what is the gospel?

AMR · Sep 2, 2018

StillGods said:
to a Calvinist what is the gospel?

DAN P;5076132 said:
Hi to all and I always laugh when I see that some believe is ONLY one Gospel that SAVES !!

Despite the claim of others, there is but one Gospel. In a fast food society that likes just snippets it is wrong to assume that but the concise summary of the Gospel in 1 Cor 15 is the only time that Paul calls something "the Gospel". For example, the entire letter of Romans is repeatedly referred to by Paul as "my Gospel".

There may be a shorthand way of saying certain things to people who already understand something, but there are no shortcuts by just saying a minimal number of words to a listener and assuming that the person listening has understood the Gospel.

Beloved, sentences in the scriptures are not incantations. We are called to press these things into the understanding of our hearers and explain and argue for certain ideas (1 Cor. 10:5). Yes, we may start out with something very basic, as in 1 Cor 15, but we will have to give further explanations or corrections of some matters if a person is inferring something improperly.

For example, Paul's Romans Road to Salvation, Romans 3:23; 6:23; 8:1; 10:9; 10:13, is steeped in unstated presuppositions that will require explanation to the typical non-believer.

In another related example, seriously consider what must be presupposed in the concise summary statement of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. For example, "sins" presupposes a moral inability; "our" presupposes a marking out of persons, "died for" presupposes particularization of persons; "rose again" presupposes a calling that is effective and provides utmost perseverance.

If a person goes off and develops a poor understanding which undermines the basic theological framework above, he or she denies the very underlying basis of the Gospel—those presuppositions left unexplained by using Gospel shorthanded expressions—and thereby weakens one's own faith.

At the end of the day, people need to stop and consider how one could accurately present any Gospel that denies...

(1) man's wholesale rebellion in sin from birth,
(2) the right of God the Father to punish men for their sin,
(3) God the Father's sending of His son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, incarnated as fully God and fully man, out of His mere grace and not for anything men deserved,
(4) Our Lord's sacrifice on a cross for sin, satisfying the wrath of God the Father for only the ones so given to Our Lord (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9;John 17:22; John 18:9),
(5) Our Lord saving to the uttermost all who are efficaciously drawn near by God the Holy Spirit,
(6) God the Father loving His chosen before they loved Him,
(7) the resurrection of Our Lord, or
(8) even the power of the Gospel to be the source of life.

The Gospel is more than just a sentence or two lifted from the full counsel of Scripture. Rather, as did Paul, the message of the Gospel requires us to take every word captive for the glory of God.

AMR

StillGods · Sep 2, 2018

Johnny4ChristJesus said:
Taking world to not mean every single person would be more consistent with Scripture than taking it to mean every person. For instance, Jesus specifically excluded the whole world in His high priestly prayer to the Father in John 17:9. He comes back in John 17:20 and adds "them also which believe on Me through their word. In John 3:16, we are told that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish...." Again, a qualifier of those who believe. In speaking to the seven churches, Jesus declares and then ends with "to him who overcomes, I will give...." In one case the overcomer is promised "to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God" (Rev 2:7) and in another, the overcomer is clothed in white raiment and is not blotted out of the book of life and Jesus also says He will confess his name before The Father and before His angels. (Rev 3:5) That is consistent with an earlier teaching of Jesus: "If you deny Me before men, I will deny you before the Father." (Matt 10:33) This doesn't even include the list of people who won't be in the kingdom of God from Revelation, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Corinthians, and Romans.

In the Old Testament, God started over with Noah and his family. In both Exodus 32 and Number 14, God told Moses that He was going to start over with Moses, but Moses interceded for the people and God changed His mind, according to the Scriptures.

Cool, i'm going to look it up in the original language cos 'the world' to me simply means 'the world' but hey i'm happy to check it.

Johnny4ChristJesus · Sep 2, 2018

StillGods said:
Cool, i'm going to look it up in the original language cos 'the world' to me simply means 'the world' but hey i'm happy to check it.

In your examination, consider this:

KJV John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

So, if Jesus took away the sin of the world (and understanding world means everyone in the world), how can anyone in the world still have sin--regardless of whether they believe or not--unless John is referring to the sin of the subset of people who will believe, not everyone in the world?

StillGods · Sep 2, 2018

i looked up the word 'world' from John 3:16
and its this word kosmos.
i feel encouraged that God so loved the kosmos as described below.

