgrim , had he believed on the true Christ ? At no time had anyone proclaimed to him the deity of christ and his equality with the father ! your testimony, excuse me sounds identical. You admit , that the christ you believed in, you knew nothing of his person and work. For his person is that he is God of very God, and His work is to save His people( according to promise) from thier sins. To generalize the death of christ is one of the marks of apostate christianinty. Just to say, christ died for sinners, and leave it at that is not the gospel pilgrim. We must preach who he is and what he accomplished and for whom he accomplished it. Jesus told the women, that he came only for the lost sheep of israel, His limited mission did not discourage her God given faith, for she worshiped him. Jesus is saying the same thing now in his precious gospel, I only come for my sheep ! He is definite and explicit, so was paul.

here is a good link to clarify what I am saying

http://www.godsonlygospel.com/Which%20Jesus2.htm

again I am not imposing anything into that verse or passage, it was always there, I by the grace of God, exegeted it out...
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:24 PM

He was speaking about the whole gospel, when referring back to it. He is now moving forward from that reference to talk about the resurrection. vs 2 2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached( past tense) unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
Sir my only pointing out is that when paul preached to them in the past, he preached limited atonement as part of his gospel message. Thats all I am saying. I am quite aware of the overall context.
Posted By: neicey

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:53 PM

Quote

The doctrine of the atonement of the Lord Christ is like a many-faceted diamond. It has many aspects or sides to it and which can been seen from various perspectives, all of which when combined create a priceless jewel. Each facet reflects light a bit different than the others. When one begins to take note of the uniqueness of each of those facets and appreciate it for itself, then one begins to develop a true appreciation for the whole in a way that beforehand was impossible.


Jeff,
What you said above I love that, I was wondering would that same statement apply also if you were talking about the elect,and Gods church ?
May I use your words,print them on other items?,I have a hobby and collect saying to add to my projects.

Thank You, neicey
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:55 PM

Quote
Sir my only pointing out is that when paul preached to them in the past, he preached limited atonement as part of his gospel message. Thats all I am saying. I am quite aware of the overall context.

No one except you is debating what Paul has done in the past BECAUSE we do NOT know EVERYTHING Paul preached about in the past; a missing letter even to the Corinthians, etc. (but please note he did not preach EVERY aspect of the Gospel EVERY time he preached--as the Gospel reaches into EVERY venue of Scripture and thus presents one with an impossibility ..., however, it may be preached as one faithfully discourses on the whole counsel of God over time, et. al.). Every-time one faithfully preaches he preaches part and parcel of the complete Gospel.

Quote
If I say I am going to preach on faith this week--I am preaching the Gospel.

Next week if I preach about grace--I am preaching the Gospel.

The following week I preach about mercy--I am preaching the Gospel.

The next week I preach about ... and the list goes on and on, but each time I can be said I am preaching the Gospel.

The point of exegesis is what he is saying "in context" of 1 Cor 15 "now." In context, in 1 Cor 15 Paul reminds them of what part of the gospel he preached to them previously--the death and resurrection of Christ--and then he progresses with his argument. Could he have said more than just about the death and resurrection--of course, and we all know he did, but what exactly and to what extent, we do not know..... Now this is the truth of the context; what you decide to do with it is up to you ...
Posted By: doulos

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:12 PM

Its hard to beat good preaching and its refreshing to hear it. Most watch checkers and key jinglers would disagree.
Posted By: doulos

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:18 PM

Quote
b57 wrote
[snip]Don`t mean to be contetious[snip]


It appears you've changed your mind.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:37 PM

Quote
neicey said:
What you said above I love that, I was wondering would that same statement apply also if you were talking about the elect,and Gods church ?
May I use your words,print them on other items?,I have a hobby and collect saying to add to my projects.

Neicey,

Actually, I believe what I wrote applies to ALL of God's truth. And shouldn't we expect it to be so considering the Author Who gave us the Bible? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Show me a someone who says they have studied, meditated and tried to live by the revealed Word of God, but who says they have complete understanding of all that can be known in it, and I'll show you someone who hasn't a clue what it means to be humbled and taught by it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> How can we with our infant minds hope to exhaust the depth of the Infinite One? (Rom 11:33-36)

In His grace,
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:01 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Well pilgrim, guess what, there is no difference. Believing the gospel is the same as believing on the lord jesus, because you are believeing the record that God of his son

eph 1: 13 makes it clear too

13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

so pilgrim why do you make a distinction where the word of God does not ?

Hermeneutics 101
"whom ye also trusted . . ." In case you weren't aware, "whom" is a person, sic the Lord Christ, the second person of the Trinity. "after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel . . ." The trusting in Christ is the result of hearing the gospel. There is a clear distinction made between the "whom", the object of one's trust and the hearing [heard] of the gospel. Paul in Rom 1:16 iterates this fact by saying that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation", i.e., the Gospel is the means by which and through which the Holy Spirit works regeneration in the elect enabling them to believe and drawing them efficaciously to the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, in Rom 10:17 Paul states that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of truth [gospel]". Men may believe the gospel, in the sense that it is true. But it is the Gospel which points to the man Christ Jesus in whom one must trust with all their mind, heart, soul and strength. To suggest that sinners are saved by believing the words of which the gospel consists is nothing more than "Assensus", the acknowledging of the verity of what it says. Salvation results in one exercising "Fiducia", i.e., a trusting with one's whole being on the PERSON of Jesus Christ, both in Who He was and what He did.

Quote
beloved57 said:
as far as your testimony goes as to you falling under conviction, Gods love and repentance, well I have heard that testimony from thousands of arminians, [Linked Image]

My only response is sufficiently echoed in Paul's words to Timothy:

Quote
"for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."


Quote
beloved57 then quips:
here is a good link to clarify what I am saying

http://www.godsonlygospel.com/Which%20Jesus2.htm

Is there something in particular in that article that I/we are supposed to take special note of which pertains to and/or disprove anything I have said? scratch1

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:02 PM

wow pilgrim , The gospel message sets forth the person and work of christ, The truth about who he is and what he has done !There is no difference.. Regeneration hears the voice of christ via the gospel 27My sheep listen to my voice. The article is a good read. yes men may believe the gospel
and not be saved, for that matter men may here about christ and not be saved, your point is mute <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> I don`t know why you make a distinction , the bible does not. men today don`t believe the true gospel because they probably have not heard it. You still have not convinced me that you heard it back then when you said you first believed. Believed what ? You did not believe christ died for his people like it was prohesied. You did not believe in your depravity and hopelessness , you did not believe in sovereign grace, you did not believe Jesus was God. You basically heard that christ died for sinners,aand you felt bad about your sins. I am not saying now you don`t believe the true gospel, I believe you do, but I believe, from what you have written, that you hold on to your rubbish. Instead of thanking God for revealing to you the real Christ of promise, you believe you went from point a to point b , when in fact, you had not even been regenerated and heard the truth about who christ is and what he accomplished, and for whom he accomplished it for, it is as simple as that <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:10 PM

I think sometimes we rely more on our minds than on God revealing to our understanding and giving us understanding., big difference ! it took God giving me understanding and I thank him for it...We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:44 PM

Quote
I think sometimes we rely more on our minds than on God revealing to our understanding and giving us understanding., big difference ! it took God giving me understanding and I thank him for it...We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Beloved57, I am sure you mean well and “think” you have “special” knowledge (gnosis) that no one in Church History or any reliable theologian or Bible Commentator has ever discovered before, but “you” are mistaken. First, how did God give you an “understanding” without using your “mind” (which by the way he gave you)? And why did God give you a mind, to use or not to use?

Second, let us look at some commentators on 1 Cor 15, shall we:

Quote
KISTEMAKER:

I make known to you the gospel which I preached to you.” The translation of the main verb to have you know in this sentence does not imply that Paul is proclaiming a gospel that differs from that of the other apostles. With this verb he conveys that he teaches them once more the gospel which he proclaimed to them in earlier days. Nonetheless, Paul introduces a new element: detailed doctrinal teaching on the physical resurrection of Christ and believers. In his earlier teachings and writings, Paul had already acquainted the believers with the resurrection doctrine (e.g., Acts 13:30; Gal. 1:1). But here in chapter 15, he gives them a comprehensive exposition of this Scriptural doctrine. For this reason he is able to say: “I make known to you the gospel.”

Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, vol. 18, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Accompanying biblical text is author's translation., New Testament Commentary, 526 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001).

MACARTHUR:

Unlike most of 1 Corinthians, chapter 15 is devoted entirely to doctrine, and to a single doctrine at that. In these 58 verses Paul gives the most extensive treatment of the resurrection in all of Scripture. … As Paul reminded them in verses 1–11, the Corinthian Christians already believed in Christ’s resurrection, else they would not have been Christians. That affirmation of the reality of the resurrection formed the basis for his double–edged argument in chapter 15: Because Christ was raised, resurrection from the dead obviously is possible; and, on the other hand, unless men in general can be resurrected, Christ could not have been raised. The two resurrections stand or fall together; there could not be one without the other. Furthermore, if there is no resurrection, the gospel is meaningless and worthless.

John MacArthur, 1 Corinthians, Includes indexes., 395 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996, c1984).

HODGE:

Admitting the resurrection of Christ is inconsistent with denying the resurrection of the dead. What has happened may happen. The actual is surely possible. This way of arguing shows that the objections urged in Corinth bore equally against the resurrection of Christ and against the general doctrine of the resurrection. They must have been derived from the assumption that the restoration to life of a body once dead is either an impossibility or an absurdity. Most probably these objectors thought that to reunite the soul with the body was to shut it up in prison again, and that it was as much a degradation and a retrograde step as if a person should become an unborn infant again. “No,” these philosophers said, “the hope of the resurrection is the hope of swine. Once the soul has been emancipated from the defiling encumbrance of the body, it is never to be imprisoned again.”

The apostle’s argument does not imply that the objectors admitted the resurrection of Christ. He is not arguing with them, but against them. His aim is to show that their objections to the resurrection proved too much. If they proved anything, they proved what no Christian could admit—namely, that Christ did not rise from the dead. Denying the resurrection of the dead involves denying the resurrection of Christ. The question discussed throughout this chapter is not the continued existence of the soul after death, but the restoration of the body to life. This is the constant meaning of the expression “resurrection of the dead,” for which the more definite expression “resurrection of the body” is often substituted. Whether the false teachers in Corinth, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection, also denied the immortality of the soul is uncertain. The probability is that they did not. For how could anyone pretend to be a Christian and yet not believe in a hereafter? All that is certain is that they objected to the doctrine of the resurrection on grounds that logically involved denying the resurrection of Christ.


Charles Hodge, 1 Corinthians, The Crossway classic commentaries, 1 Co 15:12 (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1995).

CALVIN:

I make known to you. To make known here does not mean to teach what was previously unknown to them, but to recall to their recollection what they had heard previously. “Call to your recollection, along with me, that gospel which you had learned, before you were led aside from the right course.” He calls the doctrine of the resurrection the gospell, that they may not imagine that any one is at liberty to form any opinion that he chooses on this point, as on other questions, which bring with them no injury to salvation. … For I delivered to you first of all. He now confirms what he had previously stated, by explaining that the resurrection had been preached by him, and that too as a fundamental doctrine of the gospel.But of Christ. He now begins to prove the resurrection of all of us from that of Christ. For a mutual and reciprocal inference holds good on the one side and on the other, both affirmatively and negatively — from Christ to us in this way’: If Christ is risen, then we will rise — If Christ is not risen, then we will not rise — from us to Christ on the other hand: If we rise, then Christ is risen — If we do not rise, then neither is Christ risen.

John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries: 1 Corinthians, electronic ed., Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries, 1 Co 15:1 (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998).

LUTHER:

With these words St. Paul explains and repeats the essence of His Gospel, which he preached to them, the Gospel in which they stand and by which they must be saved. Thus he composes a whole sermon on the resurrection of Christ, which might well be read and discussed on the Day of Easter. For from this flow the basis and the reason of this article on the resurrection of the dead which he is elaborating. And his sermon substantiates this doctrine most forcefully, both by proof from Scripture and by the witness of many living people, etc. He wishes to say: “I gave you nothing but what I myself received, nor do I know anything else to proclaim as the basis of our salvation than the Lord Jesus Christ, as He most certainly both truly died and also rose again from the dead. That is the content and the sum and substance of my Gospel, on which you and I were baptized and in which we stand. Thus I did not steal anything, nor did I spin a yarn, nor did I dream this up; no, I received it from Christ Himself.”

There you can see first of all what pious little children these tender factious spirits were who reviled Paul and ventured to reproach him with his ordinary person and with his past life, as though they themselves were so spiritual and the most excellent saints. And still they presume to say this about themselves and to preach that there is nothing to the resurrection, despite the proclamation and testimony of all true apostles and its basis in Scripture and their experience. Is this not a disgrace and an abomination on the part of those who desire to be called Christians and who boast of great spirituality as the first pastors after the apostles, some of them even consecrated and inducted into office by Paul himself? And they proclaim this among his disciples, to whom he himself had preached and on whom he had impressed this article so long!

Paul stakes everything on the basic factor with which he began, namely, that Christ arose from the dead. This is the chief article of the Christian doctrine. No one who at all claims to be a Christian or a preacher of the Gospel may deny that. With this he wants to confront them and force them to the conclusion that their denial of the resurrection of the dead denies even more definitely that Christ rose from the dead; for if the former is not true, the latter must be fabricated also. And since every Christian must believe and confess that Christ has risen from the dead, it is easy to persuade him to accept also the resurrection of the dead; or he must deny in a lump the Gospel and everything that is proclaimed of Christ and of God. For all of this is linked together like a chain, and if one article of faith stands, they all stand. Therefore Paul also makes all things interdependent here, and he always deduces one thing from the other.

Martin Luther, vol. 28, Luther's Works, Vol. 28 : 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Corinthians 15, Lectures on 1 Timothy, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther's Works, 28:75 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1973).

H. D. M. SPENCE-JONES

The doctrine of the resurrection. This chapter, and the thirteenth, on Christian love, stand out, even among the writings of St. Paul, as pre-eminently beautiful and important. No human words ever written have brought such comfort to millions of mourners as the words of this chapter, which form a part of the Burial Service of almost every Christian community. It is the more deeply imprinted on the memory of men because it comes to us in the most solemn hours of bereavement, when we have most need of a living faith. The chapter falls into six sections. 1. The evidence of Christ’s resurrection (vers. 1–11). 2. The resurrection of Christ is the foundation of our faith in the general resurrection (vers. 12–19). 3. Results to be deduced from Christ’s resurrection (vers. 20–28). 4. The life of believers an argument for the resurrection (vers. 29–34). 5. Analogies helpful for understanding the subject (vers. 35–49). 6. Conclusion and exhortation (vers. 50–58)…. The gospel. He here uses the word with special reference to the Resurrection, which is one of the most central and necessary doctrines of the “good tidings,” and which always occupied a prominent place in St. Paul’s preaching (Acts 17:18; 23:6), as well as in that of all the apostles (Acts 1:22; 4:2; 1 Pet. 3:21).

