• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,846
238
✟119,343.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I am wanting to make a short video (~1-2 minute) with a concise, dense, accurate message of the gospel.I am aware it's possible to mistakenly write things which aren't true, which is why I'm asking this. My memory of specific verses isn't very good so making sure/biblically proving, all of which I am wanting to write is true is somewhat hard. Mishandling Gods word greatly worries me and I don't want to mistakenly eisegesis verses when I come to research/quote verses to back up this. The following script is what I've wrote so far and is the essence of the gospel how I've understood it from reading the bible and listening to sermons over the years. I would like as much people, preferably reformed/orthodox, to look at what I've wrote, tell me if I need correction, or need to add anything in? I want it to flow as logically and biblically as possible in a concise short fashion.



Man sinned against God

The nature of sin is infinitely evil, evidenced by the majesty of whom it’s against.

God is morally perfect in justice; the judgement of sin can’t be eternally postponed, which would be to disregard sin hence invalidate Gods justice.

The result of God’s justice and man’s sin is divine wrath.

Divine Wrath is the application of justice through retribution according to each’s deeds

Only God’s infinite worthiness could account for the atonement of the infinite weight our of sin.

God clothed himself in flesh so that he could physically bear Gods wrath

Therefore, Jesus’ death appeased the wrath of god for those who by faith repent and trust the propitiation provided by Jesus.

This was a free act of Grace, not deserved nor achievable, but brought about by Gods unfathomable love.

Through this, reconciliation to God is achieved and true enjoyment of God can be experienced

jordan,

1. Ezekiel 28:11-18, key verse 15 and Isaiah 14:12-14 is reference to Lucifer who was created sinless as the cherubim and revolted against God. He ruled earth and went to heaven and was kicked out of Heaven back down to the lower heavens in the air and became Satan. Luke said, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven Luke10:17. Ephesians 6:12...... against principalities, powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Lucifer was the first to sin and in he became known as Satan or the Devil. Because he was created with a creative mind he could make choices and because he is indestructible he could not be killed.
The garden was the beginning of the great confrontation between Satan and God. This is why Satan was in the garden working through the serpent Genesis 3:1 and the two are comparable in terms. Serpent means deceiver and Satan is a liar and the father of lies John 8:44.
When man sinned he was kicked out of the garden so they wouldn't be eternal in their sin and have no way of reconciliation. Genesis 3:22-24.
The bible says that the fool says in his heart, There is no God Psalms 14:1 and this would fit what an atheist would say and believe about God the creator of the bible.
God said in Romans 1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Even deist believe in God through nature but not atheists.
God has order in what he does and because of his freewill program with freewills he is working through man and will accomplish his victory over Satan completely when the Son gives the kingdom back to the Father so that God may be all in all. Revelation 20:10 and 1 Corinthians 15:28.

2. In the garden man lost two things and that was the KOH and the KOG; the physical and spiritual rule of God. Genesis 3:22-24. Jesus came to restore both of these things through the KOH and the KOG message to the jews who were promised both of these through the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants Genesis 12-15, 1 Chronicles 28:6-7, Isaiah 9:6-7 and many more.
The jews rejected Jesus message of the KOH and the KOG. At Calvary the KOG of the spiritual rule in hearts was restored so men could accept him and be perfected in their salvation because the conscience or the law or the blood of bulls and goats etc could not save them from sin. 2 Corinthians 3:1-16, Hebrews 9-10 and many others.
The KOH physical kingdom reign on earth in God's theocracy will not happen until the time of the gentiles be come in Romans 11:25 which is at the end of the tribulation at the battle of Armageddon Revelation 16:16-21.

3. The first prophecy of redemption is Genesis 3:15 speaking of what would happen at Calvary. So God has gone through all the dispensations or stewardships or whatever you want to call them of his dealings with men differently in different ways through different covenants and rules etc. for men to understand that sin results in physical and spiritual death without God for eternity. It also shows that man is in need of a savior, for no works can account for salvation in the eyes of God. It also shows that God always was, has been in the past, still is today and will always be in control forever. It shows his goodness, mercy and love and peace on the condition of obedience. If the offenders were allowed to do what they want without punishment they would kill society and the result would be a planet of chaos. This would thwart the plan of God because this earthly sphere is just a small part of the universal KOG and is out of harmony with the rest of God's kingdom in the universe and must be brought back into harmony with him and this will happen when sin is done away with. 1 Corinthians 15:2-28. It also shows that God wants a family of freewill agents who will serve him completely of their freewill and surrender to his power as sovereign of the universe. It is also for his glory as God of the universe.

