The Good News/The Bad News

[Fastfredy0]

Sorry FF. That was my error. I confused the rejection of Bible teachers by Jerry with you.

Phew, I was feeling bad about you being VERY 'ticked' off at me. It is easy to get lost in the chains or responses. That being said, you owe me one "get out of jail (ticked off) free" card. (Monopoly game analogy in case reference too obscure).

My favorite books are by theologians, especially books that teach Systematic Theology
I'll give Thiessen a go. Thanks for the link.
I'm too set in my ways in regards to REFORM theology to change, so you will have to be patient with my disagreement in some areas. Your obviously an expert in Theology ... I respect that.

 

[stovebolts]

Those whom the Holy Spirit moved upon to write the scriptures are people.


Why do we need another definition of faith, other than the definition the Bible gives?


Please answer my question.





JLB

I think your misunderstanding.
The Bible was not written in English. Faith is an English word that was translated from a foreign language.

Studying the original language helps to better understand the text.

A servant is not above its master. If God declared His word in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, then English is serving those languages.

To raise the English language above the original tongues of those whom the Holy Spirit imparted Gods Word is to cause the master to become the servant.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I believe God makes a way for everyone to go to heaven even without hearing the Gospel.

Well, since you didn't elaborate on HOW one gets to heaven without hearing the gospel, I assume you don't know; rather, your idea of who God is precludes the possibility of God not giving those who have not heard the gospel another method. You've extrapolated your idea of character of God to come up with a doctrine of salvation for these people. Understood. Thanks for replying. I hope your right, but then I hope the universalists' are right and I am wrong.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Nobody murdered Jesus. He willingly gave up his life.

Man was definitely responsible for Christ's murder (the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another).
That being said, Christ let them do it. John 10:18, Acts 5:30
Maybe semantics

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Well, since you didn't elaborate on HOW one gets to heaven without hearing the gospel, I assume you don't know; rather, your idea of who God is precludes the possibility of God not giving those who have not heard the gospel another method. You've extrapolated your idea of character of God to come up with a doctrine of salvation for these people. Understood. Thanks for replying. I hope your right, but then I hope the universalists' are right and I am wrong.

Well, I base what I say on Romans 1:20.
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
The 1232 indian can worship that true God without hearing the Gospel.
Once you hear the Gospel, everything changes.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Well, I base what I say on Romans 1:20.

Well, I agree that everyone knows that is a higher power and thus are culpable for their sins. I don't see the methodology in the verse showing how these people are to be saved. It this point you go on assumption IMO.

So the verse "faith cometh by hearing" could just as easily be written "Faith cometh by hearing or not hearing"?
So the verse Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we [originally] preached to you, let him be condemned to destruction! ... that, despite this warning there is another Gospel by which one can be saved?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Well, I agree that everyone knows that is a higher power and thus are culpable for their sins. I don't see the methodology in the verse showing how these people are to be saved. It this point you go on assumption IMO.

So the verse "faith cometh by hearing" could just as easily be written "Faith cometh by hearing or not hearing"?
So the verse Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we [originally] preached to you, let him be condemned to destruction! ... that, despite this warning there is another Gospel by which one can be saved?

Yes, it is an assumption.
But I believe a loving God is not going to send everyone to hell because they have not heard the Gospel.
That's how I feel about my loving God.
As far as Gal. 1:8, there is no other Gospel being preached to the 1232 indian.
And as far as "faith comes by hearing," how do we interpret Romans 1:20?

 

[Doug Brents]

The word GOSPEL means good news.

The word “Gospel” is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word, “godspel”, or “good story”.
This is the Good News: That anyone can be saved from their lost state by believing in Jesus and obeying His commandments.


There also seems to be Bad News in the Christian world.
A news from the N.T. that states that not everyone could be saved.
No matter how much they'd like to be.
No,,,it is up to God to save or banish a person from heaven
and it is not up to the individual to accept the gift of salvation from God.
And this based on nothing at all but God's choice.
They can only hope that they will be one of the lucky ones.