The Pulpit Commentary: 1 Corinthians, ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones, 483 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004).

Yes, I believe Christ has given men (great men of theology and history) an “understanding” and they all appear to agree that you are wrong. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:25 AM

I don`t understand what you are saying sir, seems to me you are talking in riddles <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:48 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
I don`t understand what you are saying sir, seems to me you are talking in riddles <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

Proper interpretation of Scripture does this to some. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:59 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
I don`t understand what you are saying sir, seems to me you are talking in riddles <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

Perhaps this is due to you not using your brain, reason and logic as much as you should and relying upon "intuition"? [Linked Image]

The point being made, which I found elementary and which we have been trying to impress upon you is that the CONTEXT of the passage in question focuses upon the resurrection of Christ and not the extent of the atonement. The resurrection is one of those "facets" I mentioned. And the extent, efficacy, sufficiency, etc., of the atonement are also "facets" in their own right which we find elsewhere.... but not in this passage. Eisogesis is a danger to be avoided as it is a pit too easy to fall into. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Although the infamous "Five Points of Calvinism" are surely biblical and defensible, they are but a small part of the whole counsel of God. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:11 AM

Quote
beloved57 makes an embarrassing wrong judgment and writes:
You still have not convinced me that you heard it back then when you said you first believed. Believed what ? You did not believe christ died for his people like it was prohesied. You did not believe in your depravity and hopelessness , you did not believe in sovereign grace, you did not believe Jesus was God. You basically heard that christ died for sinners,aand you felt bad about your sins. I am not saying now you don`t believe the true gospel, I believe you do, but I believe, from what you have written, that you hold on to your rubbish. Instead of thanking God for revealing to you the real Christ of promise, you believe you went from point a to point b , when in fact, you had not even been regenerated and heard the truth about who christ is and what he accomplished, and for whom he accomplished it for, it is as simple as that <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

Thankfully, it is the God of my salvation before Whom I must give an account and not someone like yourself who has absolutely no knowledge of me as a person never mind what took place in my life 34 years ago. You also have no inkling about what I "heard"; assuming that I "heard" anything at all and if I did you assume it was modern Easy Believism. My "rubbish" to which you say I hold on to is nothing more than the truth once delivered unto the saints and which you can read in any of the great Reformation Confessions, Creeds and Catechisms and the writings of the Reformers and Puritans. But most importantly and upon which all those other things are founded, this "rubbish" as you so crassly call it, to your shame I might add, is the Scriptures. One of the fruits of the Spirit is meekness, which it seems has evaded you. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:36 AM

call it what you will, when you gave me your testimony up there, you did not mention one verse, not one scripture, in fact you said you didn`t believe any of the five points of calvinism= the truth they represent, that is the Gospel of jesus christ, in that those truths set forth truthfully who he is and what he accomplished. If you did not believe those truths about christ, then you belived a false gospel, and you were decieved. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:48 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
call it what you will, when you gave me your testimony up there, you did not mention one verse, not one scripture, in fact you said you didn`t believe any of the five points of calvinism= the truth they represent, that is the Gospel of jesus christ, in that those truths set forth truthfully who he is and what he accomplished. If you did not believe those truths about christ, then you belived a false gospel, and you were decieved. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" />

Oy vey.... did you go to school to learn your arrogance or did you come by it naturally? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> I guess by your standards, the Ethiopian Eunuch wasn't saved, nor thousands of others which we read of in the Scriptures who had no knowledge of the "Five Points of Calvinism". So, do you believe that until someone hears and thereafter believes and is able to articulate the "Five Points" they cannot be saved?

Again... here's a good term for you: ASSENSUS. There have been and will be many who have heard the "Gospel" as defined by you, believe the truths of it and even have post-graduate degrees from institutions that are founded upon those truths who are yet dead in sins. One is not saved by simply believing the truth of the Gospel, but rather they are saved when they put faith in the PERSON of the Lord Jesus Christ, of Whom the Gospel testifies. CHRIST saves sinners, not a set of doctrines; true though they may be. One isn't saved without hearing the truth, but they surely aren't saved by or because of them.

Quote
John 1:12-13 (ASV) "But as many as received [color:"red"]him[/color], to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them [color:"red"]that believe on his name[/color]: <span style="background-color:yellow">who were born</span>, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, <span style="background-color:yellow">but of God</span>."


In His grace,
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:53 PM

B-52,

You've arrogantly bombed onto the Highway web site to "straighten us out". You've also implicitly (and ignorantly) baited and accused people here of being "Arminian", "deceived" and of believing in a "false Gospel". Single-handedly you have made the words of Goethe ring true:

Quote

There's nothing quite as frightening as active ignorance


It is you, SIR, that desperately needs to re-examine the content of the Gospel message. It's also (besides TULIP and the Solas) about an omniscient God who humbles and lowers Himself to His own creatures.

Quote

By pride comes nothing but strife, but with the well advised is wisdom. (Prov 13:10)


Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: Paul_S

In bad company? - Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:27 PM

well now pore ole pilgrim, look what you been and done givin a testimony up there and did not mention one verse, not one scripture just like that ole rascally paul when he was in front of the gipper in ax 26, why he didnt say a thing about the extant of the atonement except at the end of his speach when he up and sez would proclaim light to his own people and to the gentiles= universalism!
Posted By: beloved57

Re: In bad company? - Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:41 PM

Hi paul,how are you doing sir, thanks for your respond. I beg to differ with you too. Paul never preached univeralism. He just acknowledges what scripture ( the law and the prophets acts 26: 22 22But I have had God's help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen ! The true gospel preacher knew that Gods elect , chosen , would not be confined to the land of palastine , but would be comprised from all over the world. James said it in acts 15 : 13-18 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18that have been known for ages.

The high priest in jn 11: 51 , 52 51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one

it was taught by revelation to abraham in gen 12 : 2, 3

2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

In fact paul refers back to gen 12 as being gospel truth, lets look at gal 3:8

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Notice it says God would justify , not offer, the true gospel is always presented in what God will do and to whom he does it for ! Now paul you appealed to a passage of scripture in acts 26 to prove that paul did not preach limited atonement to agrippa, but in all reality , the verse or passage teaches limited atonement , that it is limited to the elect in all nations ! remember that paul was appealing to old test scripture , the law and prophets ! You show me anywhere in the oldtestament where universal salvation is proclaimed !
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:45 PM

How are you sir ? I am sorry you are taking it that way, my apologies
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:12 PM

Beloved,

If I am taking your posts wrong, why apologize? There is evidence for what I said.

Please be careful to not make ad-hominem insinuations on this web site. For you to call a perfectly legitimate and understandable post a "riddle" and a true conversion "deceit" is what angered me. Please get to know us before you assume conclusions which aren't true. You might even stay around for awhile.

All good web logs have only one obnoxious "know it all" and that job has already (unofficially) been given to me. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:31 PM

No probem, but the reason for the comment riddle, was because all the previous comments , should have made clear that I understand the overall context of 1 cor 15 , yes it is speaking about and leading into the resurrection, I have no problem with that . I agree , agree, agree, agree <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

My point is sir that in leading up to that subject, paul refers to the gospel message that he preached to them in the past. Do you agree ? And he stated that the gospel message that he preached concerned how that christ died for our ( the brethern, the elect, the sheep, the chosen ones, the children God gave me , those that the father gave me)sins. Sir all I am saying is that the gospel that paul preached contained the truth of limited atonement ! I don`t apologize for that, trust me. Thats the word of God.

Now me, I don`t understand how someone was converted before they believed the gospel which liited atonement is part of according to paul, in fact in practically every sermon that is preached in acts !
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:04 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:


My point is sir that in leading up to that subject, paul refers to the gospel message that he preached to them in the past. Do you agree ? And he stated that the gospel message that he preached concerned how that christ died for our ( the brethern, the elect, the sheep, the chosen ones, the children God gave me , those that the father gave me)sins. Sir all I am saying is that the gospel that paul preached contained the truth of limited atonement ! I don`t apologize for that, trust me. Thats the word of God.

Now me, I don`t understand how someone was converted before they believed the gospel which liited atonement is part of according to paul, in fact in practically every sermon that is preached in acts !


The answer lies within your response. ANY AND EVERY TIME we start a sentence with "I dont understand" the statement this claim is made against is true.

Just because YOU dont understand it does not make it false Darryl.

You also assume that everyone Paul preached to could read and had a copy of all his letters. Where is limted atonement in his letter to Philemon? I am sure you can find it with the lenses you use, but it is not there. So was Paul unregenerate at the time he wrote this letter? If you want to discuss 1 Cor 15, then stay there. You do not need to muddy the waters with acts.

Paul spoke about the resurrection and the second advent more than limited atonement, yet for some odd reason one can have misunderstandings on the eschaton and still be regenerate, but let one be a tad amis on speaking your shibboleth of limited atonement, and they are lost.

Next time you would like to start a thread with a question, provide the answer YOU ALREADY have before imitating a wolf with wool
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:20 PM

Beloved,

Quote

Now me, I don`t understand how someone was converted before they believed the gospel which limited atonement is part of according to paul, in fact in practically every sermon that is preached in acts !


I think I'll just let Dr. Piper speak for me here.

Quote

"And when you believe as you ought to believe, you will discover that your belief -- like all other spiritual blessings -- was purchased by the death of Christ. The sin of unbelief was covered by the blood in your case, and therefore the power of God's mercy was released through the cross to subdue your rebellion and bring you to the Son. You did not make the cross effective in your life by faith. The cross became effective in your life by purchasing your faith". - John Piper


Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:31 PM

I like what he says, when you believe what you ought to believe is key in that statement !
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:45 PM

Hi Sir, it does not matter how you spin it , If you believed the gospel , you believed in limited atonement. By the way, faith in the gospel does not get a person saved, it only makes manifest that they have been chosen by God. For your information, any letter paul wrote , it was to those who had professed faith in the true gospel. But if you want to know the contents of that gospel in a nutshell, see 1cor 15:1-4. It does not matter if a person could read , or write, that does not hinder The Holy Spirit of God from revealing the truth of the gospel. Lets look at john 16: 13, 14 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:20 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Hi Sir, it does not matter how you spin it , If you believed the gospel , you believed in limited atonement. By the way, faith in the gospel does not get a person saved, it only makes manifest that they have been chosen by God. For your information, any letter paul wrote , it was to those who had professed faith in the true gospel. But if you want to know the contents of that gospel in a nutshell, see 1cor 15:1-4. It does not matter if a person could read , or write, that does not hinder The Holy Spirit of God from revealing the truth of the gospel. Lets look at john 16: 13, 14 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.


Your use of scripture is more spiritualized than Scott Hahn!!! Show me in Philemon where Paul mentions limited atonement. And how God has mystically given this information which can be expressed to those people who never read some of Pauls letters
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:07 PM

i`m sorry you lost me. i just wrote that paul wrote to those who had believed the gospel. evidently he knew of philemon's faith in the lord jesus christ. vs 5 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;

paul says the same thing to the romans look at romans 1: 8

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Joe, your reference to philemon only proves my premise that he evidently heard the gospel preached and had faith.. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:49 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
i`m sorry you lost me. i just wrote that paul wrote to those who had believed the gospel. evidently he knew of philemon's faith in the lord jesus christ. vs 5 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;

paul says the same thing to the romans look at romans 1: 8

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Joe, your reference to philemon only proves my premise that he evidently heard the gospel preached and had faith.. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />


It is amazing how you can deduce such things from whatever you want. Faith in the Lord Jesus does not automatically equal understanding limited atonement. OF which the word does not do justice to His definite atonement. The Gospel is much more than what you claim it is. When Paul stated the Gospel was preached to Abraham, where is his understanding of limited atonement? You have dug yourself into a corner Darryl. You need a wider view of God. The Atonement is limited, but God is not. Paul greeted all in his letters like that. Again, no limited atonement in Titus, Philemon, and not present everytime he spoke.

I am sad that you have concluded thus in all the written word. IT is not yours to do that to, it is God's
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:08 AM

Quote
Joe k said:
Quote
beloved57 said:
i`m sorry you lost me. i just wrote that paul wrote to those who had believed the gospel. evidently he knew of philemon's faith in the lord jesus christ. vs 5 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;

paul says the same thing to the romans look at romans 1: 8

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Joe, your reference to philemon only proves my premise that he evidently heard the gospel preached and had faith.. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />


It is amazing how you can deduce such things from whatever you want. Faith in the Lord Jesus does not automatically equal understanding limited atonement. OF which the word does not do justice to His definite atonement. The Gospel is much more than what you claim it is. When Paul stated the Gospel was preached to Abraham, where is his understanding of limited atonement? You have dug yourself into a corner Darryl. You need a wider view of God. The Atonement is limited, but God is not. Paul greeted all in his letters like that. Again, no limited atonement in Titus, Philemon, and not present everytime he spoke.

I am sad that you have concluded thus in all the written word. IT is not yours to do that to, it is God's


Joe, it`s not really hard to understand ! By faith we understand. It`s a matter of the Holy Spirit enabling the regenerated Elect sinner, to Trust in what Christ did for His people ! It`s really quite simple . The elect sinner who has been made acutely aware of their sinfulness , hears the good news as to what christ has accomplished on the the cross for the sins of his people or chosen ones. By a person hearing that message, he is brought to realize, that it`s not what he can do to be saved , but his only hope is that he is the recipent of Gods sovereign particular love, much like the publican, who said lord be propitiated to me a sinner. Even those during the old test times, who were not Jews, but elect, were brought to believe in a covenant God for a particular people. Look at ruth 1: 16 But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.

ruth by her being a elect , was brought to realize that only the God Of Israel ( The God who only Loved a special people) was the true and living God. Rahab is another, who came to believe in The God who had only elected a certain people. If you know your bible the way you claim, you should see this. Job is another , He came to believe in the God of Israel, thats how he knew about the sacrifices and was enabled to utter the monumental words that I know my redeemer Liveth ! Jesus when speaking to a women matt 15: 24

24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Jesus implied by this that his mission is not to seek all mens salvation,but only the lost sheep, the elect, the chosen. And you see what happens when we preach the truth, this women expressed faith in the messiah in spite of his limited mission only to save some. Now as to abraham believing in a limited atonement , you will not see it, because you are blind to the truth, but here is a verse that proves what I am saying about abraham believing in a special limited atonement as it pertained to christ and what he would accomplish gal 3 : 16

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:03 AM



I know I have had this conversation recently somewhere else. Deja Vu. But then I thought, "Could their be 2 rock heads who speak the same nonsense?'' lol

I see this disease spreading rampantly. Placing some perverted grid over all 66 books. Not only books, but all verses. I could quote Nahum 1:1 and darryl would say ,AHA!!! There is limited atonement

1 An oracle concerning Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum of Elkosh.

Darryl says
See Joe. Ninevah and Nahum are the only ones mentioned, hence particular redemption for them.


or

Luke 4:31-32 - So he came down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and taught them on the Sabbath day. They were astonished at his teaching, for his words had the ring of authority.