4. Concerning the gospel specifically the gospel is the death of Christ which guaranteed the resurrection when Christ said it is finished John 19:30. The crucifixion is where he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed. The weight of sin was upon Christ on the cross and was conquered on the cross when he said it is finished.

5. This doesn't discard or belittle or anything of that nature of the importance of the resurrection.
The resurrection he was risen anew and not suffering. So his death guaranteed his resurrection for having already suffered and his suffering was the price we were bought for. Christ gave his life freely so he could give us all things Romans 8:32.

6. Christ had to die in order to be resurrected. The resurrection had to happen in order for the work of the cross to come to fruition in the possibility of all being saved. The perfection of salvation was possible because of the work of the cross and the door being opened by the resurrection of eternal life. If the resurrection had not happened we would still be in sin because even though Jesus forgave sins in his earthly ministry to the jews they would not have been saved to the uttermost had he not died and rose again. Hebrews 11:40.
The resurrection had to happened otherwise the cross would have been a defeat and yet the work of the cross being completed by Christ when he died was what guaranteed the resurrection.
The resurrection also assure that we will live forever in Christ John 3:16 and 11:25-26 and that we can go straight into the throne of God where Christ intercedes at the mercy seat for grace in time of need Hebrews
4:16.

7. The death, burial, and resurrection was always the gospel starting with Genesis 3:15. The revelations of God to man were different such as dealing with them by their conscience, the written law, the new covenant in our hearts just to name a few.
The prophecies were all about a sacrifice which grew gradually through the years. Through different avenues God used to reveal himself to man in different ages whether through conscience and types and shadows etc. until the revelation came into view of the original intent.
Even Jesus forgave sins he was under the age of law and didn't preach his death and resurrection directly as a way to come to him. Peter didn't even know at the end of his ministry what Jesus was talking about him being crucified and dying. He said he wouldn't let anyone kill him and Christ said; Get thee behind me Satan, for you don't savor the things of God Matthew 16:22-23. The things of God was what and why Satan was trying to defeat and Satan was using Peter through Peter's ignorance of what the death and resurrection of Christ was. Even after the resurrection Jesus had to go back through the law and the prophets of what his mission was according to dying and rising again etc.

8. Satan is the father of sin and the liar who deceived man and has since tried to win the war against God the creator because of his taste for kingdom authority when he ruled the earth before Adam and Eve.

9. So the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection which was revealed down through the ages through gradual revelation by God to work his redemptive plan through man to have a family and to show Satan he could, can and will have servants who will serve him freely of their own freewill choice forever and at the same time defeat him forever.

10 Christ came to restore this earth which is out of harmony with the rest of the KOG universal. The KOH was the physical kingdom and the KOG was the spiritual rule which was the condition to enter the physical kingdom.

11. Israel's rejection of Christ was prophesied and never said that they would obey that message and the church was predestined and Christ had to die for the whole world and the church came into their place. The KOG was restored at the cross and the KOH will be restored at the fulness of the time of the gentiles.
The gospel of the cross and resurrection will still be in the KOH and throughout eternity for all the earthly generations on earth.

12. As far as atheist they don't mind the death of Christ as long as they can keep him dead. If they have to admit that he arose from the grave then they would have to admit that there is a God and there is sin and sinners who need salvation and there is a tomorrow where serving God has life eternally and the wages of sin is death. The gospel is the offence to those who truly do not want to believe and that is why an atheist is so much apposed to it.