Bible > Strong's > Greek >
◄ 2889. kosmos ►
Strong's Concordance
kosmos: order, the world
Original Word: κόσμος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: kosmos
Phonetic Spelling: (kos'-mos)
Short Definition: the world, universe
Definition: the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.
HELPS Word-studies
2889 kósmos (literally, "something ordered") – properly, an "ordered system" (like the universe, creation); the world.

[The English term "cosmetic" is derived from 2889 /kósmos, i.e. the order("ensemble") used of treating the face as a whole.]

anyway so the world is the world so thats good.

StillGods · Sep 2, 2018

Johnny4ChristJesus said:
In your examination, consider this:

KJV John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

So, if Jesus took away the sin of the world (and understanding world means everyone in the world), how can anyone in the world still have sin--regardless of whether they believe or not--unless John is referring to the sin of the subset of people who will believe, not everyone in the world?

maybe it just means Jesus sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to cover the payment for everyones sins, whether they accept that payment or not Jesus has paid for it all

StillGods · Sep 2, 2018

Johnny4ChristJesus said:
(1)

(2) Being elect wouldn't have to exclude the need for God to pay the price to redeem those He has elected from the consequences of the bad choices they made. Elect doesn't mean righteous without coming to the place where they hear and believe in Jesus and what He did for them.

i agree with (1)
re (2) fair point, sometimes it just seems like Calvinists have this thing like when they get to heaven all they have to say is theyre the elect and they'll get in and Jesus is put to the side a bit. not saying thats correct though.

Johnny4ChristJesus · Sep 2, 2018

StillGods said:
i looked up the word 'world' from John 3:16
and its this word kosmos.
i feel encouraged that God so loved the kosmos as described below.

Bible > Strong's > Greek >
◄ 2889. kosmos ►
Strong's Concordance
kosmos: order, the world
Original Word: κόσμος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: kosmos
Phonetic Spelling: (kos'-mos)
Short Definition: the world, universe
Definition: the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.
HELPS Word-studies
2889 kósmos (literally, "something ordered") – properly, an "ordered system" (like the universe, creation); the world.

[The English term "cosmetic" is derived from 2889 /kósmos, i.e. the order("ensemble") used of treating the face as a whole.]

anyway so the world is the world so thats good.

So, if God so loved the "kosmos" why is He destroying the whole thing and creating a new one? If it means "ordered system" or "something ordered", then why can't it be representative parts of the whole that can re-multiply and re-create a whole--just like happened in the Old Testament?

If someone paid my debt, it wouldn't matter whether I accepted it or not, it would be paid. If God so loved the world and wanted everyone in the world to be saved, they would--including the jezebel's. There wouldn't be an unforgiveable sin. There would be no need to be an overcomer.

mark kennedy · Sep 2, 2018

StillGods said:
interesting.
how can one believe and it not have an effect.

that makes me think why would a person need Jesus at all if they are elect. being elect from the beginning of time seems to be the only qualification needed.

i'm not trying to be flippant just trying to get some of the concepts.

The divine nature, what you become when your born again, is based on the righteousness of God that does not change. We have no idea at what point a name is entered into the book of life, I suspect it is shortly after conception. Your choice is meaningless if God doesn't choose you. God can choose the elect from the womb, Paul is clear God chose him before the foundation of the world. I think your question is how do we reconcile this to free will, I suggest you start with you. Know your commitment to Christ and the relationship you enter into by grace through faith. Bear in mind predestination comes last in TULIP, there's a reason for that. In the end you realize God knows the end from the beginning and I can no more explain that then how God created the universe out of nothing. I know it's the clear testimony of Scripture and it is not mutually exclusive with free will. Truth be known it's a part of it, indeed, the source of the decision that seals your eternal state.

Johnny4ChristJesus · Sep 2, 2018

StillGods said:
i agree with (1)
re (2) fair point, sometimes it just seems like Calvinists have this thing like when they get to heaven all they have to say is theyre the elect and they'll get in and Jesus is put to the side a bit. not saying thats correct though.

What may really blow a gasket is when someone who claimed to be "of the elect" and acted like the world gets to the gates and has access denied by Jesus with that scary reply like in Matthew 7 and Matthew 25 where He says "Depart from Me! I never knew you." Those people called Jesus "Lord" and He rejected them.

StillGods · Sep 2, 2018

Johnny4ChristJesus said:
What may really blow a gasket is when someone who claimed to be "of the elect" and acted like the world gets to the gates and has access denied by Jesus with that scary reply like in Matthew 7 and Matthew 25 where He says "Depart from Me! I never knew you." Those people called Jesus "Lord" and He rejected them.