Darryl says: the THEM are the chosen, and they knew it Joe.

It is almost comical.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:22 PM

Joe, lets move on, you believe what you believe about the gospel and its fundamental message, and I believe what I believe. We will see on that day ! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:07 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Joe, lets move on, you believe what you believe about the gospel and its fundamental message, and I believe what I believe. We will see on that day ! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />


Your post has nothing to do with what the gospel is. You are concerned that every SINGLE time a "sermon" is recorded in the writ, it contains all 5 petals of the flower. This is where you error. And you put the concentration on mans understanding immediately. Yes you cloak this that it is given of God, but your MAJOR concentration is what was understood.

I will make this simple for you. When Christ called the disciples, this effectual call was their regeneration, not their conversion.

ASV: He findeth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ). Jophn 1:41

That is it. And this proves his regenerancy.

When Peter gave his proclamation that "You are the Christ", this proves His regenerancy. No mention of any petal of the tulip
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:13 PM

Joe, please let it go sir ! You believe what you believe.
Posted By: Wes

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:46 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:

Joe, please let it go sir ! You believe what you believe.


I find it interesting that after you've been rebuked by literally everyone in this thread you simply come to this pragmatic conclusion. When you say, "You believe what you believe... and I'll believe what I believe you make the truth subjective which it is not.

Joe and others have rightly stated what the problem is. Namely you are reading your views into the text.

Quote
Joe summed it up rather nicely when he wrote....

Your post has nothing to do with what the gospel is. You are concerned that every SINGLE time a "sermon" is recorded in the writ, it contains all 5 petals of the flower. This is where you error. And you put the concentration on man's understanding immediately. Yes you cloak this that it is given of God, but your MAJOR concentration is what was understood.


Now, either you are slow to comprehend or simply unteachable. Why don't you take a little time and re-read this entire thread. Then ask God why your fellow believers here on the Highway have responded to you the way they have.


Wes
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:59 PM

ok sir, since you wanted to comment, which you have all the right, what do you believe the gospel is ? Please don`t be general, but be specific ! Thanks..
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:10 PM

Very Ironic , how you refer to passages that illustrate the very gospel you appear to despise. truths like effectual call , regeneration , those are truths of the gospel as limited atonement. Jesus taught all those truths as part of his message Jn 3= regeneration , he teaches man depravity and his need to be born again before he can believe, in john 6, & 10 he teaches the effectual call or irrestible grace also in jn 10 he teaches limited atonement , and perseverance of the saints. You have problems , along with others , in distinguishing what christ does to illustrate the gospel truths , and what true gospel preachers should preach as gospel truths. 1cor 15: 1-4 , is a good example of what the contents of the gospel are...
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:16 PM

Quote

ok sir, since you wanted to comment, which you have all the right, what do you believe the gospel is ? Please don`t be general, but be specific ! Thanks..


Here we go again! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sleeping.gif" alt="" />

Good luck Wes!

Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:29 AM

Quote
Adopted said:
Quote

ok sir, since you wanted to comment, which you have all the right, what do you believe the gospel is ? Please don`t be general, but be specific ! Thanks..


Here we go again! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sleeping.gif" alt="" />

Good luck Wes!

Denny

Romans 3:22-24


Do you mind explaining ? Believe what ?
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Gospel truth - Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:12 AM

Beloved,

Quote

Do you mind explaining ?


You just don't get it. We've answered your question again and again but you simply won't listen to our answers because you've already decided what the answer is.

Limited Atonement should be preached but it is only one small facet of the Gospel. Limited Atonement is not the Gospel. Its like saying "Des Moines IS the United States of America!

The Gospel is not a doctrine but a true historical event. The Gospel is the Son of God dying for our sins. This good news to us is the ultimate purpose of the ENTIRE Scripture.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:37 AM

Quote
Adopted said:
Beloved,

Quote

Do you mind explaining ?


You just don't get it. We've answered your question again and again but you simply won't listen to our answers because you've already decided what the answer is.

Thats not true sir !

Limited Atonement should be preached but it is only one small facet of the Gospel. Limited Atonement is not the Gospel. Its like saying "Des Moines IS the United States of America!

this is the first time you have admitted that limited atonement is part of the gospel. So is election, so is the deity of christ, so is mans inability..

The Gospel is not a doctrine but a true historical event. The Gospel is the Son of God dying for our sins. This good news to us is the ultimate purpose of the ENTIRE Scripture.

The gospel is a doctrine :
rom 6:17 17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.


Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Gospel truth - Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:53 AM

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sleeping.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:32 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Very Ironic , how you refer to passages that illustrate the very gospel you appear to despise. ...

Your mannerisms are unacceptable for no other reason than you consistently have berated those who hold to biblical truth, aka: Calvinism as it has historically been cherished, preached, taught and lived by. To accuse Joe of "despising" the Gospel and implying that his defense of biblical hermeneutics is hypocritical is nothing but sheer ignorant and arrogant.

Both Scripture and the official Confessions of the Protestant churches which emerged out of the Reformation testify against you. This "Solo Scriptura" which you labour under is well known and it has been thoroughly rejected throughout history and yes, but us here too. "Lone Rangers" rarely ever accomplish more than alienating themselves from the household of faith and unfortunately most always inflate their own over-estimated egos.

Let this serve as a warning to temper your remarks both in tone and in their verity. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:36 AM

Quote
Adopted said:
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sleeping.gif" alt="" />


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Paul_S

Charges - Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:23 AM

beloved57,

In your response to my single post, you completely missed my point--that a handful of words from any holy text, divorced from their immediate context, can be framed to support any doctrine, whether false (e.g. universalism) or true (e.g. particular/limited atonement)--and proceeded to instruct me as though I needed to be delivered from the evils of universalism. Well, you are at least 25 years too late for that exhortation.

You have been repeatedly rebuked not for holding true a precious element of doctrine--your allegations to the contrary, I don't think anyone who has attempted to reason with you in this thread holds limited atonement as any less true or essential than you do--but rather for mishandling of the word of God.

All truth is of God, and because God is one, all true propositional expressions are invariably rooted in his being and nature and mighty deeds and revelation. So my statement "we felt we had to put our dog to sleep last winter" conveys more than a mere historical fact; it is rooted in, and can therefore be said to imply, several foundational truths: God is; God is Creator of people, animals and time; people make decisions because they are made in the image of God; the consequences of rebellion against God reach to the non-human physical world; etc. Similarly, any biblical statement concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ is ultimately rooted in the entire counsel of God in which that gospel is revealed, and therefore, as one example, the doctrine of limited atonement is indeed implied whenever the gospel is preached.

However, humanity being both finite and fallen, the Holy Spirit-inspired pattern of evangelistic preaching to the lost constantly returns, as you well know, to a handful of explicit proclamations of the person and work of "Jehovah-saves!", the anointed God-man, the Lord Christ. These proclamations are exquisitely wrought and wielded by the Holy Spirit to irresistibly translate lost sinners from death to life, from darkness to light, by giving them faith to believe the promise, not of particular election--how could God promise them what he had decreed before creation?--but the promise of salvation from their sins against his threefold holiness, which faith rests entirely in the life, death, resurrection, reign and return of--and thus glorifying alone--the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Your insistence upon elevating the true doctrine of particular redemption--essential to the comfort and assurance of the believer--to an essential facet of evangelistic preaching is a mishandling of the Word of God: the doctrine is not constantly, explicitly present in Sciptural evangelism, and by making it so you inevitably exclude other, more prominent and necessary, facets of gospel doctrine, in effect taking away from the Word of God, against which you have been warned. And your insistence upon defending its elevation by exegeting the Scriptures as though what were implicit is actually explicit leaves you open to the charge of allegorization, which gives encouragement to those determined to read false doctrine into passages (viz. the point of my original post).

Grievously, I have discerned in your writings in this thread very little desire for instruction, for fellowship with co-laborers, for an extension of charity to those you may not understand, for a public display of unity in the church, for humble praise of the glorious grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ. I have lived long enough to see men, to their peril, infatuated by a single doctrine to the exclusion of others; heed the warnings you have received!

I see that by now you have been rebuked by Pilgrim for your dishonoring treatment of one of the brothers. Here is another false accusation made by yourself. You told Adopted,

Quote
this is the first time you have admitted that limited atonement is part of the gospel.


In truth, he stated explicitly, a day earlier:

Quote
... the content of the Gospel message. It's also (besides TULIP and the Solas) about ...


It would be most wise to search your posts for these, and more, unfounded public accusations and publicly make them right.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Charges - Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:15 PM

Quote
Paul_S said:
beloved57,

In your response to my single post, you completely missed my point--that a handful of words from any holy text, divorced from their immediate context, can be framed to support any doctrine, whether false (e.g. universalism) or true (e.g. particular/limited atonement)--and proceeded to instruct me as though I needed to be delivered from the evils of universalism. Well, you are at least 25 years too late for that exhortation.

My point is that Limited atonement is taught in 1cor 15:1-4 as the content of the gospel paul preached, yes that is the context of him speaking on the resurrection, byt nevertheless, it is more than implied, it is declared !

You have been repeatedly rebuked not for holding true a precious element of doctrine--your allegations to the contrary, I don't think anyone who has attempted to reason with you in this thread holds limited atonement as any less true or essential than you do--but rather for mishandling of the word of God.

How have I mishandled the word of God, if you are truthful, you know I have been very scriptural !

All truth is of God, and because God is one, all true propositional expressions are invariably rooted in his being and nature and mighty deeds and revelation. So my statement "we felt we had to put our dog to sleep last winter" conveys more than a mere historical fact; it is rooted in, and can therefore be said to imply, several foundational truths: God is; God is Creator of people, animals and time; people make decisions because they are made in the image of God; the consequences of rebellion against God reach to the non-human physical world; etc. Similarly, any biblical statement concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ is ultimately rooted in the entire counsel of God in which that gospel is revealed, and therefore, as one example, the doctrine of limited atonement is indeed implied whenever the gospel is preached.

I agree with you on that !

However, humanity being both finite and fallen, the Holy Spirit-inspired pattern of evangelistic preaching to the lost constantly returns, as you well know, to a handful of explicit proclamations of the person and work of "Jehovah-saves!", the anointed God-man, the Lord Christ. These proclamations are exquisitely wrought and wielded by the Holy Spirit to irresistibly translate lost sinners from death to life, from darkness to light, by giving them faith to believe the promise, not of particular election--how could God promise them what he had decreed before creation?--but the promise of salvation from their sins against his threefold holiness, which faith rests entirely in the life, death, resurrection, reign and return of--and thus glorifying alone--the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Gods promise to the elect , was in Christ their federal Head
as gal 3:16 brings out Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ

also titus 1: 2,3
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

3But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

paul here in titus, clearly tells titus that he proclaimed this great truth of Gods eternal love and covenant love for his elect, which he promised them and them only eternal life, promised in christ. Do you think this was the first time titus heard this? No, he evidently heard it in the gospel that paul preached to him before ?


Your insistence upon elevating the true doctrine of particular redemption--essential to the comfort and assurance of the believer--to an essential facet of evangelistic preaching is a mishandling of the Word of God:
the doctrine is not constantly, explicitly present in Sciptural evangelism, and by making it so you inevitably exclude other, more prominent and necessary, facets of gospel doctrine, in effect taking away from the Word of God, against which you have been warned. And your insistence upon defending its elevation by exegeting the Scriptures as though what were implicit is actually explicit leaves you open to the charge of allegorization, which gives encouragement to those determined to read false doctrine into passages (viz. the point of my original post).

you continue to accuse me of allogorizing, please prove that sir, so I and others can see specifically where I do this ! As far as elevating limited atonement, well, thats just part of the message of christ crucified, it describes who he was crucified for, I will continue to elevate it, as I elevate Christ.

Grievously, I have discerned in your writings in this thread very little desire for instruction, for fellowship with co-laborers, for an extension of charity to those you may not understand, for a public display of unity in the church, for humble praise of the glorious grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ. I have lived long enough to see men, to their peril, infatuated by a single doctrine to the exclusion of others; heed the warnings you have received!

You charge me falsely again, I desire fellowship where fellowship can be had, I even believe that I can be taught some things here, even though, I also believe I can contribute as well. Maybe I miss the purpose of the forum, is it for me to be instructed exclusively ?

I see that by now you have been rebuked by Pilgrim for your dishonoring treatment of one of the brothers. Here is another false accusation made by yourself. You told Adopted,

Quote
this is the first time you have admitted that limited atonement is part of the gospel.


In truth, he stated explicitly, a day earlier:

Quote
... the content of the Gospel message. It's also (besides TULIP and the Solas) about ...


It would be most wise to search your posts for these, and more, unfounded public accusations and publicly make them right.


If that person has agreed that limited atone is taught, proclaimed in the overall proclamation of the gospel of jesus christ, you are right, I was wrong and do apologize to him and all others.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:21 PM

you are right pilgrim, that may have been too harsh ! I do apologize to all..
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Charges - Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:28 PM

beloved57,

Here it is in a nutshell . . . Is the doctrine of a "Definite Atonement" a scriptural truth? Absolutely! Should this doctrine be taught and preached in the churches? Absolutely! Is this doctrine an essential element of the Gospel? Absolutely not. The Gospel which is to be proclaimed universally concerns itself with the efficacy and sufficiency of the atonement and not its extent, i.e., Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. And through faith in HIM sinners are reconciled to God through His death and resurrection. The Gospel always points to the person of Christ before Whom men must bow as Lord, receive as Saviour, and trust for life itself. In Him is found the remission of sins and eternal life.

"Assensus", the believing of truth, has never saved anyone. Robert Sandeman thought otherwise and believed that all one needed to do to be saved was to believe some basic facts, or truths. He thus removed the essential element of "Fiducia", i.e., the necessity of a prior work of regeneration which recreates the soul, imparting a new nature which creates a genuine desire within a person to loathe sin and to love God and thus to involve one's entire being in the embracing of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is during or after one is converted that the truth concerning the extent of the atonement is realized as can be seen in Paul's own testimony:


Galatians 2:20 (ASV) "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that [life] which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, [the faith] which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me."


Am I saying that the doctrine of "Definite Atonement" should be excluded from the Gospel? What I am saying is that this doctrine is not an essential element of the Gospel which if not believed one cannot be saved. If the subject happens to come up in conversation then it is perfectly legitimate to discuss it. But again, the emphasis which should most concern us in presenting the Gospel and that which is of necessity to the unbelieving world is that the death and resurrection of Christ has made atonement for sin to all who believe.

In His grace,
Posted By: Kathy

Re: Charges - Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:11 PM

I know I am not a consistent poster, and have opened up cans of worms prior... I do not necessarily understand nor agree with members here on certain topics. I still find value in reading this board... That said.