13. Paul said I die daily in defense of the gospel to save mankind speaking to people who didn't believe in the physical resurrection. Paul said we put our lives on the line for Christ each day and in Romans 8 said we are like sheep led to the slaughter. The point being if there is no hope of a physical resurrection everything is in vain such as faith, Christ's sacrifice etc. and we might as well eat, drink and be merry because there is no tomorrow. The phrase "I Die Daily" specifically is the message of the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection that Paul talked about in the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15. 2 Corinthians 4:10 says " We bear about in our bodies the dying of the Lord Jesus" that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. Verse 11; For we which live are alway delievered unto death for Jesus sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. Verse 12: So then death worketh in us, but life in you! Jesus talked about if you gain the whole world and lose your soul. The atheist like other sinners will prepare for things in this life to prevent calamities but not their soul which lives eternally whether Heaven or hell. Love is goodness of God and his care but love is also judgement to prevent those who would rather have a life against God and live in chaos. Jerry Kelso
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Jordan_
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,550
4,976
✟976,999.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Hmmmmm.

Well, I have to admit, it's closer than I realized. I have had conversations with Catholics that had me thinking we were much further apart. However, I am not qualified to try to tease out the nuances here between the Catholic catechism and Orthodoxy.

I wonder if Catholics and Orthodox would consider differently an infant who died, not having committed any personal sin.

It's probably only fair to say that not all Protestants teach in total depravity, btw. But that might not be what you meant. :)

Thanks for the info.

Some Catholics believe in limbo. In any case, I would find it unusual for a Catholic to believe an infant will go to hell.

I think that there are certainly theological differences. I'm not sure that they matter, or should matter, to average parishioner. What should matter is that we should NOT talk of a wrathful, judgmental, or vengeful God. Also, we should all remember that we ARE created in the image of God, and are purely evil in nature.

I agree that I should have said "many" Protestants believe in total depravity. The understanding that there is any good left in us is relatively rare in traditional Protestant circles. I don't include Anglicans or Methodists in that grouping, since they really have a different history.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,129
17,440
Florida panhandle, USA
✟930,345.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Some Catholics believe in limbo. In any case, I would find it unusual for a Catholic to believe an infant will go to hell.

Do you suppose it matters if the infant is baptized? Or does it matter if the parents are Christian? My husband was listening to an evangelical preacher yesterday who was saying that the children of BELIEVERS are "saved". (I'm asking in terms of Catholic theology, btw.)

I have not pressed ALL the nuances in Orthodox theology. I don't think there are nuances. I was simply told we trust that God is merciful and leave all to Him. While we don't claim to know who is ultimately "saved" the implication is that we don't expect God to condemn any infant who dies, born, miscarried, or aborted, baptized, unbaptized, the child of a believer or not.

I think that there are certainly theological differences. I'm not sure that they matter, or should matter, to average parishioner.

I find that when we speak of BASICS, we ALL (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) have more in common that we have different.

But when I try to carefully compare Catholic theology with Orthodox theology ... I keep feeling as though I misunderstand the Catholic at various times and as a result the goalposts tend to shift a bit, with the result that sometimes we seem very similar, but other times we really seem fundamentally different. Should that matter to the average parishioner? I think not in terms of fellowship. Even in praxis, in some things we are the same - though in some clearly different. I guess many people on average don't sit around hashing out theology (sometimes I wish they did more of that!) but if not, then maybe it doesn't matter to them so much.

What should matter is that we should NOT talk of a wrathful, judgmental, or vengeful God. Also, we should all remember that we ARE created in the image of God, and are purely evil in nature.

I agree the way we understand the nature of God is VITALLY important. It affects how we relate to Him, as well as what we present to others as the Gospel.

I have to ask - is that a typo? Did you mean to say that we "are purely evil in nature"? Because if you did, that's a difference between Orthodox and Catholicism. We don't view man as PURELY evil. We were created in the image AND likeness of God, but the image has been marred by sin, and we have indeed lost our likeness through sin also, but although we DO all sin, we have the potential for being inclined toward good as well. I think Orthodoxy would say we are purely neither, but a mixture.

I agree that I should have said "many" Protestants believe in total depravity. The understanding that there is any good left in us is relatively rare in traditional Protestant circles. I don't include Anglicans or Methodists in that grouping, since they really have a different history.

It can be a confusing landscape. It's where I've spent decades of my Christian life, and I've found if you look around enough, you can find almost any viewpoint somewhere. Some of them quite surprising!
 
Upvote 0

Shane R

Priest
Site Supporter
Jan 18, 2012
2,480
1,350
Southeast Ohio
✟729,592.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
I would encourage the OP to think on the theme of the Tree of Life lost and regained. It is not coincidental that our Bibles begin and end with this idea of the Tree of Life. Think also about how the Tree of Life relates to the presence of God.

