What is the Gospel?

This has to do with responsibility, or being "response able". If one responds postively to the message God gets all the glory because he is the one who provided the atonement and sent the message of hope. If one responds negatively to the message that person gets all the blame because he IS able to clearly see and understand the things of God, but has refused to acknowledge Him as God. He is without excuse because of the fact that he does clearly see and understand.

Now, I can find much more scripture support for the idea that man remains unsaved because of his own "stubborness," as you put it, than you can to support the idea that he remains unsaved because God didn't choose to save him.

 

But if it's not a free will issue, then presenting it as one is adding a lie to the Gospel. I won't speak for others, but you'll have a hard time convincing me this is acceptable, let alone a good thing.

One may argue that by adding free will to the Gospel, we make the Gospel easier to accept to the unsaved. But isn't it possible to present the Gospel as the Gospel, and let God do the work of drawing and saving? Or are we so much wiser than God that we should add a lie to the Gospel because we know the lie will sell it better?

I'm not arguing that we should hammer election into the presentation of the Gospel, but I fail to see a valid reason for shoving free will into it, either. </font>[/QUOTE]Freewill is something that has been restored. Man once had a very close relationship with God. Along with that they had freewill to continue or not continue being that close to God. They sinned and lost that closeness. When they did a strange thing happened. They no longer had freewill. They freely disobeyed God and left their relationship but they could not of their own freewill resume it. There was a price that needed to be paid for our disobedience and we weren't able to repay it. So God took it upon himself to pay it for us. With the payment made we now have the freewill to resume that close relationship with God.

That is how freewill fits into the gospel in my opinion. That much I think you can bring to even a new convert but I would say the freewill-election debate should not be even though both are true.

 

Isn't this the reason Jesus, Paul and others rebuke those who remain unsaved? For their ignorance and stubbonness? It makes little since to rebuke a man for their stubbornness when its not the real reason they refuse to believe, don't you think?

 

I assign the credit to God, yet I affirm that men have free will. It is no different than the opposite claim of whom do we assign blame for those who cannot come to Christ. Either way you look at it you have a question.

1. If man is born free who gets the credit for belief?

Or

2. If man is not born free who gets the blame for his unbelief?

I believe the answer to #1 can be God without any reproach upon his sovereignity or glory. How? Without his intervention in bringing the atonement and then the powerful gospel message we would never believed, he gets the credit because he gave us all that was needed to believe.

The problem you have is with #2 because no one wants to place any blame on the Creator for men's unbelief, yet because men are born not able to respond, they cannot be responsible (response able).

 

nally posted by npetreley:

Mr 16:14 -
Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.

Why would Christ rebuke that which God is responsible for?


BTW, none of the verses you listed have to do with God being responsible for the unbelief of men. They have to do with God using evil for his own purposes which I don't have any problem with.

 

God has predesigned every life and every relationship throughout all time..and then some.

or else how did he know before time ever began that you would be saved by accepting an invitation?

he chose you to accept the invitation AFTER he chose that you WOULD EVEN physically exist!

Before Time began...without the counsel of any, but himself...He designed you as an individual person. your choices and hopes and dreams

in short, meaning "free will" of man is an illusion. it doesnt exist.

we are following a perfectly executed plan. every atom, every law, every communication between ourselves, others, and God himself. as preplanned.

it is really the creators will and plans in action in this "finite" slice of time and space as mankind is viewing them in motion.

He foreknew because, he preplanned. he's perfect.

the Gospel is the gradual introduction of Gods knowledge into mankinds history. it is a further explaination of how God guarantees that he will join himself to his creation.

Eph 1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

sorry its not 25 words....

even sounds like we pre-existed "in Christ" before time began. doesnt it?.
well the "bride" is the "body" of Christ. the bride was never seperated from christ during his life on earth (as opposed to adam and eve).
the "body" went into death with Christ and was resurrected with him. and then distributed to individual men and women being called to be future sons of God.
the sons of God are the "body" of Christ. they contain the spirit of his bride. they are as one with Christ.
in other words. God the father created the image of man being "in Christ" Jesus as his bride, together never to be seperated.

Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

the Gospel is the message that Gods Got everything under control. Relax.

 

The Calvinists and the Arminians have devised clever systems that deny the clear Word of God. Man is spiritually dead in bondage to Satan. He has no free will either to do good or to do evil. All credit for salvation goes to God. All blame for damnation goes to man. Man stubbornly resists God who desires that all men be saved.

[ May 29, 2004, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

I have been told that I was not saved because I didn't make the choice to believe from my own will.

Now, I do believe that a regenerated person's will is changed, not longer depraved but that person is now in possession of what I would call a free will.

The truth shall set you free and you shall be free indeed.

The Gospel is that message that Paul was separated unto:

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh: And declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

This is more than 25 words, but I think it is one of the best statements of the gospel, it brings it from the time of Adam all the way to where I am sitting now.

Then, while it is true the election/free-will issue is not a concern of a person truly under the experience of their need for repentance (their sins visited upon his people when he visits them), I think many perceive this as an action of their choosing. Although they recognize an outside power operating upon them, they don't recognize the goodness of God that leads them to repentance. It is easier to understand these things being applied according to the response of the individual being dealt with. However, take a look at verse 5 of Romans 1. I have supplied the passage below emphasis mine, read it in context to the first four verses:

The same elements brought out of John 3.16 by John Gilmore.

I have never told anyone that because they believed their 'free-will' caused them to choose Christ, this resulted in their repentance, faith and then regeneration, that they are not children of God.