I’ve been following this thread... and for myself, it brings up a huge stumbling block... concerning Predestination and Limited Atonement. And I do not understand many things... on the topic of Limited Atonement and the mystery of election. If I were to stand back and squint I would agree that the Whole Gospel, in context is what matters... (and I am not prepared to cite specifically nor define a single verse of what is or is not the Gospel). While I DO believe in Predestination and that Christ died for his elect, the Bible also states that “Christ died for all”... I have been tempted in the past to post this question – that more or less goes like this.... “Why the need to over-emphasize(?) that Christ died for ‘some’... that is ... maybe you, or maybe not you. If you’re called you are called. How does this edify? encourage? -- I say in the past I might have posted it... and then I went ahead and posted it anyway... fearing maybe that I will be attacked for asking... But it is honest, I can’t help it.

I do understand that ‘Easy-Believism’ and the “4 Spiritual Laws’ are a snare and a lie.... I understand that God does the calling, and it is wrong to believe one can ‘decide’ for Christ... this is an incomprehensible topic to me. If I try to say anything more it will make less sense. I am enclosing a link that articulates what I would never be able to... (I have a feeling most of you will be against it) concerning Predestination and what seems to me... becomes unfruitful to overemphasize. Maybe that is the point... When things become overemphasized... Flat outright -- I do not claim to know your individual understandings concerning.... growing understanding on this topic. And I am not necessarily seeking answers to something I am not sure can, or better yet, Should be understood.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/predestination.aspx

-Kathy
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Charges - Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:45 PM

Quote
Kathy said:
I am enclosing a link that articulates what I would never be able to... (I have a feeling most of you will be against it) concerning Predestination and what seems to me... becomes unfruitful to overemphasize. Maybe that is the point... When things become overemphasized... Flat outright -- I do not claim to know your individual understandings concerning.... growing

Kathy,

As you will see, you aren't going to be "attacked". Why would "I" for example do that when I can just as easily ban you!?? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Secondly, you are 100% correct that I for one reject the author's views in that article out of necessity. Why? Because he has no biblical basis for what he set forth. #1 He rejects the biblical teaching concerning the doctrine of "Total Depravity" and asserts "free-will" is part of fallen man. #2 He eschews the ability of man to use his brain; to reason and comprehend that which God has revealed in the Scriptures for the very end that he might know. #3 He bases his views on the atonement (universalism) not on Scripture but on the very thing he asserted in #2; i.e., such knowledge is incomprehensible. And in doing so he uses "reason" to defend his view based upon three arbitrarily selected attributes of God, where he should have dealt with the biblical texts themselves and then offered his exegesis and application of them.

It is well known or should be that there is a vast gulf that separates the "Orthodox" church's doctrines from those of historic "Protestantism". What he wrote is but the tip of the iceberg between the two camps. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

However, I will agree with you that ANY doctrine which is over-emphasized to the detriment of another is unacceptable. And history is replete with examples of people who have done this; aka: Hobby Horse Theologians. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

For a defense of the biblical doctrine of "Definite Atonement", aka: "Particular Redemption", aka: "Limited Atonement", see here: The Atonement of the Lord Christ.

In His grace,
Posted By: Kathy

Re: Charges - Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:02 AM

Pilgrim,

I haven’t yet looked at the articles... so can’t comment yet.

Noticed I prefaced that I was sure many of you would hate this article. I will mention at a glance that I guessed certain language would jump out right away and agree... there does appear to be contradiction... the language of man’s will, man’s choice as it is stated. BUT the author precedes and frames this entire article within the context that ‘Of Course.... God predestined creation”... (And I don’t think he was lying, nor was it a ploy—that I can tell at this point). But I think you are saying that wholeheartedly you disagree. I posted this because IN Context, I do not understand why anyone would find it helpful to over emphasize predestination. (And that you agree with). And that is what seemed to be the focus/question of this thread... Whether or not THE ‘Gospel message’ (whatever that precisely is... needs to contain a strong dose of predestination from the get-go). I didn’t walk away from this article thinking IN CONTEXT it was pushing universalism.... At this point... that comment seems too ‘heady’ (for me)... I don’t understand how that is what you thought it was saying. Until I understand (when/if I do... from the article links) why this article evoked such a response... what those differences are... it seems (today) like splitting hairs.

The article brought up examples from scripture that I thought illustrated the great mystery concerning Predestination and God’s will... i.e, the potter and clay. I feel like my only response is I have to respond (for one) and trust in hope.

I do not think we can fully understand certain mysteries (this being one)... I feel like throwing up my hands on this one. Don’t we respond in some way? Don’t we have ears? Is it a work to listen and use our intellect to process our ideas, become convicted of the need for repentance, etc? I also believe that this is by Grace. I think these will have to be rhetorical questions... or you will be here a while.

-Kathy
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Charges - Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:54 AM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
beloved57,

Here it is in a nutshell . . . Is the doctrine of a "Definite Atonement" a scriptural truth? Absolutely! Should this doctrine be taught and preached in the churches? Absolutely! <span style="background-color:#FF0000">This is were we disagree ! The truth of the gospel as to who christ died for , the sheep, the elect, the church, the chosen ones. It is a vital part of the gospel, perhaps even the stumblingblock!</span>. The Gospel which is to be proclaimed universally concerns itself with the efficacy and sufficiency of the atonement and not its extent, i.e., Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. And through faith in HIM sinners are reconciled to God through His death and resurrection. True, who he is and what he has done . Matt 1:21 ( he shall save his people from their sins) before Whom men must bow as Lord, receive as Saviour, and trust for life itself. In Him is found the remission of sins and eternal life.

"Assensus", the believing of truth, has never saved anyone. Robert Sandeman thought otherwise and believed that all one needed to do to be saved was to believe some basic facts, or truths. He thus removed the essential element of "Fiducia", i.e., the necessity of a prior work of regeneration which recreates the soul, imparting a new nature which creates a genuine desire within a person to loathe sin and to love God and thus to involve one's entire being in the embracing of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is during or after one is converted that the truth concerning the extent of the atonement is realized as can be seen in Paul's own testimony:

Now the issue is not believing the truth as an act we do to be saved, that is works, lets not confuse the issue. The point here is that, those who are saved will believe the gospel and that entails limited atonement 1cor 15:1-4 christ died for our (the brethern, elect,the chosen, the seed of abraham, the sheep, the children of God ) sins ! every word of God is inspired and has a purpose ! Pilgrim to say that limited atonement is not part of the gospel truth, is not good, you say its not, and the scripture says it is! Who should I believe?

<blockquote>
Galatians 2:20 (ASV) "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that [life] which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, [the faith] which is in the Son of God, <span style="background-color:yellow">[/b]who loved me, and gave himself up for me[/b]</span>."<br>
</blockquote>

Thats paul own private testimony, he is not preaching the gospel !









[color:"FF0000"]This is a contradiction, it should not be excluded, because it is an essential truth, it describes for whom christ died![/color] If the subject happens to come up in conversation then it is perfectly legitimate to discuss it. But again, the emphasis which should most concern us in presenting the Gospel and that which is of necessity to the unbelieving world is that the death and resurrection of Christ has made atonement for sin to all who believe.( every, roman catholic and arminian, seven day adventis, would agree with this !

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Charges - Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:00 AM

Here is another good link..

http://www.godsonlygospel.com/Atonement%20For%20Whom2.htm
Posted By: Wes

Re: Charges - Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:04 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:

This is were we disagree ! The truth of the gospel as to who christ died for , the sheep, the elect, the church, the chosen ones. It is a vital part of the gospel, perhaps even the stumblingblock!

..... it should not be excluded, because it is an essential truth, it describes for whom christ died!


Beloved57,

While I agree with you that God knows whom He has predestined unto salvation and who will be lost can you tell me how that's helpful in a Gospel presentation. If you use it in your Gospel presentation can you say that you know for sure that those who respond are indeed the elect of God? Is everyone who responds to the Gospel elect? Is every member of the church who has made a public profession of their faith in Jesus Christ elect of God? If so why do some fall away?

We can't see into the hearts of our fellow church members and we can't know for sure who the elect of God truly are. So why do you think this is so vital to be included in a Gospel presentation? In Matthew 13 we read that the wheat and the tares will grow up side by side and then at the time of harvest they will be seperated. The one will be burned and the other will be brought into the storehouse.

The election of God which is taught throughout Scripture is learned and embraced by a true believer but is not essential in a Gospel presentation. The knowledge that God chooses us rather than the other way around is indeed a comfort to the believer because he knows that He who has begun a good work in him will also bring it to completion.

The Gospel is the narration of historical facts, interpreted by God for us, to be embraced and kept. Since Christ truly died and was raised, therefore our salvation is in Him alone; He is our hope.


Wes
Posted By: Kathy

Re: Charges - Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:08 AM

I admit right here my ignorance, etc. is my disclaimer...

I understand that on one hand Christ only died for his elect... a Pre-destined group of saints that HE fore-knew... BUT... HE foreknew them... not you, me, Paul, Calvin... and I know no one here is saying otherwise... So...

Someone out there is going to be in a car accident today... Someone out there is going to arrive safely at their destination.

Nonetheless.... shall we get in our cars and... some of us will be safe drivers, courteous drivers. Should I buy insurance? Does it help if I keep reminding you that the statistics are for or against you? Maybe it does.

But concerning the Good News... isn’t it offered freely ‘to all’? Will some reject it, or have short attention spans... But isn’t the Good News still to be freely offered... and those who hear will hear? Isn’t that where Grace (and mystery) comes in? THIS is my issue – I think.

(I have a lot of reading to do... and thinking... and praying on this issue)

-Kathy
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Charges - Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:30 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
The point here is that, those who are saved will believe the gospel and that entails limited atonement 1cor 15:1-4 christ died for our (the brethern, elect,the chosen, the seed of abraham, the sheep, the children of God ) sins ! every word of God is inspired and has a purpose ! Pilgrim to say that limited atonement is not part of the gospel truth, is not good, you say its not, and the scripture says it is! Who should I believe?

You can believe whomever you want, which you have incontrovertibly shown to be yourself. Your "eisogetical" rending of the Scriptures is well documented at this point and has been consistently rejected and rebutted. We do not accept your "salvation by doctrine" extremism but rather we hold firmly and will tenaciously defend the biblical doctrines of Sola Gratia, Sola Fide and Solus Christus. A person can profess to believe in all the correct doctrine they want but yet be dead in their sins because they have not believed upon THE MAN CHRIST JESUS. Perhaps God will someday open your eyes to this glorious truth which has been the foundation of the Church. I have little doubt that Marc Carpenter is smiling upon you at this very moment. Perhaps you will receive an invitation to join "Outside the Camp"?


Galatians 2:20 (ASV) "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that [life] which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, [the faith] which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me."



Quote
Then you wrote:
Thats paul own private testimony, he is not preaching the gospel !

Really? In my Bible, Paul is expounding upon the true gospel vs. the false gospel of the Judaizers in chapters 1-3 of Galatians. If there ever a place where one could read of what the Gospel is, it would have to be there. CONTEXT please!

Quote
In regard to Definite Atonement, you quipped:
This is a contradiction, it should not be excluded, because it is an essential truth, it describes for whom christ died! . . . every, roman catholic and arminian, seven day adventis, would agree with this !

Again, you are blinded by your extremist view(s) and guilty of reductio absurdum. For the last time, all consistent Calvinists hold that "Definite Atonement" is an essential doctrine within the confines of soteriology. And, it should be preached and taught within the Church. But it is NOT necessary that it be included in one's gospel presentation. The fact that Roman Catholics, Arminians, et al agree that Christ died for sinners doesn't necessitate that it is false. This is a biblical truth. The Lord Christ did not say, "Come unto me all who are elect and I will give you rest." or "Come to me if you are one for whom I died and I will give you rest."

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:36 AM

This is what Charles spurgeon said about calvinism !

Charles Haddon Spurgeon shockingly declared Calvinism is the gospel and Arminianism is heresy:
“And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else” (p. 172)
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Charges - Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:46 AM

Quote
Kathy said:
I do not think we can fully understand certain mysteries (this being one)... I feel like throwing up my hands on this one. Don’t we respond in some way? Don’t we have ears? Is it a work to listen and use our intellect to process our ideas, become convicted of the need for repentance, etc? I also believe that this is by Grace. I think these will have to be rhetorical questions... or you will be here a while.

Kathy,

1) God did NOT "predestinate creation"! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> He predestinated people unto salvation in Christ. God "foreordained" all things. But "predestination" belongs to the realm of soteriology (salvation). It may seem like all this is like splitting hairs, but it is definitely not. Biblical truth, all of God's truth is important, although some of those truths are more pressing and dependent upon the situation where they are to be applied. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

2) There are definitely "mysteries" in the Bible which cannot be comprehended in full by anyone this side of glory and perhaps they never will be. The Infinite cannot be fully comprehended by the infant mind of a created being. The fact is, we can comprehend what God has revealed for the simple fact that it was God's purpose that we do know his revealed will and that He sent the Holy Spirit to guide believers into ALL truth. So, we are capable of knowing many things and we are even required to do so. In the matter of predestination, we cannot comprehend the secret will of God, e.g., who exactly God has decreed unto salvation with 100% certainty. But we can know that He has predestinated a remnant out of Adam's fallen race to be reconciled to Him through faith in Christ. There is no "mystery" to that. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

For more on the biblical doctrine of predestination, see here: The Doctrine of Predestination.

In His grace,
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:53 AM

And we here would agree 100% with Spurgeon's quote, "Calvinism is the gospel" in contradistinction to Arminianism and its false gospel. But the reverse is not true, that the Gospel is Calvinism. Again, your extremist error is preventing you from seeing this glorious truth. The Bible does NOT teach "salvation by doctrine", whether it is the semi-Pelagian/Arminian flavor of Sandemanianism or one with a Calvinistic emphasis. "A text out of context is nothing more than pretext!"

In His grace,
Posted By: Kathy

Re: Charges - Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:50 AM

Pilgrim,

I will need then to understand the difference between for-ordained and predestined.... OK.

At this moment...
QUESION: WHY/How are the elect predestined?
ANSWER: (it seems to me) "Because God said so" and will have to remain a mystery.

Do you think this can be/should be understood? That is what I meant.

So (rhetorically again) where does this leave the Gospel message/presentation?

I was viewing an online debate (elsewhere) between an Arminian and Predestination believer... The latter said this:

"It is the command of God that every man repent and believe the Gospel. This is the revealed will of God to man. However, in His secret will, His decretive will, He has appointed some men to salvation and others to condemnation. Man’s duty is to obey the revealed will of God. We are not to speculate on the secret will of the Lord."
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:07 AM

For the twentieth time pilgrim, you seem to miss the point ! I do not advocate salvation by doctrine, prove where i have said this. Prove that spurgeon meant that. Salvation is by grace period. Gods elect will believe the gospel and their faith at that time makes manifest their eternal election and that they have been saved. Please be accurate as you tell me. No one is saying salvation by doctrine. Lets be fair and honest
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Charges - Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:19 AM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
Kathy said:
I do not think we can fully understand certain mysteries (this being one)... I feel like throwing up my hands on this one. Don’t we respond in some way? Don’t we have ears? Is it a work to listen and use our intellect to process our ideas, become convicted of the need for repentance, etc? I also believe that this is by Grace. I think these will have to be rhetorical questions... or you will be here a while.