Whats even more scary is the people that was said to, they didnt even act like the world they were casting out demons and doing seemingly Godly things and He said that to them!.... sobering stuff for sure!

hedrick · Sep 2, 2018

Johnny4ChristJesus said:
What may really blow a gasket is when someone who claimed to be "of the elect" and acted like the world gets to the gates and has access denied by Jesus with that scary reply like in Matthew 7 and Matthew 25 where He says "Depart from Me! I never knew you." Those people called Jesus "Lord" and He rejected them.

That's not the way it works. Election doesn't replace faith; it's the way we come to faith. You aren't elect independently of being a follower of Jesus.

StillGods · Sep 2, 2018

Johnny4ChristJesus said:
So, if God so loved the "kosmos" why is He destroying the whole thing and creating a new one? If it means "ordered system" or "something ordered", then why can't it be representative parts of the whole that can re-multiply and re-create a whole--just like happened in the Old Testament?

If someone paid my debt, it wouldn't matter whether I accepted it or not, it would be paid. If God so loved the world and wanted everyone in the world to be saved, they would--including the jezebel's. There wouldn't be an unforgiveable sin. There would be no need to be an overcomer.

maybe He's fixing it cos we broke it? i'm not sure to be honest.

it does matter if we accept it, the debt is paid but theres the whole repenting asking for forgiveness thing which means relationship with the Father so we can know God. the ticket is paid for but we need to receive the ticket so we can go on the journey. bad analogy i know. plenty of jezebels and rahabs are willing to humble themselves and say they need a ticket.
I believe the unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ. (obviously theres no coming back from that one!)
I reckon being an overcomer is about rewards in heaven (crowns) not about gaining salvation from overcoming.

StillGods · Sep 2, 2018

mark kennedy said:
The divine nature, what you become when your born again, is based on the righteousness of God that does not change. We have no idea at what point a name is entered into the book of life, I suspect it is shortly after conception. Your choice is meaningless if God doesn't choose you. God can choose the elect from the womb, Paul is clear God chose him before the foundation of the world. I think your question is how do we reconcile this to free will, I suggest you start with you. Know your commitment to Christ and the relationship you enter into by grace through faith. Bear in mind predestination comes last in TULIP, there's a reason for that. In the end you realize God knows the end from the beginning and I can no more explain that then how God created the universe out of nothing. I know it's the clear testimony of Scripture and it is not mutually exclusive with free will. Truth be known it's a part of it, indeed, the source of the decision that seals your eternal state.

i find it interesting that anywhere the word chosen is mentioned in the Bible Calvinists automatically think its about being chosen to be elect.
The Bible says Paul was chosen for the job of Apostle to the Gentiles - lots of people are chosen for different jobs in the kingdom of God. The verses that mention where Paul was chosen can be read as chosen to do the Apostle job. Putting any more meaning onto it i think gotta be careful about doing that.

royal priest · Sep 2, 2018

StillGods said:
sometimes it just seems like Calvinists have this thing like when they get to heaven all they have to say is theyre the elect and they'll get in and Jesus is put to the side a bit.

Apologetic_Warrior · Sep 2, 2018

AMR said:
Despite the claim of others, there is but one Gospel. In a fast food society that likes just snippets it is wrong to assume that but the concise summary of the Gospel in 1 Cor 15 is the only time that Paul calls something "the Gospel". For example, the entire letter of Romans is repeatedly referred to by Paul as "my Gospel".

There may be a shorthand way of saying certain things to people who already understand something, but there are no shortcuts by just saying a minimal number of words to a listener and assuming that the person listening has understood the Gospel.

Beloved, sentences in the scriptures are not incantations. We are called to press these things into the understanding of our hearers and explain and argue for certain ideas (1 Cor. 10:5). Yes, we may start out with something very basic, as in 1 Cor 15, but we will have to give further explanations or corrections of some matters if a person is inferring something improperly.

For example, Paul's Romans Road to Salvation, Romans 3:23; 6:23; 8:1; 10:9; 10:13, is steeped in unstated presuppositions that will require explanation to the typical non-believer.

In another related example, seriously consider what must be presupposed in the concise summary statement of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. For example, "sins" presupposes a moral inability; "our" presupposes a marking out of persons, "died for" presupposes particularization of persons; "rose again" presupposes a calling that is effective and provides utmost perseverance.