In fact, this tree motif is carried through the Scriptures in both a positive and negative presentation: positive in the Tree of Life and negative in the cross. It is also interesting to note that both work(ed) for the good of God's creation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ~Anastasia~
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,550
4,976
✟976,999.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Do you suppose it matters if the infant is baptized? Or does it matter if the parents are Christian? My husband was listening to an evangelical preacher yesterday who was saying that the children of BELIEVERS are "saved". (I'm asking in terms of Catholic theology, btw.)


Yes it should matter when a child is baptized. A baptized child should to heaven. We used to say than an unbaptized children went to limbo. It seems much better to be less sure, and to leave such situations to the Mercy of God.

And yes, we all believe that baptized children of believers are "saved". After all, salvation is not about individuals. It is about community.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,550
4,976
✟976,999.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I have not pressed ALL the nuances in Orthodox theology. I don't think there are nuances. I was simply told we trust that God is merciful and leave all to Him. While we don't claim to know who is ultimately "saved" the implication is that we don't expect God to condemn any infant who dies, born, miscarried, or aborted, baptized, unbaptized, the child of a believer or not.



agreed
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,550
4,976
✟976,999.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I find that when we speak of BASICS, we ALL (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) have more in common that we have different.

In essentials, unity. In
nonessentials, charity.

The problem is what we include in essentials.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,550
4,976
✟976,999.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I agree the way we understand the nature of God is VITALLY important. It affects how we relate to Him, as well as what we present to others as the Gospel.



Yes, the message of "God loves YOU, and died for YOU" is much different than "repent or go to hell" in keeping with justice and love of a vengeful God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ~Anastasia~
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,550
4,976
✟976,999.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
that!) but if not, then maybe it doesn't matter to them so much.
I have to ask - is that a typo? Did you mean to say that we "are purely evil in nature"? Because if you did, that's a difference between Orthodox and Catholicism. We don't view man as PURELY evil. We were created in the image AND likeness of God, but the image has been marred by sin, and we have indeed lost our likeness through sin also, but although we DO all sin, we have the potential for being inclined toward good as well. I think Orthodoxy would say we are purely neither, but a mixture.


Perhaps, I was unclear.

The Catholic position (and that of many Anglicans and Methodists) is that we are created in the image of God, and although marred, we still have some of that spirit within us. We are saved through the free gift of Faith and Grace. However, we must cooperate and accept that free gift.

It is the view of many Protestants that we are "totally depraved". This has been a difference between Catholics and many Protestants since the time of Calvin.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,550
4,976
✟976,999.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I find that when we speak of BASICS, we ALL (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) have more in common that we have different.


I have a bit more to add.

I do believe that Traditional Christians do indeed have much, much more in common that we have differences.

In the US, this seemed clear until we had the mixture of religion and politics. In this atmosphere, views on three issues of secular law (guns, homosexual rights and abortion) have split our denominations, and our unity. Our political positions on these three issues have made theses issues the most important in the faith, and important enough to break up denominations. The unity has been broken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,483
10,848
New Jersey
✟1,334,650.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Reference was made to the Reformed view. But even in the Reformed view, the OP is oversimplified. Calvin’s treatment of the atonement is well-known for emphasizing not just Jesus’ death, but his entire life of obedience. The reason is that for Calvin the core of Christianity is our union with Christ. Through that, his love and obedience transform us. That is, for Reformed theology, salvation is not just being accepted by God, but having God’s image restored in us.

In Protestant theology there’s a forensic aspect to the atonement. God accepts us as having met his requirements, because of what Christ did. This is something we don’t merit. So we’re simply declared justified, and that justification is the foundation of our relationship with God. But within that relationship we are renewed. Hence in Reformed theology salvation has two aspects. One is the unmerited justification. But the other is what Reformed theologians call “sanctification,” the renewal of our lives. This renewal happens because of our union with Christ.

I also agree that the resurrection needs to be seen as part of the atonement. See Rom 6. As Paul says in that passage, through union with Christ we die to sin and are raised to new life. Thus death and resurrection go together.

I don’t mean to sound like I’m attacking the OP. He’s giving a common view of Christianity. But it seems somehow self-centered to me. It makes it look like God’s only purpose was keeping me out of hell. But there are problems with that.