Kathy,

1)
Quote

God did not predestine creation

That may not be accurate pilgrim, God predestined all things!

God foreordained the person of christ , I think foreordain and predestine are used interchaneably ! Both terms just denote a outworking of a predetemine plan.

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

"! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> He predestinated people unto salvation in Christ. God "foreordained" all things. But "predestination" belongs to the realm of soteriology (salvation). It may seem like all this is like splitting hairs, but it is definitely not. Biblical truth, all of God's truth is important, although some of those truths are more pressing and dependent upon the situation where they are to be applied. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

2) There are definitely "mysteries" in the Bible which cannot be comprehended in full by anyone this side of glory and perhaps they never will be. The Infinite cannot be fully comprehended by the infant mind of a created being. The fact is, we can comprehend what God has revealed for the simple fact that it was God's purpose that we do know his revealed will and that He sent the Holy Spirit to guide believers into ALL truth. So, we are capable of knowing many things and we are even required to do so. In the matter of predestination, we cannot comprehend the secret will of God, e.g., who exactly God has decreed unto salvation with 100% certainty. But we can know that He has predestinated a remnant out of Adam's fallen race to be reconciled to Him through faith in Christ. There is no "mystery" to that. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

For more on the biblical doctrine of predestination, see here: The Doctrine of Predestination.

In His grace,
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:43 AM

Beloved,

Maybe you can pull another rabbit from your hat and solve this mystery?

Quote

I do not advocate salvation by doctrine, prove where i have said this.


On another of your posts on 6/8, you said this:

Quote

If you did not believe those truths (Read Limited Atonement) about christ, then you belived a false gospel, and you were decieved.


Which is it?

Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:05 PM

IF Christ said all manner of sin is forgiven. To the utmost. And this side of glory we are all tainted by sin, some more than others, and these are forgiven for those in Christ. Why is believing amis not forgiven? This has always plagued me. I am not speaking of a willful rejection of Christ. But there appears to be very little in scripture that says what should be confessed as truth. Perhaps Trinity, Diety of Christ, Christ coming in the fles. Law vs grace.

I guess what i am after is if all manner of sin is forgiven, and unbelief of certain doctrinal propositions is a sin, why is this not forgiven?

Let's just say definite atonement is true, i believe it< but this is a truth and not believing it is the sin of unbelief, Christ said He paid for that sin.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:33 PM

Hi Joe, It is forgiven , paul is a living testimony to that !

1 tim 1: 12
thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. 13Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

I myself have been forgiven, I once belived and preached arminism. But I like paul, have renounced my former religous ignorance and count it dung..
phil 3: 8

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Having a correct understanding of who christ is and what he done to save his people from their sins, is a great blessing from God !
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:43 PM

yes, thats true ! If a elect jehovah witness who has not been brought to a knowledge of who christ is and what he has done for the sins of his people and that he was God, sure he will still be saved because he is a elect, but at this particular time in their life, prior to God revealing the truth to them regarding who christ is and what he has done, to me he has not manifested his salvation yet, because they still manifest belief in a false doctrine.

so I cannot say that person is saved , how could I ? We are not God , we are not omniscience ! We can only know that one could possibly be our brother or sister by what they confess to be true about the doctrine of christ they hold and confess. Do you think paul would have been accepted and fellowhipped by the other christians if he did not evidence a belief in the gospel of the christ he recently hated and vehemently persecuted ? Come on give me a break with that argument, it is so weak and you know it sir... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:09 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
yes, thats true ! If a elect jehovah witness who has not been brought to a knowledge of who christ is and what he has done for the sins of his people and that he was God, sure he will still be saved because he is a elect, but at this particular time in their life, prior to God revealing the truth to them regarding who christ is and what he has done, to me he has not manifested his salvation yet, because they still manifest belief in a false doctrine.

so I cannot say that person is saved , how could I ? We are not God , we are not omniscience ! We can only know that one could possibly be our brother or sister by what they confess to be true about the doctrine of christ they hold and confess. Do you think paul would have been accepted and fellowhipped by the other christians if he did not evidence a belief in the gospel of the christ he recently hated and vehemently persecuted ? Come on give me a break with that argument, it is so weak and you know it sir... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />


Once again you are missing my whole point. There is not one arminian, for lack of a better term, who would deny the trinity, diety of Christ, Bodily resurrection, coming in the flesh etc etc.

The elevation of TULIP, especially "L" to this level is man made.

One who denies Christ came in the flesh is antichrist per john the inspired apostle. But I do not see any verse supporting anyone who denies "L" is antichrist.

I am not arguing here darryl. You need not respond unless you can address my question. And why do you use Paul as the barometer and not Christ? Was HE not given the title "Friend of publicans and sinners?"

You are claiming that denying your shibboleth of tulip is a sin. But if Christ suffered for that sin, than why condemn them? I dont think you can have it both ways.

If a man dies while rejecting Christ as being the messiah, denying He came in the flesh, we could possibly conclude he is damned. But if one dies denying any of the petals, but confesses and trusts in Christ as the anointed one, wouldnt the blood of Christ cover all of his sins?
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:16 PM

Beloved57 protests and states,

Quote
so I cannot say that person is saved , how could I ? We are not God , we are not omniscience ! We can only know that one could possibly be our brother or sister by what they confess to be true about the doctrine of christ they hold and confess.

So was Peter (i.e. the Apostle) a Christian? If so, when?
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:11 PM

Beloved,

Quote

so I cannot say that person is saved , how could I


This is the point! Neither may you say that this person is NOT saved just because he doesn't believe in your favorite doctrine. None of us believe or obey all of the Gospel perfectly. If you judge and condemn someone for not believing or behaving exactly as you think he should, what about the things that you, yourself, are still knowingly or unknowingly neglecting, such as humility and meekness?

Do you think the thief on the cross was saved because he was a Supralapsarian or because he was a Infralapsarian?

As far as we're concerned, and from our perspective, a person is not saved when he says, "I don't believe in Jesus". Teaching, casting out error and heresy is what the Church is supposed to do, not condemning as lost every soul that does not yet believe in Limited Atonement or whatever. This is exactly what the cults do!

Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:24 PM

I know people who say they believe in jesus christ who are followers of roman cathlocism ! Do you believe they are saved also ? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:33 PM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Beloved57 protests and states,

Quote
so I cannot say that person is saved , how could I ? We are not God , we are not omniscience ! We can only know that one could possibly be our brother or sister by what they confess to be true about the doctrine of christ they hold and confess.

So was Peter (i.e. the Apostle) a Christian? If so, when?


you miss the point <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:46 PM

an arminian believes in salvation by christ + faith , or decision which = works , condemned by the bible just like gnosticism or any other false teaching about christ <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:47 PM

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sigh.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:37 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
I myself have been forgiven, I once belived and preached arminism. But I like paul, have renounced my former religous ignorance and count it dung... phil 3: 8

Having a correct understanding of who christ is and what he done to save his people from their sins, is a great blessing from God !

And until the point where you renounced Arminianism and embraced Calvinism, particularly "Limited Atonement", can I correctly say from all that you have written in this thread and specifically your judgment that I was probably not saved until I came to understand the doctrines of grace, that you were not saved?

If you are consistent in judging yourself (Matt 7:1-5) then what you are believing and promoting is "doctrinal salvation". You can protest all you like but it doesn't remove the truth of the matter. And I can honestly tell you, indeed I MUST tell you, that if you truly believe that you are saved because [by grace] you believe TULIP, then you are yet dead in your sins and are in need of Christ's imputed righteousness. No one is reconciled to God through doctrine.


John 1:12-13 (ASV) "But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."


It is sufficient that one believe in the person of the biblically revealed Lord Christ and that His death and resurrection is sufficient to cleanse from all sin.


John 6:35-40 (ASV) "Jesus said unto them. I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not. All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."


What is essential for salvation is GRACE! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/larrowred_pulse.gif" align="absmiddle[/img] Grace, brings conviction of one's sinfulness and of sin. Grace, convinces of one's hopelessness and helplessness. Grace, reveals the loveliness of Christ and one's entire need of Him. Grace, impresses the sufficiency of His atoning work to bring reconciliation with God and remission of sin. Grace, stirs up one's soul to desire holiness. And eventually Grace brings one to a fuller knowledge of that Grace which saves. (cf. Col 1:9, 10)

The Gospel speaks of a sinner's whole need of the Lord Jesus Christ . . . NOT doctrine. All those other cults, sects and heretical theologies share in common the fatal error of "synergism"; salvation by faith + xxxx. That is what will keep one from being redeemed; from being reconciled to God and rescued from the judgment to come.

Until you come to realize the truth of this and continue to embrace your "salvation by Limited Atonement, or whatever doctrine you elevate where it replaces Grace", you are in peril of losing your soul no less than those you would consign to hell because they don't believe in a particular doctrine. :sad:

In His grace,
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Charges - Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:55 PM

Quote
Kathy said:
I will need then to understand the difference between for-ordained and predestined.... OK.

At this moment...
QUESION: WHY/How are the elect predestined?
ANSWER: (it seems to me) "Because God said so" and will have to remain a mystery.

1) VERY simplified working definitions of the terms:
Foreordination: The determining of all things; their beginning and their end, including all things to bring them to their appointed end.

Predestination: The determination of God to save certain individuals in Christ Jesus.

Quote
[/i]You then ask:[/i]
Do you think this can be/should be understood? That is what I meant.

So (rhetorically again) where does this leave the Gospel message/presentation?

Yes, predestination is a doctrine which is irrefutably revealed in Scripture. And, it being the foundation of salvation in Christ, it should be made known, but handled with care. It can be very useful in one's speaking of God and salvation, e.g. to humble a sinner's pride who thinks that redemption of his/her soul is a matter of their own decision, etc. On the other hand, it can be very comforting to one who believes that there is no hope for themselves due to their sinfulness.

Quote
Lastly, your wrote
I was viewing an online debate (elsewhere) between an Arminian and Predestination believer... The latter said this:

"It is the command of God that every man repent and believe the Gospel. This is the revealed will of God to man. However, in His secret will, His decretive will, He has appointed some men to salvation and others to condemnation. Man’s duty is to obey the revealed will of God. We are not to speculate on the secret will of the Lord."

I agree 100% with this quote. The specific details of the secret will (decretive will) of God is unknown to us. But it has been revealed that God has decreed (foreordained) all that should exist and all that should occur in regard to them for the explicit purpose of exalting His own glory. The revealed will (prescriptive will) of God is all that is written in His Word. And it is this which we are to give are whole attention and obey; conforming our lives according to all holiness.

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:09 PM

wow pilgrim, you get off telling me I am dead in tresspasses and sins for believing the gospel , and you have not once said anything about an arminian being lost for believing in works. I really thought you were more advanced in your undersanding than what is being revealed now. Answer me this question. Was saul of tarsus saved prior to his damascus road encounter with christ ? Please explain your answer.

oh by the way , I do believe in eternal justification. But for right now I want to see where your understanding is. Can we say or would paul say he was a christian, a beliver, before he believed in christ through the gospel revealation given him? Again explain your answer. Thanks...
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:32 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:

you miss the point <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

The only thing I am missing is your answer? (however, I went ahead and made the point here)
Posted By: J_Edwards

Gnostic Arminianism - Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:15 PM

Quote
Beloved57 states,

wow pilgrim, you get off telling me I am dead in tresspasses and sins for believing the gospel , and you have not once said anything about an arminian being lost for believing in works.

Those that are truly saved are saved by believing in the person of Jesus Christ alone. Salvation is a gift of God and not by your striving to have a perfect understanding of doctrine (which can be said to be a form of Arminianism). If we all had to have perfect doctrine then all of us without exception, would be lost—including the Apostle Peter (Gal. 2).

Your posts support a form of Gnosticism (referring to the idea that there is special, hidden knowledge that only a few may possess), not Christianity. Your idea of “atonement” lies in what knowledge (i.e. limited atonement, etc.) someone may or may not have and not in the God-given faith they have in Christ alone for salvation.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> Gnostic Arminianism
Posted By: doulos

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:24 PM

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ranton.gif" alt="" />
Well I think twelve pages of this crap is enough. Pilgrim deserves a medal for not booting you, yes you beloved57, about a week ago--and you're still arrogant and abrasive. Its ridiculous. And quit asking people to explain their answers. You don't want an explanation, you want to argue and start trouble. You're trolling and YOU know it. So quit.

Heck I'm a Baptist and I've learned more from these folks--some of whom you've chewed out, which I can't say I appreciate--this year about theology than I have in something like fifteen years of Sunday School. If you want to learn, stick around. If you don't, kindly accept my humble invitation to move along.

Of course I don't run things and those who do are exceedingly gracious, which is why you're still probably going to post more contentious malarky.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rantoff.gif" alt="" />

Hey how 'bout those Texas Rangers huh?
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:33 PM

Are there specific truths about christ and his death that must be preached in a gospel message ? Do we need to be specific about who christ is and what and for whom his death
was for ?


This above question was the start of this thread. Darryl, next time just post what your intention is. That is obviously has nothing to do with your "question." Id like you to read the following quote, from a man who fought for his understanding as zealously as the next.

Taken from: http://www.prca.org/standard_bearer/...5.htm#RESPONSE:
A recent quotation from Rev. Herman Hoeksema, which Rev. Woudenberg furnished to a pastors’ newsgroup on the Internet, demonstrates the same charitable attitude. It is a quotation taken from the Banner, January 2, 1919. “You know, a Calvinist (excuse the term; I am not any too fond of it myself. Never do I use it if I can help it. I don’t think I have used it a half dozen times from the pulpit, which is not very frequent in three years and a half), I say a Calvinist is after all a distinctive Christian. Not all Christians are Calvinists. Mark, I say: ‘not all Christians are Calvinists.’ They may be Christians all right. Sure! Dear children of God, with whom I love to shake hands. I don’t believe that there is a Calvinist that denies this. I don’t think that there is a Calvinist who maintains that the Calvinists are the only Christians. And those who love to waste paper (and that in this time when paper is so valuable!) by fighting against Calvinists who maintain that they are the only Christians on earth, are fighting a shadow, a product of their own imagination. No, but I claim that a Calvinist is a Christian of a distinctive type, with distinctive principles and views, in distinction, namely, from other Christians. Never let any method of reasoning lead you to the belief that all Christians are Calvinists, for then things will be getting so dark, that you lose all power to distinguish. The Methodist is a good sincere Christian, all right. Of course he is! A dear brother. But he is not a Calvinist. The same is true of the Anabaptist, the Lutheran, etc. All together they constitute the church of Jesus Christ on earth, as long as they confess that Jesus is the Christ. But within that large circle there are different shades and forms of faith, and the Calvinist also maintains his own distinctive world and life view in their midst. Now, what I mean to say is that to maintain your distinctive character as a Calvinistic Christian, you must not merely be able to discern clearly what distinguishes you from the rest, but you must have the courage of your conviction such as can be the fruit only of the faith in the Word of God. Only the conviction that our form of faith is the purest expression of Scripture (again, mark, I do not say: the only form or expression) can give us the courage to refuse amalgamation. And therefore, it is necessary, that we are conscious of the relation between our Reformed Faith and the Word of God.”
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:55 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
wow pilgrim, you get off telling me I am dead in tresspasses and sins for believing the gospel , and you have not once said anything about an arminian being lost for believing in works. I really thought you were more advanced in your undersanding than what is being revealed now. Answer me this question. Was saul of tarsus saved prior to his damascus road encounter with christ ? Please explain your answer.