This is indeed Bad News.

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this yet (I haven't read through the 20 pages of posts yet), but this is, I think, important to point out.

There is contradictions between the first part of your post, and the second part of the post.

The first part is Biblical. ANYONE can be saved from their lost state by belief in and obedience to Christ.

The second part is not Biblical. God does not select the "lucky ones" for salvation and banish the rest from Heaven on His whim. He could, and He makes it clear that He would be within His rights as creator to do so, but He has stated that He will base the eternal destiny of each soul on the actions of that soul during this life on Earth.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

You have provided an excellent reason why there is a need to exegete "grace". Is it irresistible grace or prevenient grace? See my article: Prevenient grace – kinda clumsy!

Would you believe it is human beings who are engaged in exegesis of the the text? We require God's gift of teachers to help us better understand the texts about which we have questions.

Oz

Hi Oz,
I couldn't write to you last night from the phone....

What I wanted to say is that MAN made up the terms prevenient grace and irresistable grace.

The bible only speaks of grace....
I had read a book once, long time ago, about grace...which means a whole book could be written
on it....but I don't remember either term being used.

Seems like it's denominations that use terms such as GRACE in different ways.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Yes, it is an assumption.

Agreed.

But I believe a loving God is not going to send everyone to hell because they have not heard the Gospel.

Well, you assume God loves everyone without exception. That is yet another debate.

As far as Gal. 1:8, there is no other Gospel being preached to the 1232 indian.

The only gospel I know of includes, among other things, the death of Christ. This is knowledge the 1232 Indian does not have. So, I assume you are saying the Indian is being saved by believing (faith) in ?????? Nothing ???

And as far as "faith comes by hearing," how do we interpret Romans 1:20?

I get two facts out of it: 1) Everyone knows by general revelation (nature of the world) that there is a higher power
2) Therefore, there are without excuse .... they a culpable for disobedience
That's it

Consider: Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, who are called “Uncircumcision” by those who called themselves “Circumcision,” [itself a mere mark] which is made in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that at that time you were separated from Christ [excluded from any relationship with Him], alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise [with no share in the sacred Messianic promise and without knowledge of God’s agreements], having no hope [in His promise] and [living] in the world without God. 13 But now [at this very moment] in Christ Jesus you who once were [so very] far away [from God] have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Granted, this was prior to the 1232 Indian. Yet these people are in a similar situation. They are described as;

1. separated from Christ (like the 1232 Indian)
2. strangers to the covenants of promise (no knowledge of salvation)
3. lost and without hope (meaning to me, going to hell)
4. [living] in the world without God. (they don't have God)
5. But now [at this very moment] in Christ Jesus you who once were [so very] far away (but now Gentiles are included as the message of salvation is being shared with them.... but it has yet to be shared with the 1232 Indian so he is in the same boat (canoe) as the pre-Christ Gentiles IMO.

That's my thoughts ... interesting discussion ... I assume your theology revolves around "God is Love" and "God loves everyone without exception", therefore you tend to fill in missing holes based on those assumptions. (Aside: agreed, God is Love .... God's Love is a holy love)

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,
What's your understanding of the biblical meaning of "grace"?
What does grace mean in:

Heb 11:1 (NASB)
John 1:14 (NASB)
2 Cor 12:9 (NASB)
Luke 4:22 (NASB)
Col 4.6 (NASB)
Acts 2:47 (NASB)

Oz

Here we go...and then it's dinner time:

Heb 11:1 is speaking about faith. God's grace (goodness) supplies us with faith when we turn to Him......

John 1:14 Christ appeared full of grace and truth. Full of (love) and the truth that would set us free.

2 Cor 12:9 God's grace is enough for Paul. His (power) is all Paul needs.

Luke 4:22 Gracious words fell from Jesus' mouth. (Lovely) words were spoken by Him.