Jesus’ ministry emphasized establishing the Kingdom of God, i.e. God’s rule. That is God’s rule over all of creation. The Kingdom is also a fellowship. Any view of the Gospel that is limited to keeping me as an individual out of hell is oversimplified. The restoration of God’s image has to include restoration of relationships, and that inherently involves a whole community.

Jesus certainly spoke of judgement. But I don’t think you can read the Gospels and come away with the impression that his main purpose was to keep people out of hell. Hell was always there in the background for people who rejected God’s grace. But the foreground was creation of the Kingdom.
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,141
45,793
68
✟3,107,375.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Hmmmmm.

Well, I have to admit, it's closer than I realized. I have had conversations with Catholics that had me thinking we were much further apart. However, I am not qualified to try to tease out the nuances here between the Catholic catechism and Orthodoxy.

I wonder if Catholics and Orthodox would consider differently an infant who died, not having committed any personal sin.

It's probably only fair to say that not all Protestants teach in total depravity, btw. But that might not be what you meant. :)

Thanks for the info.

Hi Anastasia, this is certainly an interesting thread isn't it :) It touches at the heart of much of that which separates East from West, and to a lessor degree in this case, Protestant from Roman Catholic. The best part is it has truly been a discussion, instead of a debate, for the most part anyway :oldthumbsup:

There are a number of additional things to discuss, but I did want to mention a couple of things here first.

1) All of the West believes in "total depravity", we just see it differently. This is seen as the reason and need for baptism by the RCC, and for Protestants, we believe that God does the same kind of quickening work in the hearts of elect alone (Calvinism) or in the hearts of all (Arminianism). In any case, the results of the Fall are remedied, God turning our fallen/dead heart of stone into a heart of flesh which is capable of responding to Him in faith (i.e. Ezekiel 36:26; John 3:3). This is not true of the Orthodox however, because from what I understand, you do not believe there is a need for God to quicken the heart of man like the West does.

2) As for Protestants and the death of children (incl all pre-born babies), I believe that what has been historically held by the Reformed (specifically by John Calvin, in fact) is pretty much true for us all now. Here's a copy of something that I wrote in one of the "abortion" threads that addresses this (granted, it is written from the "Western" POV, IOW, from the POV of Original .. not Ancestral .. Sin).

Babies are conceived with a fallen nature (Psalms 51:5) thanks to the disobedience of our progenitors, but God doesn't judge our "nature", He judges our thoughts and our actions based upon our personal knowledge and understanding of the Law .. which can be, if nothing else, simply the "Law" that God writes upon the heart of every man and woman (see Romans 2:12-16).

Babies have no personal knowledge or understanding of the Law, so they cannot be judged. Those who die at such an early age are always Heaven-bound as a result :)

Yours in Christ,
David
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Heber Book List

Theologian [Applied Theology]
Jul 1, 2015
2,609
851
Whippingham, Isle of Wight, England
✟139,916.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Perhaps, I was unclear.

The Catholic position (and that of many Anglicans and Methodists) is that we are created in the image of God, and although marred, we still have some of that spirit within us. We are saved through the free gift of Faith and Grace. However, we must cooperate and accept that free gift.

It is the view of many Protestants that we are "totally depraved". This has been a difference between Catholics and many Protestants since the time of Calvin.


We are created in the image of God... yet God is not like us. A simple contradiction, but what does 'the image of God' actually mean?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,483
10,848
New Jersey
✟1,334,650.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Calvin says that those dying in infancy are saved, but it's not because they haven't had evil thoughts yet. Calvin does in fact believe that our corrupted nature is grounds for judgement, in a certain sense. Rather he thinks there are Scriptural reasons to believe that God graciously accepts all children, despite their corruption.

I will say that I'm uneasy about this whole area. Is God prejudiced against adults? As an inclusivist, I suspect that everyone starts out as God's child, and that being damned requires a kind of rejection of grace that young children wouldn't ordinarily make. I don't, however believe in an artificial age of accountability.