If a person goes off and develops a poor understanding which undermines the basic theological framework above, he or she denies the very underlying basis of the Gospel—those presuppositions left unexplained by using Gospel shorthanded expressions—and thereby weakens one's own faith.

At the end of the day, people need to stop and consider how one could accurately present any Gospel that denies...

(1) man's wholesale rebellion in sin from birth,
(2) the right of God the Father to punish men for their sin,
(3) God the Father's sending of His son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, incarnated as fully God and fully man, out of His mere grace and not for anything men deserved,
(4) Our Lord's sacrifice on a cross for sin, satisfying the wrath of God the Father for only the ones so given to Our Lord (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9;John 17:22; John 18:9),
(5) Our Lord saving to the uttermost all who are efficaciously drawn near by God the Holy Spirit,
(6) God the Father loving His chosen before they loved Him,
(7) the resurrection of Our Lord, or
(8) even the power of the Gospel to be the source of life.

The Gospel is more than just a sentence or two lifted from the full counsel of Scripture. Rather, as did Paul, the message of the Gospel requires us to take every word captive for the glory of God.

AMR

Awesome response! I hope and pray many will read and heed the wisdom above, because it is true. :clap:

Johnny4ChristJesus · Sep 2, 2018

StillGods said:
maybe He's fixing it cos we broke it? i'm not sure to be honest.

it does matter if we accept it, the debt is paid but theres the whole repenting asking for forgiveness thing which means relationship with the Father so we can know God. the ticket is paid for but we need to receive the ticket so we can go on the journey. bad analogy i know. plenty of jezebels and rahabs are willing to humble themselves and say they need a ticket.
I believe the unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ. (obviously theres no coming back from that one!)
I reckon being an overcomer is about rewards in heaven (crowns) not about gaining salvation from overcoming.

I understand what we have been taught. I question the validity of what has been taught in light of the The Word of God. The debt paid and a ticket purchase are two different things. I understand the need for belief and repentance and believe those are God-ordained necessities for heaven to have the qualities God promises it will (no more suffering, tears, death, etc). So, if man has to be willing to humble themselves, how about Saul of Tarsus (before his encounter with the risen Savior)? How willing was he to repent for stuff he didn't even think he was doing wrong?

So, if "overcomer" is simply about rewards in heaven, then how can someone enter and remain in heaven without "eating of the tree of life"? How can they get into heaven, if they are blotted out of the Book of Life? (Rev 3:5, Rev 20:12-13) Rev 21:7-8: "He who overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be His God, and He shall be My son; but the fearful, and unbeleiving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brinstone, which is the second death." If you aren't God's (adopted or birth) son, can you be in heaven?

My argument remains, you can't say "the world" means the

StillGods said:
i find it interesting that anywhere the word chosen is mentioned in the Bible Calvinists automatically think its about being chosen to be elect.
The Bible says Paul was chosen for the job of Apostle to the Gentiles - lots of people are chosen for different jobs in the kingdom of God. The verses that mention where Paul was chosen can be read as chosen to do the Apostle job. Putting any more meaning onto it i think gotta be careful about doing that.

It is interesting that you would choose Paul as an example. Saul/Paul stood against Jesus Christ in the very early stages of the church. It is hard to not conceive that he was there when Christ was on earth. Ananias argued with God about going to pray for Saul of Tarsus. But, God said he was His chosen vehicle.... If I was arguing against election, I don't think I would have chosen Saul/Paul as my example. Apart from divine intervention, I think it is really hard to argue that Saul would have heard the message of the Gospel and repented. He was so convinced he was serving God eliminating blasphemers that he got permission to hunt them down outside his own area. The mere fact that Saul was converted and became Paul directly through an encounter and instruction from Jesus Christ would be one of the strongest arguments for election.

Johnny4ChristJesus · Sep 2, 2018

hedrick said:
That's not the way it works. Election doesn't replace faith; it's the way we come to faith. You aren't elect independently of being a follower of Jesus.

Oh, I agree with you! That was actually my point. But, I also KNOW that there are some who claim to be "of the elect" who will not be found in heaven. People learn lingo from the culture they are around; but it doesn't mean they are what they claim to be. That was my point.