Perhaps you are incapable of comprehending things as you ought?? [Linked Image] Or perhaps you are as doulos suggested, i.e., you are nothing more than a troll [Linked Image]. But whatever the reason is, you certainly have many things wrong and fail to comprehend what other people write. What I said was that IF you believe that you are saved BECAUSE you have embraced "right doctrine", then you are no different than any other unbeliever who has not embraced Christ by grace through faith. Frankly, as far as my not being as "advanced" as you thought I was, I couldn't care less. For from what you have revealed about yourself, I dare say, being "advanced" according to your standards would be a huge step backward.

Quote
And then more error is expressed by you:
oh by the way , I do believe in eternal justification. But for right now I want to see where your understanding is. Can we say or would paul say he was a christian, a beliver, before he believed in christ through the gospel revealation given him? Again explain your answer. Thanks...

Was Paul saved before he believed upon Christ, you ask? Absolutely not! We here believe firmly in the biblical doctrine of "Sola Fide"; justification by grace through faith, alone. We do not find "justification by decree" anywhere in Scripture. Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit puts it quite succinctly and quite sufficiently when he writes:


Romans 8:30 "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."


Clearly, predestination facilitates calling and resultant of that calling comes justification. And immovably wedged between "calling" and "justification" is faith. This is Christianity 101. It is one of those essential elements of the Gospel without which no one can be saved. Have you a true living faith in the Lord Christ? If you were charged with being a Christian, what biblical evidence would one find to convict you?

Oh... btw, we have already thrashed through this subject of "eternal justification" here on the Board. You will NOT hijack this thread and continue its discussion under this topic of "Gospel Truth". And in case you haven't been exposed to Berkhof's discussion on this topic, you can read it here: Eternal Justification.

In His grace,
Posted By: William

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:43 PM

Could you please show the Lord some respect by taking a little extra time and writing His name with capital letters please. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:46 PM

who said anything about being saved because you believe in right doctrine ? Because being the key word here. Show mw where I said that ? As far as justification in eternity, nah I would`nt want to discuss that with you, but if you don`t mind I will search out and see your comments on them !
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gnostic Arminianism - Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:51 PM

13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:58 PM

Thats flat out ecumenism !
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Gnostic Arminianism - Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:11 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Very Good you can copy and paste Scripture. Do you care to move to the 3rd grade now and explain what it means.

Attached picture 61177-Graduation.gif
Posted By: Paul_S

Rubbish and various falsehoods refuted - Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:30 PM

You challenged Pilgrim:

Quote
who said anything about being saved because you believe in right doctrine ? Because being the key word here. Show mw where I said that ?


Several days earlier you had told Pilgrim:

Quote
You still have not convinced me that you heard it back then when you said you first believed. Believed what ?

You did not believe christ died for his people like it was prohesied.
(thoroughly refuted by Pilgrim's belief that he himself was now one of Christ's people through His death)

You did not believe in your depravity and hopelessness ,
(thorougly refuted by Pilgrim's own testimony)

you did not believe in sovereign grace,
(only if by "sovereign grace" you mean every implication of each of the 5 points, but in the essence of the phrase--that God, manifesting his grace in Christ Jesus, is mighty to save sinners--thoroughly refuted by the testimony)

you did not believe Jesus was God...
(thoroughly false, never stated or implied in Pilgrim's testimony, and denied in a refutation of his as yet unanswered by you)

You believe you went from point a to point b , when

in fact, you had not even been regenerated
(sources please? along with a description of your ability to ascertain this information.)

and heard the truth about who christ is and what he accomplished, and for whom he accomplished it for, it is as simple as that...


Leaving aside the falsehoods you have attributed to a brother in Christ--whose earlier refutations remain, scandalously, unapologized for by yourself--you are now clearly contradicting yourself vis-a-vis your challenge at the top of this post.

Your argument runs:


one who has not believed in the details of limited atonement
cannot possibly have been truly saved


Which is restated positively:


in order to be truly saved
one must believe in the details of limited atonement


Unconvinced? You also stated it this way:

Quote

...any of the five points of calvinism= the truth they represent, that is the Gospel of jesus christ, in that those truths set forth truthfully who he is and what he accomplished.

If you did not believe those truths about christ, then you belived a false gospel, and you were decieved


I call upon you to repent of these unfounded public accusations and hinderings of the elect sheep of Christ.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Rubbish and various falsehoods refuted - Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:03 AM

Quote
who said anything about being saved because you believe in right doctrine ? Because being the key word here. Show mw where I said that ?


Again, you don`t understand. Believing the right doctrine or teaching on who christ is and what he has done for his people, does not cause you to be saved, but it makes manifest your saved state. Pilgrim said he was saved before he understood the gospel which includes limited atonement.

Pilgrim said
Quote
Now, to answer your question above... I did not believe any "gospel".


This comment contradicts scripture:

rom 1: 16 which states For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

mark 16: 15, 16
15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So what kind of statement is I did not believe any gospel?

Pilgrim said
Quote
I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as I repented of my sins


Now how can you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ without believing the Gospel message paul spoke of?

In acts 16 30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

Notice in verse 32 , they spake the word of the Lord to them. Speaking the word of the Lord ! The gospel of christ. They took time to teach out of the scriptures who christ is and what he done for his people. No doubt he used scriptures like Isiah 53 , like with the ethiopian eunech.

Thats why I made that statement, it is impossible to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ without believing the Gospel.. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />

I hope I got the quotes right, and I appreciate the help <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

pilgrim said
Quote
That God would love me, despite of who I was/am was incomprehensible yet a truth that was impressed upon my heart as I believed


There is no scriptural evidence of God Loving a person save His Elect, in other words the bible no where speaks of Gods salvation Love to sinners in general, but only to His elect, or sheep, or those given by the Father ! Look in every context where the word is used and you will see. Even in the popular Jn 3:16 verse, if preached by a God called preacher, it will refer to Gods Elect

Pilgrim said

Quote

It was over quite a few months of reading the Scriptures; cover to cover and over and over that I came to understand what is nicknamed "Calvinism", although I had no knowledge of even the word Calvinism . . . nor Arminianism either, for that matter. What I did know is that what I came to believe theologically from my reading and study of the Bible is that it was antithetical to what was being preached in all the churches around where I lived. And I also learned very quickly that my doctrinal views were very unpopular, even hated by those who professed to be Christians.


I believe Pilgrim was regenerated at this time, and God subsequently brought him to faith in the Christ . yes I do see evidence from his testimony that he came to faith after God moved him to read the scriptures. I do believe in regeneration before faith...
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Rubbish and various falsehoods refuted - Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:06 AM

Quote
beloved57 quoting me:

Quote
It was over quite a few months of reading the Scriptures; cover to cover and over and over that I came to understand what is nicknamed "Calvinism", although I had no knowledge of even the word Calvinism . . . nor Arminianism either, for that matter. What I did know is that what I came to believe theologically from my reading and study of the Bible is that it was antithetical to what was being preached in all the churches around where I lived. And I also learned very quickly that my doctrinal views were very unpopular, even hated by those who professed to be Christians.

Then remarks: I believe Pilgrim was regenerated atthis time, [color:"red"]and God subsequently brought him to faith in the Christ</font>. yes I do see evidence from his testimony that he came to faith after God moved him to read the scriptures.

I must commend you for doing such a stellar and succinct job of proving Paul's, my and everyone else's point on two fronts:

1) You do in fact believe in "salvation by doctrine".
2) You are guilty of self-contradiction in your view(s)

Applying your unbiblical view to the Apostle Paul, it must be that Paul was not saved until AFTER his 3 years in the Arabian desert where he was taught by Christ and learned the "true gospel" (according to your standard) and not on the road to Damascus or at the home of Ananias. Simply amazing!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

On another note, I also adamantly reject, at least your implicit view of an elongated/delayed time frame regeneration.

I do think it is time to ask a few important questions of you:
  1. Can you point to any historic Creed, Confession or Catechism which teaches your views?
  2. Can you point to any particular denomination which holds to your views?
  3. Can you provide a brief list of some notable men who hold to your same views?

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Rubbish and various falsehoods refuted - Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:50 AM

Quote
1) You do in fact believe in "salvation by doctrine".


You still don`t get the picture <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> One believing the correct doctrine only makes manifest his or her salvation. If you don`t acknowledge that I keep saying it (right doctrine) only makes manifest your salvation, you are not being honest pilgrim and you know it, and those who are following along with an honest , unbias heart know it.

Quote
You are guilty of self-contradiction in your view
I admit, after rereading your testimony there was the possibility of you being regenerated. Newbirth preceeds belief of the truth, jesus in jn 3 teaches that and also 2 thess 2: 13 13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Quote
Applying your unbiblical view to the Apostle Paul, it must be that Paul was not saved until AFTER his 3 years in the Arabian desert where he was taught by Christ and learned the "true gospel" (according to your standard) and not on the road to Damascus or at the home of Ananias. Simply amazing!!
You got it twisted, I asked you that question and you never responded, I never said that paul was not saved, and you know it! Where did I say that? and why don`t you step up and answer the question I asked you first. for your information though, IMO , saul was regenerated on the road to damascus, what is your opinion ?

pilgrim says
Quote
On another note, I also adamantly reject, at least your implicit view of an elongated/delayed time frame regeneration.
fine you can reject it but I believe the bible teaches it or at least implies it. In acts 10 with cornilus, the bible says that he feared God. No man in nature can fear God rom 3 teaches that, so it is very feasible that he was regenerated by God so he can be ready to believe the Gospel that peter would shortly preach to him. acts 10: 2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. You know the rest of the story, if not read acts 10. Peter was commanded to preach the Gospel to him.
Another instance is with Lydia in acts 16:14
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. notice it said she worshipped God! No one in nature can worship God, so IMO she had been regenerated inorder to be receptive to the Gospel that paul was to preach to her.

Quote
I do think it is time to ask a few important questions of you:

Can you point to any historic Creed, Confession or Catechism which teaches your views?

Can you point to any particular denomination which holds to your views?

You would rather have mens opinion over the unadultarated word of God? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> Everthing I have expressed to you I have showed by scripture, and you can`t handle the it.You never respond by showing me by scripture and context where I am wrong, if you can please do. And yes, there are some old predestinarian baptist who believe some of things I believe.


Can you provide a brief list of some notable men who hold to your same views?
http://www.asweetsavor.150m.com/

some of those guys hold to regeneration prior to faith, also see http://www.webbmt.org/
Posted By: Robin

Salvation Before Calvinism - Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:32 PM

I too was regenerated, converted, adopted, sanctified, and sealed long before I discovered and converted to Calvinism.

I would like to believe that what Beloved57 is trying to say is that sooner or later those who are truly regenerate inevitably become Calvinists, as surely as the regenerate inevitably confess Christ as Lord openly.

But reading post after post from Beloved57, he appears to be saying that a person has neither heard nor responded to Christ at all until and unless they were presented with the Five Points of Calvinism. Anything less is, to Beloved57, a false gospel and thus anyone who is not Calvinist isn't really saved.

You can't have it both ways. But the point is that belief in Calvinism does not save anyone. The gospel is a message about Jesus, not a technical manual describing how His work is applied to the elect; in what order the various aspects of salvation occur in time; when and how the Father chose the Elect, etc. The gospel is not a message about justification by faith, but that message about Jesus. When that message is received and believed by God-given faith resulting from regeneration, a person is converted and truly eternally saved. Even if they don't understand all the technical manuals.

Ligten up, Beloved57!

Saved before Calvinism,
Robin
Posted By: doulos

Re: Rubbish and various falsehoods refuted - Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:52 PM

Quote
Saith B57:You still don`t get the picture One believing the correct doctrine only makes manifest his or her salvation.


This stinks like a works theology.

Quote
quoth B57:those who are following along with an honest , unbias heart know it.


I assume by unbiased you mean all those members who agree with your point of view. Er, well, all those you haven't alienated, accused of heresy, or whose salvation you haven't questioned. Oh, and all those who haven't already said what you're writing is self-contradictory garbage...That leaves you, I think, and whoever's lurking over your shoulder.

Quote
B57 plopped: I admit, after rereading your testimony there was the possibility of you being regenerated.


You know I believe I'm beginning to understand how the word for lost in the NT and the English word MORON could have the same roots.

Quote
more ploppage: You got it twisted, I asked you that question and you never responded


This doesn't work on you why should we bite?

Quote
am I booring you? B57 didn't ask when he wrote:
You would rather have mens opinion over the unadultarated word of God?


Aye, finally a decent idea. Why don't you go buy an actual bible and get some? There are many fine threads here on the Highway about selecting the proper translation.

Your master is quite fond of answering what suits him and making up the rest. I suspect he is quite pleased with you.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:32 PM

Quote
Robin said:
I too was regenerated, converted, adopted, sanctified, and sealed long before I discovered and converted to Calvinism.

I would like to believe that what Beloved57 is trying to say is that sooner or later those who are truly regenerate inevitably become Calvinists, as surely as the regenerate inevitably confess Christ as Lord openly.

But reading post after post from Beloved57, he appears to be saying that a person has neither heard nor responded to Christ at all until and unless they were presented with the Five Points of Calvinism. Anything less is, to Beloved57, a false gospel and thus anyone who is not Calvinist isn't really saved.

You can't have it both ways. But the point is that belief in Calvinism does not save anyone. The gospel is a message about Jesus, not a technical manual describing how His work is applied to the elect; in what order the various aspects of salvation occur in time; when and how the Father chose the Elect, etc. The gospel is not a message about justification by faith, but that message about Jesus. When that message is received and believed by God-given faith resulting from regeneration, a person is converted and truly eternally saved. Even if they don't understand all the technical manuals.

Ligten up, Beloved57!

Saved before Calvinism,
Robin


Robin:

Darryl is proposing some form of doctrinal regeneration. He does not believe that believing in TULIP saves you. But it is nuanced into a form of immediate knowledge upon regeneration. It is the same error as the ones who would say you must speak in tongues in order to prove you are saved. Darryl uses doctrine as a proof of ones regeneration. Now there is some truth to this method of thinking. Like I said earlier, one cannot profess to be regenerated and deny the fact that Christ came in the flesh. One cannot be regenerated while confessing Christ is not the messiah.

I wil also point out that "Calvinism" as a term defining the Sovereignty of GOD in the Salvation of His people is as old as Genesis 1:1. So the teachings were present long before John Calvin.