Calvin was not, of course, an inclusivist. I believe a majority of current Reformed are, though not the CF Reformed.
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,141
45,793
68
✟3,107,375.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I am wanting to make a short video (~1-2 minute) with a concise, dense, accurate message of the gospel.I am aware it's possible to mistakenly write things which aren't true, which is why I'm asking this. My memory of specific verses isn't very good so making sure/biblically proving, all of which I am wanting to write is true is somewhat hard. Mishandling Gods word greatly worries me and I don't want to mistakenly eisegesis verses when I come to research/quote verses to back up this. The following script is what I've wrote so far and is the essence of the gospel how I've understood it from reading the bible and listening to sermons over the years. I would like as much people, preferably reformed/orthodox, to look at what I've wrote, tell me if I need correction, or need to add anything in? I want it to flow as logically and biblically as possible in a concise short fashion.


Man sinned against God

The nature of sin is infinitely evil, evidenced by the majesty of whom it’s against.

God is morally perfect in justice; the judgement of sin can’t be eternally postponed, which would be to disregard sin hence invalidate Gods justice.

The result of God’s justice and man’s sin is divine wrath.

Divine Wrath is the application of justice through retribution according to each’s deeds

Only God’s infinite worthiness could account for the atonement of the infinite weight our of sin.

God clothed himself in flesh so that he could physically bear Gods wrath

Therefore, Jesus’ death appeased the wrath of god for those who by faith repent and trust the propitiation provided by Jesus.

This was a free act of Grace, not deserved nor achievable, but brought about by Gods unfathomable love.

Through this, reconciliation to God is achieved and true enjoyment of God can be experienced

Hi Jordon, I read through most of your thread, but something that seems to be missing is an acknowledgment of the third essential, that of the righteous life that Jesus led on our behalf. As St. Paul tells us,

"God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~2 Cor 5:21

We cannot be "saved" apart from the perfect, righteous life that Christ lived for us ("merited" for us), because it is also on that basis that God chooses to graciously save us. And just to be clear, Jesus was NOT a sinner Himself, rather, God made Him who knew no sin to be "sin" on our behalf (IOW, God counted our sins to His Son's account and declared Him "sin") so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him :clap:

The kind of "righteousness" described above in 2 Cor 5:21 far exceeds the righteousness that can be achieved by the living of an utterly perfect/sinless life, but let's leave that for a later discussion.

What seems important in a basic understanding of the Gospel where the work of Christ is concerned are these three, His life, His death, and His Resurrection (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:17)

Yours and His,
David
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Heber Book List

Theologian [Applied Theology]
Jul 1, 2015
2,609
851
Whippingham, Isle of Wight, England
✟139,916.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I agree, but have clue why you think that is is responsive to my post.

At what point were we 'created in the image of God', whatever that may be taken to mean? If we are created in the image of God, at what point, bearing in mind the word of God in Jeremiah 1:5, which goes back before we are in our mother's womb, did the process of 'being marred' begin?

If we were 'marred' prior to our existence in our mother's womb, whilst under God's protection, how could that happen, and who might be responsible?

The answers to these questions may resolve the question about a baby's 'sin capability' and, therefore, ours. In a very basic question: is it original sin from which we cannot escape, or is it down to the choices we make as we grow from birth in this fallen world?


Time for bed here - will catch up tomorrow
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

_Jordan_

Active Member
Jul 29, 2015
28
6
28
✟22,678.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Reference was made to the Reformed view. But even in the Reformed view, the OP is oversimplified. Calvin’s treatment of the atonement is well-known for emphasizing not just Jesus’ death, but his entire life of obedience. The reason is that for Calvin the core of Christianity is our union with Christ. Through that, his love and obedience transform us. That is, for Reformed theology, salvation is not just being accepted by God, but having God’s image restored in us.

In Protestant theology there’s a forensic aspect to the atonement. God accepts us as having met his requirements, because of what Christ did. This is something we don’t merit. So we’re simply declared justified, and that justification is the foundation of our relationship with God. But within that relationship we are renewed. Hence in Reformed theology salvation has two aspects. One is the unmerited justification. But the other is what Reformed theologians call “sanctification,” the renewal of our lives. This renewal happens because of our union with Christ.

I also agree that the resurrection needs to be seen as part of the atonement. See Rom 6. As Paul says in that passage, through union with Christ we die to sin and are raised to new life. Thus death and resurrection go together.