What I say is that all whom the Father hath given Him shall come to Him. However, I will continue to try to teach those who believe their free will is the cause of their eternal life that their natural will was broken by the operation of the Godhead, that they repented because they believed the Gospel message not that they believed it because they repented. They repented because they were quickened, not regenerated because they repented. Their repentance is evidence of their faith not the channel of that faith. Their faith and repentance is evidence of regeneration not the channel of that regeneration.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

The Lord does all things for his own sake; yes, and he keeps the ungodly for the day of wrath, I agree. He does not make the wicked or ungodly man; but when man has made himself such, even then God bears with him. But if he repent not, when the measure of his iniquity is filled up, he shall fall under the wrath of God his Maker.

James is clear that God tempts no man to evil and it can be certain that God doesn't MAKE men evil, but he make them, or keeps them, or endures with them, or puts up with them, until that day he has made. This interpretation goes right along with the Rom. 9 verse that you quoted.

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

This may be the case but this is not what Paul is talking about in this passage. He is speaking about Jews and Gentiles. What if God wanted to show His wrath and make His power know to the NATIONS (Gentiles), whom he did chose for glory despite what everyone seems to think...so he endured with much patience the Jews, who have made themselves fit for destruction, despite God's pleading (Matt. 23:37) and His "holding out his hands to them all day long." (Romans 10:21). He did this, showed patience to a rebellious people, to show the riches of his mercy to those people He is now ingrafting, the Gentiles. Read the rest of the chapter and the next 2 chapters and that is clearly the topic of discussion. It has nothing to do with God creating people to be evil or making them born hardened. They aren't born that way, they BECOME that way and therefore are fully deserving of being judicially hardened and blinded by God. But even God's act of sending a spirit of stupor and hardening the Jews was an act of mercy because in doing so Paul explains that this makes room for the ingrafting of the Gentiles through faith which will provoke the will of the hardened Jews to jealousy so that some of them might believe and be saved. (Romans 11).

Romans 1 is clear that God gave all men what was necessary for them to clearly see and understand His eternal attributes and divine nature so that they are without excuse. By arguing that man is not able to clearly see and understand the things of God you give them a perfect excuse, one scripture never gives. I'm not willing to go beyond what the scripture reveals merely on the grounds of human reason. I know you also appeal to scripture, but I believe you err in your interpretation by taking passages that are clearly addressing God's temporary and purposeful treatment of a group of people who had rebelled for generations and applying that to how God treats all men from birth.

Here is a key point I think you must understand. Hardening in Romans 9 does not mean certainly condemned. The hardened ones are not the "non-elect" of Calvinism. How do I know? Read Romans 11 and it is clear that Paul fully expects that some of those hardened people will be "provoked to jealousy" and "leave their unbelief." The hardened can be saved and therefore cannot be the "non-elect" of Calvinism's dogma.

In the same way, those being shown mercy in Romans 9 are not certainly going to be saved. God show mercy to all men by even sending them the message of hope or allowing them to have their next breath. Paul is speaking about the Gentiles being shown mercy as a nation and the Jews being hardened as a nation.

 

I agree, it is apart of God's plan, I'm glad you are fimilar with that.

But you totally missed the point. I'm not trying to draw the point that man "must therefore believe of his own free will." I agree with that, but it was not the point I was drawing from the issue of the hardened Jews being provoked to jealousy. My point was simply that Paul was not talking about the elect and the non-elect of Calvinistic dogma in Romans 9 when he speaks of those being shown mercy and those being hardened as your interpretation seemed to presume upon the text.

 

Does that still apply in the same way today as it did then? I mean think about it honestly, is anyone "given to the son" in the way those who came to Jesus were "given"? The son is one with the Father in heaven now, why would the father "give us to him"? Isn't it possible that Jesus is speaking about coming to him while in the flesh and learning from him directly as the apostles did? The rest of us believe in their message and come to faith in him, yes. But we don't "come to Jesus" in the way they did and I just wander what the biblical authors were really intending to communicate here.

The Jews couldn't come to him because they were being hardened and the Gentiles weren't yet being taught the message because Peter hadn't had his dream and Paul hadn't been called. Only the remnant of Israel, the apostles, were being allowed to "come to Jesus" and learn from him. Only they had been given to Him by the father for that divine purpose. Go back and read this passage from that perspective and just see if it just could be the intent.

 

I'm not saying anything changed. I'm simply pointing out the context and the audience that Jesus was addressing. Again, proof that God individually chooses and sovereignly calls his divinely appointed messengers cannot prove that he does the same for their audiences. In fact, if their authority is unique just the opposite should be assumed. You think the burden is upon me simply because you've always read it from your perspective and you think its my job to convince you to view it differently, but if you had always seen if from my perspective you would still place the burden on the one who disagrees with you. That is a natural response, its just not accurate. You have just as much burden to prove, if not more, that we are individually selected and sovereignly called just as the apostles were.

Who are the two folds of sheep? I believe the first fold of sheep Jesus refers to are the remnant of Jews he reserved for himself to take the message of the cross to the world, those coming to him while he was here on earth. The second fold is those who believe through their message. The first fold was brought in by Christ here on earth and the second was brought in my Christ's message carried along by the Holy Spirit through his messengers.

So, he lays down his life for both folds: Those brought in by him while here on earth and those who believe in Christ through their message.

While Jesus was on earth only the first flock of sheep were being allowed in and those in his audience were apparently not called to be apart of the remnant set aside for that purpose. They in fact were being hardened temporarily until God accomplished his purpose through their unbelief. But as we can see in Romans 11 they might be provoked to jealousy and leave that unbelief in time, they would then become a part of the second flock which was brought in through faith in the message of the first flock.

There is a strong parallel between Christ's analogy of the sheep and Paul's analogy of the branches in the vine in Romans 11. The branches represent groups of people just as the sheep do and if you study Romans 11 you can see that one can pass from one group to the other by "leaving their unbelief" so the same can be true of the groups the sheep represent.

 

Why don't we let the Apostle Paul define the gospel?