What Darryl would do is to have a questionnaire for people who profess to be "saved'. And if they do not confess the 5 petals, he feels he can determine them unregenerate. Not damned, but unregenerate. The phrase "manifest" your regenerancy/salvation is used as a cloak for this understanding. This error has plagued the church for history. It is nothing new. The pharises were guilty of this, the early church was guilty of this, the reformers and puritans were guilty of this. It is a subtle form of navel gazing. What has happenned is people have perverted the inspired Peter who wrote; "Make your election and calling sure" Into saying "Make everyone elses election and calling sure. It is a form of experiential salvation. The puritans did this a lot also. They would look at ones life and circumstances and determine if that person was blessed of God. A good crop meant they were in good standing. etc etc etc. Just like Job's "friends" who "knew" job was being punished for some unconfessed sin.

This behavior is totally subjective and takes a truth of scripture and tweeks it just enough to confuse people. The greatest deception the devil can pull is to give "his" interpretation of God's word which is very rarely an outright bold faced lie. Deception is always cloaked with shreds of truth.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Rubbish and various falsehoods refuted - Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:48 PM

Quote
Beloved57 gets underexposed, stating,

You still don`t get the picture One believing the correct doctrine only makes manifest his or her salvation.

How much correct doctrine did Paul know at his conversion (Acts 9) and how much was he taught afterwards (Gal. 1:11-24)? How much correct doctrine did Peter know at conversion and what was he taught afterwards (Gal. 2:11-20)? Balaam’s Ass knew some correct doctrine, did this make manifest his salvation as it does yours?

Quote
Prepare to bow, B57 meets a B52 and says,

I admit, after rereading your testimony there was the possibility of you being regenerated.

When did the God of the universe die and leave you to judge the quick and the dead? You who perverts and twists the very Scripture you think to know. Who are you to question another man’s salvation? You don’t even know Pilgrim, how can you make such a judgment? His fruit is manifest, it is yours that is questionable (Matt 3:7; 5:20; 23:13-33 )!!! You don’t need to be concerned about limited atonement but limited brains and no heart. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

It is possible to repent of such an attitude. I was once very much like you. Praise God for His mercy.

Quote
Beloved57, fiction,

fine you can reject it but I believe the bible teaches it or at least implies it. In acts 10 with cornilus, the bible says that he feared God. No man in nature can fear God rom 3 teaches that, so it is very feasible that he was regenerated by God so he can be ready to believe the Gospel that peter would shortly preach to him. …… Lydia in acts 16:14 ….. so IMO she had been regenerated inorder to be receptive to the Gospel that paul was to preach to her.

First, your opinion is not Scripture. Second, just stating something does not make it a fact—you have yet to prove anything. Does the Bible imply this or are you implying this? Third, let us look at your examples:

Cornelius—Honestly I am very surprised you selected this passage. Here is Cornelius, a Gentile, who is acquainted with Judaism in that era (Lydia’s case is similar. She had become a believer in Israel’s God and, as a Gentile, was classified as a God-fearer as well (Acts 10:2; 13:16, 26, 50)). He knows a lot about Israel and how to worship Jehovah. The Holy Spirit did not need to “work” on Cornelius for many years so then he would be willing to be regenerated. Regeneration is the act of God alone (John 3)! It is akin to God breathing into us the breath of life (Gen. 2:7). Your view is synergistic not monergistic.

In the NT you find that people were saved all at once without any process (compare in the OT where people were called from the womb), without any period of mourning, or preparation etc. Zacchaeus, up a tree, trusted Jesus and received Him joyfully (Luke 19:6-9). When Peter told Cornelius and his assembled household that they could be saved by believing, what happened? "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message," (Acts 10:44-48—the text says WHEN they HEARD the MESSAGE (i.e. death, burial, resurrection—36-41), not because they were programmed and prepared through many years by the Holy Spirit). The thief on the cross, who a few minutes before had been railing at Jesus, was saved immediately when he inquired of Jesus (Luke 23:42-43). In the first chapter of John, verses 35-49, we see where Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip and Nathanael were all converted, one by one, immediately by faith in Christ.

Regeneration is instantaneous act of the Holy Spirit alone.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:58 PM

Joe,

I think you are at least partially correct in assessing "beloved57's" view, i.e., the profession of right doctrine "manifests" or testifies to regeneration. But what you didn't seem to want to mention, so I will, is that he insists that one embrace and believe "the gospel [as defined by him]" in order to be saved in contradistinction to the necessity of embracing and believing upon the Lord Jesus Christ. He has repeated this several times.... "believing the [true] gospel saves" while chiding me for rejecting his error and insisting that salvation comes only by grace through faith in the person of Jesus Christ. So, I think that his error is far more than simply that profession of "Calvinism" or more accurately, the "Five Points" manifests the possession of regeneration.

Secondly, I would have to reject your description/judgment concerning the Reformers and Puritans in the matter of discerning another's salvation. There were extremists among them to be sure, no less than there are here on this Board. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But their number was typically few compared the whole and to characterize them all by those few is really unfair and inaccurate. We cannot know infallibly about one's regeneration in every case. But we can make valid judgments as to one's temporal spiritual state. The Scriptures enjoin us to be the proverbial "Fruit Inspectors" and upon that inspection we are to act accordingly with both ourselves and others who profess the faith. Avoiding vain talkers, false prophets, false teachers, etc., can only be done if one makes a judgment of another. The Church's responsibility to render discipline even to the point of excommunicating someone, which is essentially pronouncing that the individual has no part in the body of Christ, aka: unbeliever, is based upon being able to discern one's profession and behaviour and then render a judgment based upon that observation. That men and churches have misused that which they are responsible to do in this regard is a sad truth; beloved57 is simply one example. But it would be also unfortunate to cast a blanket over centuries of men as a group as being guilty of such extremism and error.

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:11 PM

Pilgrim says
Quote
I think you are at least partially correct in assessing "beloved57's" view, i.e., the profession of right doctrine "manifests" or testifies to regeneration. But what you didn't seem to want to mention, so I will, is that he insists that one embrace and believe "the gospel [as defined by him]" in order to be saved in contradistinction to the necessity of embracing and believing upon the Lord Jesus Christ. He has repeated this several times.... "believing the [true] gospel saves"

Pilgrim you are flat out lying on me and any honest heart can see that, I have stated at least 3 times that believing the truths about the Gospel makes manifest your salvation !If your a man of integrity, show me where I said believing right doctrine makes you become save? If you are honest , you know I have stated that it only makes manifest <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Paul_S

Footnote concerning donkeys - Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:14 PM

Quote
Balaam’s Ass knew some correct doctrine


From being around old Balaam, she seems to have had a good grasp of Total Depravity, but--having had a donkey--I bet that after things calmed down she went and ate the other 4 petals.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Footnote concerning donkeys - Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:28 PM

That was good. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:51 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Joe,

I think you are at least partially correct in assessing "beloved57's" view, i.e., the profession of right doctrine "manifests" or testifies to regeneration. But what you didn't seem to want to mention, so I will, is that he insists that one embrace and believe "the gospel [as defined by him]" in order to be saved in contradistinction to the necessity of embracing and believing upon the Lord Jesus Christ. He has repeated this several times.... "believing the [true] gospel saves" while chiding me for rejecting his error and insisting that salvation comes only by grace through faith in the person of Jesus Christ. So, I think that his error is far more than simply that profession of "Calvinism" or more accurately, the "Five Points" manifests the possession of regeneration.


Perhaps Pilprim perhaps. Conveying thoughts on here is not easy for me at times. I am not for one instance giving credence to darryls presentation. Like I said, all heresey as a shred of truth in it. Belief does manifest regeneration, just not what he considers must be believed.

Quote
Secondly, I would have to reject your description/judgment concerning the Reformers and Puritans in the matter of discerning another's salvation. There were extremists among them to be sure, no less than there are here on this Board. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But their number was typically few compared the whole and to characterize them all by those few is really unfair and inaccurate. We cannot know infallibly about one's regeneration in every case. But we can make valid judgments as to one's temporal spiritual state. The Scriptures enjoin us to be the proverbial "Fruit Inspectors" and upon that inspection we are to act accordingly with both ourselves and others who profess the faith. Avoiding vain talkers, false prophets, false teachers, etc., can only be done if one makes a judgment of another. The Church's responsibility to render discipline even to the point of excommunicating someone, which is essentially pronouncing that the individual has no part in the body of Christ, aka: unbeliever, is based upon being able to discern one's profession and behaviour and then render a judgment based upon that observation. That men and churches have misused that which they are responsible to do in this regard is a sad truth; beloved57 is simply one example. But it would be also unfortunate to cast a blanket over centuries of men as a group as being guilty of such extremism and error.

In His grace,


I agree Pilgrim. my point was just to say this thinking of Darryls has been around forever. There is nothing new under the sun as the inspired solomon said. Not one era is not been blackened by experiantial theology. Or fruit inspectors as you call them. This was a common thinking in New England puritanism. I know the thought was good, but it always has a tendancy to lead to pure subjective thinking. AS soon as I see a questionairre, i will run. As soon as I have to give acount of my conversion experience to prove my regenerancy I will run. I know this can digress into something other than this thread, but I believe we must not shy away from stating that "proving" regenerancy started from the beginning. And has been around ever since. Look at the Cambridge Platform:

a personal and public confession and declaring of God’s manner of working upon the soul is both lawful, expedient, and useful’, and citing I Pet. 3:15 insisted that, ‘We must be able and ready upon any occasion to declare and show our repentance for sin, faith unfeigned, and effectual calling’.10 In this way the signs of grace which the earlier English Puritans had treated as means to personal assurance of salvation became the necessary evidence for convincing one’s fellow-Christians and persuading them to admit one to the church covenant.

This is exactly what Darryl would like to employ.

Then what would ensue is another form of the "half-covenant"

Here is a segment from an article actually on this site:

This theology was Reformed in that it wished to stress at every point the divine initiative in man’s salvation, but it was also primarily an experiential theology and excessively introspective. When the churches required a narrative of spiritual experience they were requiring that the convert describe the work of God in his life in such a way that it might be recognized as unmistakably the work of God. That in itself may not be wrong. But certainly where New England piety did become imbalanced was in forgetting that the divine initiative will be found primarily in the facts and proclamation of the Gospel and only secondarily in the individual’s experience. Given the faithful proclamation of the Gospel the miracle of human response might perhaps have been left to the Spirit in a rather less carefully defined sense than the New Englanders allowed. In New England the divine initiative could not be real unless it were sought out and located in the depths of the individual conscience in a process of intense introspection. The lesson it is difficult not to draw from the Preparationists’ attempts to map out this process is surely that the earliest workings of the Spirit in the regenerate heart will normally be elusive. There must be something at fault in an experiential theology which depends upon tracking them down.


http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html

This is exactly what I speak of when i mention excessive puritan introspection. Which alligns itself with Darryls thought process

I am nto throwing out the baby with the water here, just certain that this error in new england has been around and will always be around
Posted By: Wes

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:21 PM

Quote
Robin said:

The gospel is a message about Jesus, not a technical manual describing how His work is applied to the elect; in what order the various aspects of salvation occur in time; when and how the Father chose the Elect, etc.


You've hit the nail on the head! The Gospel is about the person and the finished work of Jesus Christ. God sent His Son... that is good news indeed!

Thanks for sharing your pilgrimage. I too was saved by grace alone through faith alone, brought under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, repented and believed in Jesus Christ as my Savior before I came to understand Calvinism. It appears that Beloved 57 would insist that we weren't saved until we came to understand limited atonement.

Before I came to understand and embrace Calvinism I used to have a very difficult time reading books like A.W. Pink's "The Sovereignty of God." It was simply too heavy for me and hard to understand. But now (by God's grace) I find great comfort in knowing that God is sovereign in the affairs of men and that not a single hair can fall from my head without His knowledge. Like the Psalmist I have to admit "such knowldege is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it (Psalm 139:6).

I love the TULIP because it helps me have a Biblical world view. But I love the person of Jesus Christ for nailing my sins to the cross and clothing me in His righteousness.


Wes
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:49 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Pilgrim you are flat out lying on me and any honest heart can see that, I have stated at least 3 times that believing the truths about the Gospel makes manifest your salvation !If your a man of integrity, show me where I said believing right doctrine makes you become save? If you are honest , you know I have stated that it only makes manifest <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

beloved57,

[Linked Image] In your now expected rancorous style, you accuse me of lying and then challenge me to show you where you have stated that one is not saved unless they believe [your] right doctrine. Well, I am indebted to Paul on this one because he certainly exposed your errors and adamant denial of them here: Rubbish and various falsehoods refuted.

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:35 PM

None of that states that I said that one has to believe right doctrine in order to get saved !
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:18 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
None of that states that I said that one has to believe right doctrine in order to get saved !

I will simply repeat what Paul already pointed out.

Quote
B57,

call it what you will, when you gave me your testimony up there, you did not mention one verse, not one scripture, in fact you said you didn`t believe any of the five points of calvinism= the truth they represent, that is the Gospel of jesus christ, in that those truths set forth truthfully who he is and what he accomplished. If you did not believe those truths about christ, then you belived a false gospel, and you were decieved.

and then you opened your mouth once again and inserted your foot [Linked Image] saying,

Quote
B57,

men today don`t believe the true gospel because they probably have not heard it. You still have not convinced me that you heard it back then when you said you first believed. Believed what ? You did not believe christ died for his people like it was prohesied. You did not believe in your depravity and hopelessness , you did not believe in sovereign grace, you did not believe Jesus was God. You basically heard that christ died for sinners,aand you felt bad about your sins. I am not saying now you don`t believe the true gospel, I believe you do, but I believe, from what you have written, that you hold on to your rubbish. Instead of thanking God for revealing to you the real Christ of promise, you believe you went from point a to point b , when in fact, you had not even been regenerated and heard the truth about who christ is and what he accomplished, and for whom he accomplished it for, it is as simple as that

Thou art the man B57, though art the man! (2 Samuel 12:7-10).
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:24 AM

again , you don`t get the point, believing a false gospel only proves at that time you are not yet in a converted state. You have still failed to prove that I said that you must believe the true in order to get saved... an muslim who is elected to salvation , God is pleased to keep him in darkness and believe a false doctrine until the year 2006, in 2006, He hears the truths about Jesus Christ as to who he is and what he has done for his people, the great Love that God has in christ, for his church , his sheep , those given in election, the israel of God. He at this time in 2006 , believes in christ as to what he has done for his people matt 1: 21 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins ! the true gospel when presented or proclaimed properly, declares Gods people saved already by the death of Christ <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> Its not an offer, it`s an declaration of an accomplished fact. The elect person believes the Good news as the Holy spirit applys their salvation to them with power and persuasion as in 1thess 1For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

The Gospel is not an offer to do something to get saved, it`s a proclamation of an establihed fact, Gods people are saved by the dearth burial and resurrection of the messiah. Faith rest in this accomplished fact, it does not do something to make it an accomplished fact <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> Thats why I know you are misrepresenting what I am saying, because there is nothing you can do to be saved ! christ did it all already for his people and thats the good news. As stated before, you and pilgrim and some of the rest, not robin though , have twisted what I have said. The muslim in 2006, when he believes the gospel of HIS SALVATION , believes at the appointed time and MAKES MANIFEST his already accomplished salvation. Prior to 2006 , when he was still worshipping allah and all that , he manifested at that time that he was still in a darkened , unconverted state ! Not that he had to yet do something or yet believe something inorder to get saved, that happended at the cross, when his messiah said IT IS FINISHED. But it was not revealed to him yet through the gospel...I hope I have made myself clearer, I know I have to those who have been following along with an honest and open mind, May the God Of Israel be Glorified!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Posted By: Joe k

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:06 AM


Darryl, this dance has to come to an end. Obviously you ave not read a shread of my postings in regards to how your thoughts mirror exactly the error the new england puritans fell into when admitting people to the communion of the church. Which later led to the terrible "half way covenant" One must never have to answer a questionairre to be added to Christs church. This is what you are proposing. Now please do not deny this. According to your twisted understanding, a professor is not part of the elect until examined by others to prove their genuine regeneration/conversion. I will qualify this that some examination is needed. But this became so perverted by people throughout history, one began to learn what to say in order to be admitted. One must be able to say shibboleth in your vernacular to be considered elect.