I don’t mean to sound like I’m attacking the OP. He’s giving a common view of Christianity. But it seems somehow self-centered to me. It makes it look like God’s only purpose was keeping me out of hell. But there are problems with that.

Jesus’ ministry emphasized establishing the Kingdom of God, i.e. God’s rule. That is God’s rule over all of creation. The Kingdom is also a fellowship. Any view of the Gospel that is limited to keeping me as an individual out of hell is oversimplified. The restoration of God’s image has to include restoration of relationships, and that inherently involves a whole community.

Jesus certainly spoke of judgement. But I don’t think you can read the Gospels and come away with the impression that his main purpose was to keep people out of hell. Hell was always there in the background for people who rejected God’s grace. But the foreground was creation of the Kingdom.
Thanks for the reply, I do appreciate the reformed approach. I honestly do think either I haven't been careful enough in writing my statement (which is probably most likely) or you've misunderstood me if you think I was to tell people "how be kept from hell". I said in another comment, and I will change the initial post to save confusion, the essence of what I was trying to say is Romans3,23-25. Literally all that is said there, what Paul was communicating there, as in, the upheld righteousness in God through the propitiation of Jesus' death.

Paul in Romans 3 never mentions the resurrection there yet he still communicates a very dense amount of truth. The truth from verse 23, 25. Is what I was trying to capture. So perhaps it was wrong of me to state that, "I was trying to summarise the gospel", as even I would agree, it's no good news without the resurrection and so many more glorious truths about Jesus. In fact personally from what I've learnt, and by gods grace continue to grasp is that it's Jesus that is the centre of EVERYTHING, and for him should we be joyfully commit ourselves. It is this (the reality of the beautiful/ infinitely cherish able nature of Christ) that I want to grow and see others too, not simply the the avoidaince of hell. Infact to "repent" on this motative I would agrue isn't signs of a true repentance. Anyway Forgive me if I neglected this, however

The point I was wanting to draw on is Romans3,21-25. Again calling my script, a summary of the gospel isn't the wisest, Maybe a summary of a theme of the gospel; propitiation? never-the less, it doesn't matter now as I've simply decided to make a video with Romans3,21-25 proclaimed. My own words and structuring can be prone to futility, but Gods word can't. But thank you for your comments :)
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,550
4,976
✟976,999.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The answers to these questions may resolve the question about a baby's 'sin capability' and, therefore, ours. In a very basic question: is it original sin from which we cannot escape, or is it down to the choices we make as we grow from birth in this fallen world?
Time for bed here - will catch up tomorrow

It is a heresy (Pelagic) to believe that we can get to heaven through our own actions).

But, yes, I believe that we are able to accept or reject God's free gift of faith and salvation.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,129
17,440
Florida panhandle, USA
✟930,345.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for the reply, I do appreciate the reformed approach. I honestly do think either I haven't been careful enough in writing my statement (which is probably most likely) or you've misunderstood me if you think I was to tell people "how be kept from hell". I said in another comment, and I will change the initial post to save confusion, the essence of what I was trying to say is Romans3,23-25. Literally all that is said there, what Paul was communicating there, as in, the upheld righteousness in God through the propitiation of Jesus' death.

Paul in Romans 3 never mentions the resurrection there yet he still communicates a very dense amount of truth. The truth from verse 23, 25. Is what I was trying to capture. So perhaps it was wrong of me to state that, "I was trying to summarise the gospel", as even I would agree, it's no good news without the resurrection and so many more glorious truths about Jesus. In fact personally from what I've learnt, and by gods grace continue to grasp is that it's Jesus that is the centre of EVERYTHING, and for him should we be joyfully commit ourselves. It is this (the reality of the beautiful/ infinitely cherish able nature of Christ) that I want to grow and see others too, not simply the the avoidaince of hell. Infact to "repent" on this motative I would agrue isn't signs of a true repentance. Anyway Forgive me if I neglected this, however

The point I was wanting to draw on is Romans3,21-25. Again calling my script, a summary of the gospel isn't the wisest, Maybe a summary of a theme of the gospel; propitiation? never-the less, it doesn't matter now as I've simply decided to make a video with Romans3,21-25 proclaimed. My own words and structuring can be prone to futility, but Gods word can't. But thank you for your comments :)

If nothing else, we do thank you for providing a wonderful platform for discussion. :)
 
Upvote 0