StillGods · Sep 2, 2018

Johnny4ChristJesus said:
I understand what we have been taught. I question the validity of what has been taught in light of the The Word of God. The debt paid and a ticket purchase are two different things. I understand the need for belief and repentance and believe those are God-ordained necessities for heaven to have the qualities God promises it will (no more suffering, tears, death, etc). So, if man has to be willing to humble themselves, how about Saul of Tarsus (before his encounter with the risen Savior)? How willing was he to repent for stuff he didn't even think he was doing wrong?

So, if "overcomer" is simply about rewards in heaven, then how can someone enter and remain in heaven without "eating of the tree of life"? How can they get into heaven, if they are blotted out of the Book of Life? (Rev 3:5, Rev 20:12-13) Rev 21:7-8: "He who overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be His God, and He shall be My son; but the fearful, and unbeleiving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brinstone, which is the second death." If you aren't God's (adopted or birth) son, can you be in heaven?

My argument remains, you can't say "the world" means the

It is interesting that you would choose Paul as an example. Saul/Paul stood against Jesus Christ in the very early stages of the church. It is hard to not conceive that he was there when Christ was on earth. Ananias argued with God about going to pray for Saul of Tarsus. But, God said he was His chosen vehicle.... If I was arguing against election, I don't think I would have chosen Saul/Paul as my example. Apart from divine intervention, I think it is really hard to argue that Saul would have heard the message of the Gospel and repented. He was so convinced he was serving God eliminating blasphemers that he got permission to hunt them down outside his own area. The mere fact that Saul was converted and became Paul directly through an encounter and instruction from Jesus Christ would be one of the strongest arguments for election.

I didnt have Paul as a topic myself i was replying to another poster who mentioned paul.

i actually find Paul very fascinating. he thought he was following God, indeed i think in his heart he truely wanted to please God else why such zealousness in all he did trying to please God, and God responded to that in Paul.

in my opinion anyway.
i can relate i guess... i have done things in my life in Gods Name that were not god but i wanted to do things to please God but i was wrong in ignorance of who God really is but i didnt know. then God intervened (i was already saved many years before but under false teaching as was Paul). in his utter mercy He intervened and showed me who He really is and set me on a straight path.

so Paul is very fascinating to me as i can relate.

i admire Paul because he spent 3 years after that experience, i believe, probably researching and relearning how to live his life in a manner that was truely pleasing to God before he went out as an Apostle.

Johnny4ChristJesus · Sep 3, 2018

AMR said:
Despite the claim of others, there is but one Gospel. In a fast food society that likes just snippets it is wrong to assume that but the concise summary of the Gospel in 1 Cor 15 is the only time that Paul calls something "the Gospel". For example, the entire letter of Romans is repeatedly referred to by Paul as "my Gospel".

AMR

Just to clarify, Paul refers to something as "my Gospel" only three times in all of Scripture (Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25, and 2 Tim 2:8). At all other times, he refers to "The Gospel" including 11 times throughout The Letter to the Romans. I don't think it was your point to separate Paul's Letter to the Romans from "The Gospel," but, wanted to clarify that.

Presuppositions and other assumptions/leaps we make often color our interpretation of Scripture one way or another. Sadly, and too often, we are simply parroting what we took in without being Berean about it.

Johnny4ChristJesus · Sep 3, 2018

StillGods said:
I didnt have Paul as a topic myself i was replying to another poster who mentioned paul.

i actually find Paul very fascinating. he thought he was following God, indeed i think in his heart he truely wanted to please God else why such zealousness in all he did trying to please God, and God responded to that in Paul.

in my opinion anyway.
i can relate i guess... i have done things in my life in Gods Name that were not god but i wanted to do things to please God but i was wrong in ignorance of who God really is but i didnt know. then God intervened (i was already saved many years before but under false teaching as was Paul). in his utter mercy He intervened and showed me who He really is and set me on a straight path.

so Paul is very fascinating to me as i can relate.

i admire Paul because he spent 3 years after that experience, i believe, probably researching and relearning how to live his life in a manner that was truely pleasing to God before he went out as an Apostle.

But, that isn't what Paul said and that isn't what God did. Paul wasn't saved under false teaching. Paul didn't accept Jesus and thought Jesus and all those who followed Him were blasphemers of the only true and living God. While God certainly may have seen that Paul was earnest in his zealous love for God, He denied Jesus was who He said He was and therefore couldn't have been saved UNTIL his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Paul also didn't say he was researching. Paul said "But I certify to you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:11-12)

The way to live life in a manner that is truly pleasing to God is, as Paul shares in numerous places, "walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh."

what is the gospel?

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

debtor to grace

Pilgrim

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads