The "No Lord gospel"

Dear Brother Ed Sutton:

I thank you very much for your concern regarding what I believe, but the Scriptures you have cited are the very same Scriptures that I have used in arguing against this doctrine or belief that I now hold when I was in a struggle with my brethren, the Primitive Baptists, prior to my baptism, since baptism implies as well that we are in accord with the doctrines and practices of the church we are being baptized by..
After much study on this subject, of whether the gospel, its preaching, and its acceptance is a necessary adjunct (for want of a better word) to the finished work of Christ on the cross for and in behalf of His elect (or the whosoevers, whichever side of the soteriological fence we happen to be), I can only come to the doctrinal conclusion that to be faithful to the Scriptural teaching of grace in regards to the eternal salvation of sinners and the broad scope in human chronological history in which this salvation was made available by God thru and in Christ, then the gospel must be seen for what it is: good news. It effects no salvation, it does not produce life, and with or without it preached, known, accepted, and believed in, the eternal blessings which eternal salvation intended to bestow on God’s people is not at all negated or enhanced.

However, that is not to say that once the gospel is made known to men by those whom God called into the ministry, the redeemed sinners, who profess Christ as Savior after having come under the hearing and instruction of the gospel, have no obligation to repent, and to live in a gospel manner which glorifies the God and the Christ whom he professes to believe in, and I believe this is what Paul, throughout his ministry, consistently preached, and that while eternal salvation makes no demands on the sinners it has redeemed, timely or gospel salvation has prerequisites, and these are made known by Scriptures as well.

Please be assured that while I stand solidly and firmly on grace and Christ’s finished work alone as the ONLY requisite to eternal salvation, I am by no means an antinomian.

And I have come to believe this is what Paul was preaching to the Corinthians in the Scripture which you cited. That they have not only been saved eternally, but now have been saved from the ungodly life, dead faith, and unprofitable religion and rituals that they were caught up in when they first heard the gospel, and learned of their salvation, and of their Savior, and therefore should strive to live within such gospel, if they are to escape from the dread consequences of sin in this life, which is to be separated from the blessings and protection of God, as Adam was separated from his fellowship with his creator in the garden.

I believe this is made plain once we continue to read Paul’s letter.

Again, I thank you for your concern, and love.

 

Who revealed these promises?
Who persuaded these of these promises?

These all evidently died in faith...what faith?

Having died in faith, why did these not receive the promises, yet it is said of them they they all embraced them (i.e. the promises).

Furthermore, how did these see the promises?

Question answered, Biblically, whether you receive it or not depends upon the faith of which you sojourn, but brings no bear upon your eternal position.:thumbs:

May God Bless,
Bro. Dallas

 

skypair. Would you please show everyone where Bro. Rippon used the words, "I am of Calvin"?

You are presumably quoting him. You used "quotes". You actually accused him of "saying" the words "I am of Calvin". Just show everyone where Rippon said those words.

Now, I haven't read everything, so I am willing to withhold comment until you produce the proof of your assertion.

peace to youraying:

 

Now, I can say I know a hyper-Calvinist who openly acknowledged it. Not a happy thing, but you are the first I have personally encountered to acknowledge hyper-Calvinism.


LM

 

call it what you will, Lou. I really don't care. As far as I can see, there is a need to put the gospel in perspective, and what is happening is that popular theology puts the gospel in lieu of Christ's finished work and shed blood.
Do I deny that the gospel needs to be preached ? No.

I do deny that the gospel is the source of eternal life, and that without it being heard, obeyed, or understood, the sinner is forever doomed.
My Calvinist friends here and outside of this board will swear to high heavens that Christ alone saves, and that salvation is OF the Lord, and that the salvation of God's people is a done deal.

Yet they, like you Arminians, will insist that for the elect to be quickened by the Holy Spirit, the elect must be in an environment He can work in, which is, gospel preaching, therefore, they, like you, send out missionaries for the same purpose: to bring eternal salvation to all who hear the gospel.

Whereas the purpose should be : to bring the good news of a finished salvation, of life already possessed in and through Christ, to His people, and to teach them, that is, instruct them of the Way of Christ.

Someone asked if I could provide Scripture that says the gospel is for instructional purposes.

Well, how about Matthew 28:19-20 :" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:".

The gospel is good news of a finished salvation. That's it. No more and no less. As blessed as this truth is to the elect, that their God loved them before they loved Him, and undertook their salvation Himself, one should not venerate the gospel to a position equal to Christ. But humans being fallen, including the elect, we all do have that tendency, which is perhaps why in the end, God had the brass serpent destroyed, lest Israel should take their eyes off the Person and the act it represents and venerate it to a holy object.

Somebody believing the good news of a messenger that a rich uncle left him an island of inheritance and he is no longer poor and miserable doesn't make him rich. It is the fact that an uncle acted on his behalf that made him rich, not the good news, not the messenger.

 

Lo siento muchismo, canady. Rip didn't say that "in so many words." If you think that this is really a point worth making then I am glad you are defending him. :thumbs:

skypair

 

All very wonderful, too. The Pharisees would, no doubt, be proud of your LS. Was their gospel "effectacious?"

Why?? I mean really --- did the Pharisees fear for the Gentiles salvation???

It's NOT good news if you aren't "elect," pinoy, is it? What you describe is like delivering the newspaper back to the newsroom! :laugh:

skypair

 

If he didn't say it "in so many words" then you shouldn't be putting "quotes" around it as if he did say it in those very words.

You made a very harsh accusation, comparing Rippon to the leaders of factions in the Corithian Church, applying Paul's rebuke of "carnal" to him in the process. You made the accusation of the basis of a falsehood, that Rippon had said "I am of Calvin".

If you don't understand why it is a point worth making, then there really is no point in trying to engage you.

peace to youraying:

 

Do you mean to say that he is no longer a Calvinist?? Hallelujiah!! :godisgood:

But just in case he is still a "Calvinist," he is guilty of dividing the brethren and carnal according to Paul's description of carnality. If you see it some other way, please help me to understand your complaint.

skypair

 

Like I said, there is no reason to engage you.

peace to youraying:

 

Did you know what God or Savior meant?