12, 4 Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead, and fought with Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites, and among the Manassites.

5 And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, art thou an Ephraimite? If he say Nay;

6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

You constantly mention Paul, well let me ask you this, the true Doctor of Grace that Paul is, still purified himself on Acts 21. I have read many commentators who sidestep this occurrance, but noone I have read gives a solid answer here.

Acts 21:23-24
23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them,
NKJV

Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. 27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia...


Why would Paul do this who so denounced the ceremonialism of the jews? According to you this would prove he believed in a false gospel.

read this link please and hopefully you will see your error

http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html

a quote:

the signs of grace which the earlier English Puritans had treated as means to personal assurance of salvation became the necessary evidence for convincing one’s fellow-Christians and persuading them to admit one to the church covenant.

DOnt you see you are exclaiming the exact same thing?

I know this is a hobby horse for you. It is something new, a novelty. Soon you will run our of gas and it will be gone.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:45 AM

I have no more to say. I have stated clearly and concisly my stand about this issue of the gospel. Lets move on.
The Gospel is a proclamation of what Christ has done to save his people, It is finished and they are saved, and when in Gods time, They will believe it and realize it by Faith. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:58 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
The Gospel is not an offer to do something to get saved, it`s a proclamation of an establihed fact, Gods people are saved by the dearth burial and resurrection of the messiah. Faith rest in this accomplished fact, it does not do something to make it an accomplished fact

None are so blind than those who will not see! Your view of salvation is one that is shared in part with the heretic Karl Barth, albeit phrased in different language. The "elect, elect" he taught, were those who have come to realize in time that God has saved them in eternity and that faith accomplishes nothing. Man, you have gone beyond sticking your foot in your mouth to shooting yourself in the foot this time! [Linked Image] For you clearly stated your position once again, "[ala: death burial and resurrection of the Messiah] "Faith rest in this accomplished fact." While the Scripture tesifies against you and teaches that faith rests in the PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST.

You insist that salvation is not dependent upon one knowing correct doctrine, but you then turn around and accuse me, and my inference all who had a similar experience, including the Apostle Paul, of not even being regenerate at the time of my Spirit wrought conversion. Would you deny that an Amyraldian is saved? (in case you aren't familiar with the term, it is someone who is affectionately known as a 4 1/2 point Calvinist. He would say that Christ died for all but the merits of His death are only applied to believers. In fact we could substitute any of the infamous "Five Points" and ask the same question... e.g., is one who believes all but the doctrine of Unconditional Election saved? If you would dare to say, "No!" then you have proven the odious truth that you hold to "salvation by doctrine" and not "Sola Gratia, Sola Fide and Solus Christus", the very heart of biblical Christianity where by grace through faith ye are saved; ala Scripture.

In His grace, (not doctrine)
Posted By: Wes

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:51 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:

again , you don`t get the point, believing a false gospel only proves at that time you are not yet in a converted state. <snip>

...you and pilgrim and some of the rest, not robin though , have twisted what I have said.


I find it interesting that you claim Pilgrim and some of the rest, not Robin though , have twisted what you have said. Let's review Robin's remarks and see how they are different.

Quote
Robin wrote:

"I too was regenerated, converted, adopted, sanctified, and sealed long before I discovered and converted to Calvinism."


So how does his testimony find acceptance with you when you doubted Pilgrims? Robin doesn't state he understood the doctrines of grace nor was he familiar with TULIP at the time of his conversion.

In your reply to Pilgrim's testimony you wrote: "You still have not convinced me that you heard it (refering to the true Gospel) back then when you said you first believed. Believed what ? You did not believe christ died for his people like it was prohesied. You did not believe in your depravity and hopelessness , you did not believe in sovereign grace, you did not believe Jesus was God. You basically heard that christ died for sinners,aand you felt bad about your sins."

Those are strong words. How is Pilgrim's testimony different than Robins?

You also wrote about your own experience in an earlier reply. You wrote: "I myself was religous and confessed a false christ of arminism in 1976, God brought me into a saving knowledge of the True christ in 1988. i had been to bible college and all that, but I count all dung like paul did, when the excellency of the right knowledge of the true christ flooded my soul...amen and amen."

So if I understand you correctly you're saying that even though you were a confessing Christian holding to Arminian doctrine that you weren't saved until you came to understand Calvinism. I think many Christians start out their pilgimage holding to some form of semi-pelagionism or even some other doctrinal error only later in their Christian life to discover that the Scriptures teach the depravity of man and the unconditional election of God. So then they abandon their former misunderstanding (count them rubbish) and grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. This doesn't mean they weren't elect or saved from the beginning only that they lacked understanding.

I don't think anyone here has a desire to twist anything you've written. It seems you've done a good job of that yourself. Surely you can tell this by the replies you're receiving. I think there has been a real effort to listen to you and respond with appropriate comments.

Quote
Now Robin went on to write:

"I would like to believe that what Beloved57 is trying to say is that sooner or later those who are truly regenerate inevitably become Calvinists, as surely as the regenerate inevitably confess Christ as Lord openly."


Has Robin understood you correctly? Is that what needs to be said?

Quote
Robin goes on to write:

"But reading post after post from Beloved57, he appears to be saying that a person has neither heard nor responded to Christ at all until and unless they were presented with the Five Points of Calvinism. Anything less is, to Beloved57, a false gospel and thus anyone who is not Calvinist isn't really saved.

You can't have it both ways. But the point is that belief in Calvinism does not save anyone. The gospel is a message about Jesus, not a technical manual describing how His work is applied to the elect; in what order the various aspects of salvation occur in time; when and how the Father chose the Elect, etc. The gospel is not a message about justification by faith, but that message about Jesus. When that message is received and believed by God-given faith resulting from regeneration, a person is converted and truly eternally saved. Even if they don't understand all the technical manuals.

Ligten up, Beloved57!"


How may I ask is that any different than what I hear Pilgrim, Joe K, J.Edwards, Paul, and Doulos saying?


Wes
Posted By: doulos

Re: Salvation Before Calvinism - Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:58 AM

Quote
beloved57 clearly states:
I have stated clearly and concisly my stand about this issue of the gospel.


And this is, of course, the crux of the problem. It's YOUR stand. Although you have stated it clearly, were you interested in more than just wagging your dogma around you would or if this was a vital piece of Christian Theology that had somehow been missed over the last two millenia I suppose you would participate in listening intently as well.

Now that you have "...have no more to say." go back through these posts and see just how much you missed. Then I might believe that this was more than just a waste of electrons.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:48 AM

A excellent presentation of the true gospel.

http://www.asweetsavor.150m.com/exc/his1.html
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:16 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
A excellent presentation of the true gospel.

I agree! And the irony is that that article refutes all that you have written in this thread in an attempt to defend your unbiblical view(s) concerning the "true" gospel and how men are saved. Nowhere does the author state that one must come to believe in "Limited Atonement". Nowhere does the author write that salvation is the coming to the realization that God has chosen you before time. Nowhere does the author tell his hearers that salvation is the believing of the truth of which the gospel speaks, but rather the gospel declares Christ died for sinners to WHOM one must believe:

Quote
They hear Christ set forth in all His fullness and in all His glory, they hear that the more vile they are in their own sight, the more precious will Christ be to them; they hear that <span style="background-color:yellow">if they go to Christ naked</span>, He will clothe them; if they go unto Him hungry, He will feed them; and if they go unto Him thirsty, He will give them of the living waters, so that they shall not thirst again.

Thus the author is in full agreement with those who oppose you here in that one must believe upon the person of the Lord Jesus Christ directly. They must go to HIM directly, at which time they will be clothed [with His righteousness], and be fed and given living water.

Lastly, you have openly rejected the writings of all the authors who have written on the various subjects being discussed, e.g., Calvin, Pink, Murray, et al but here and in other places you provide links to writings of other men, who with few exceptions, are in full agreement with us and who reject your position. But why should we read the writings of these men over the writings of any other man?? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> Methinks you are woefully confused and blinded by your own preconceived and erroneous ideas to the blessed of the truth.

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:13 AM

its funny how we can pick out certain things and leave out certain things that the author brought out, so I hope those interested will read for themselves.

Tiptaft wrote and pilgrim neglected to bring up
Quote
We are first to inquire who are "his people" that He will save. We all by nature imagine that Christ died for everyone in the world, but He died only for those whom God chose in Him before the foundation of the world.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:27 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
its funny how we can pick out certain things and leave out certain things that the author brought out, so I hope those interested will read for themselves.

Tiptaft wrote and pilgrim neglected to bring up
Quote
We are first to inquire who are "his people" that He will save. We all by nature imagine that Christ died for everyone in the world, but He died only for those whom God chose in Him before the foundation of the world.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />


Do you honestly think Tiptaft was saying by the word inquire one must ask people what they believe before he taught them? Darryl, this is ridiculous. All he was doing was presenting the appication of Christs death for His chosen. There are a million writings like this. This has nothing to do with the thread. You have beome entangled in a web of deceit. One that has skewed your mind to such an extent that you are very alone. You obviously did not read the articles I posted. You have not comprehended one thing any have said here. IT is a sad state to see a man who claims to be chosen/elect, speak as such without humility and meekness. For some odd reason you are now concluding we are universalists.

AHA, I see what you are doing now. You are attempting to practice what you preach. You are doing an online sermon in this thread, which you believe must cover every minutia of the writ in one setting. You could find any test and say AHA, there is limited atonement. You are a bore and very base in your understanding.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:55 PM

wow you are funny bash Taft is just merely ascertaining what the writer of matt meant when he said HIS People !
Posted By: friendoftruths

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:18 PM

This is my first post dear friends of truth.

I attended a local Calvary Chapel worship service recently. The pastor spoke of grace repeatedly. I was very disappointed with what he did not speak of; but more so because I was unable to speak my thoughts; which has brought me here to The Highway.

God's mercy, true grace must, early in a believer's understanding, be coupled with a consciousness of sin. Is there today conviction by the Holy Spirit? Is there today a genuine sense of need for a Redeemer?

"And there you shall(earnestly)remember your ways and all your doings with which you have defiled yourselves, and you shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for all the evil deeds which you have done. And you shall know, understand and realize that I am the Lord, when I deal with you for My names's sake, not according to your corrupt doings. O house of Israel."(Amplified Version)Ezekiel 20:43-44
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:09 PM

Originally Posted By: friendoftruths
God's mercy, true grace must, early in a believer's understanding, be coupled with a consciousness of sin. Is there today conviction by the Holy Spirit? Is there today a genuine sense of need for a Redeemer?

First of all

As to your statement above, I agree 100%. Unfortunately today, there is little or no mention whatsoever of sin and even more true about a person being a SINNER by birth from conception and under the just wrath and condemnation of God. The very first work the Holy Spirit does in the elect is to bring a heartfelt conviction that they are a hopeless and helpless sinner before God and without His grace and the righteousness of Christ imputed to them through faith, they are liable to eternal damnation. You will hear/read superficial statements concerning people being sinners, aka: they haven't lived up to God's requirements perfectly (at best), or more often, they are "separated from God" but God loves them just the way they are... etc., etc., ad nauseam.

The Lord Christ was very specific about this matter when He said:

Quote:
John 16:8 (ASV) "And he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:"

Posted By: friendoftruths

Re: Gospel truth - Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:17 PM

The modern church avoids this Old Covenant truth; they are today's Pharisee.

"And there you shall(earnestly)remember your ways and all your doings with which you have defiled yourselves, and you shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for all the evil deeds which you have done. And you shall know, understand and realize that I am the Lord, when I deal with you for My names's sake, not according to your corrupt doings. O house of Israel."(Amplified Version)Ezekiel 20:43-44

Friends of truth loathe themselves, true?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:11 AM

Originally Posted By: friendoftruths
The modern church avoids this Old Covenant truth; they are today's Pharisee.

"And there you shall(earnestly)remember your ways and all your doings with which you have defiled yourselves, and you shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for all the evil deeds which you have done. And you shall know, understand and realize that I am the Lord, when I deal with you for My names's sake, not according to your corrupt doings. O house of Israel."(Amplified Version)Ezekiel 20:43-44

Friends of truth loathe themselves, true?

Yes and no. Those who have been regenerated by the Spirit are given a glimpse into their own hearts which is enough to loathe themselves and flee to Christ for the remission of sins. However, this loathing is not a constant, unrelenting thing where it becomes morbid introspection as is taught by a few known individuals in the past. Methinks Paul speaks most directly to this 'balance' between knowing oneself to be a sinner and yet there is much to rejoice in and joy floods one's heart knowing that God has set His eternal love upon you and brought you into union with Christ which cannot be broken. The section I'm referring to is in Romans 7:7-8:39.
Posted By: friendoftruths

Re: Gospel truth - Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:11 PM

Yes, you are right, nothing can separate you from the love of God. However, although being in Christ you will have the Spirit until the day you die, you'll never in this life rid yourself of the flesh. And although, God in covenant, will cast your sins away and never remember them, he will not let you forget your previous wicked life. Grace becomes a true grace prayer only when it is accompanied by a consciousness of sin, an ever-knowing sense of unworthiness. The Publican pleaded for mercy that only Christ supplies; the Pharisee saw no need outside himself; no sincere need for a redeemer.

Matt. 9:13 "But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice; for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."






Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gospel truth - Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:18 PM

Originally Posted By: friendoftruths
And although, God in covenant, will cast your sins away and never remember them, he will not let you forget your previous wicked life.

IF by "he will not let you forget your previous wicked life" you mean in this PRESENT life, you are correct. However, IF by that statement you mean this present life and life ETERNAL, this is incorrect.

Revelation 7:17 (KJV) "For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes."

Revelation 21:4 (KJV) "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

Furthermore, even though in this present life, one's knowledge of their sinfulness, not just sins committed, continues and increases, there is unspeakable joy and peace knowing that the LORD Christ has by His passive obedience; vicarious substitutionary death whereby all penalty for sins and guiltiness before God is removed, and by His active obedience; His perfect righteousness imputed to the elect believer.

Romans 8:1-4 (ASV) "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
© 2017 The Highway