Col 4:6 Let our conversations be gracious. (Giving consideration to others)...

Acts 2:47 Praising God and having favor with all people. (favor).


This is how I did the above:
I used the NASB
Then I used another bible that replaced the word grace with a different word.

I know that grace means different things...most of the time we can know the meaning by the context...but I didn't have the time
to go back and read a lot.

I did NOT use a commentary.....

Comment....

 

[GodsGrace]

calvinism dont worry me . while i am not a fan of the doctrine / i do have a friend in scotland that is calvinist we get along good. yes if i was to ever visit scotland i would attend the church as a visitor. the Big problem is you have those who are diehard. will not budge on compromise to find common ground. there are all kinds like this. i find in john 17 the true Lord prayer . christ prayed we be one in him

We as Christians should be one with Christ.
But what does one do when such doctrine is taught that is not found in scripture?
Are we to accept everything?
Chesterton said that those that believe in everything, believe in nothing.

I tend to agree with that.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Rollo Tamasi
OzSpen mentioned reading Thiessen's Systematic Theology. Thiessen probably sees things from your perspective so he, I assume, would side with you in most areas. Here's what he wrote:

But men in general have always seen in nature a revelation of God. The more gifted of them have often expressed their convictions in language similar to that of psalmists, prophets, and apostles (Job 12:7-9; Ps. 8:1-3;19:lf.; Isa. 40:12-14, 26; Acts 14:15-17; Rom. 1:19f.). The revelation of God in nature reveals that there is a God and that he has such attributes as power, glory, divinity, and goodness. But there are limitations of the revelation of God in nature. Although leaving man without excuse, this revelation alone is insufficient for salvation; it is intended, however, to incite man to search for a fuller revelation of God and his plan of salvation, and it constitutes a general call of God to man to turn to him. Further, this revelation is obscured by the problem of physical evil in the world.

http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF Books/00045 Thiessen Lectures in Systematic Theology.pdf ... Page 8

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Agreed.


Well, you assume God loves everyone without exception. That is yet another debate.


The only gospel I know of includes, among other things, the death of Christ. This is knowledge the 1232 Indian does not have. So, I assume you are saying the Indian is being saved by believing (faith) in ?????? Nothing ???


I get two facts out of it: 1) Everyone knows by general revelation (nature of the world) that there is a higher power
2) Therefore, there are without excuse .... they a culpable for disobedience
That's it

Consider: Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, who are called “Uncircumcision” by those who called themselves “Circumcision,” [itself a mere mark] which is made in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that at that time you were separated from Christ [excluded from any relationship with Him], alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise [with no share in the sacred Messianic promise and without knowledge of God’s agreements], having no hope [in His promise] and [living] in the world without God. 13 But now [at this very moment] in Christ Jesus you who once were [so very] far away [from God] have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Granted, this was prior to the 1232 Indian. Yet these people are in a similar situation. They are described as;

1. separated from Christ (like the 1232 Indian)
2. strangers to the covenants of promise (no knowledge of salvation)
3. lost and without hope (meaning to me, going to hell)
4. [living] in the world without God. (they don't have God)
5. But now [at this very moment] in Christ Jesus you who once were [so very] far away (but now Gentiles are included as the message of salvation is being shared with them.... but it has yet to be shared with the 1232 Indian so he is in the same boat (canoe) as the pre-Christ Gentiles IMO.

That's my thoughts ... interesting discussion ... I assume your theology revolves around "God is Love" and "God loves everyone without exception", therefore you tend to fill in missing holes based on those assumptions. (Aside: agreed, God is Love .... God's Love is a holy love)

I don't want to debate all your points, but the 1232 indian is the same as old testament saints.
Yes, Jews had the law and the promise of the Messiah, but Noah and Enoch has what?
They had faith in a God they believed was there but they could not see him.
No Law, no Messiah, no nothing.
Just a belief in a God and so they chose to worship and be obedient to him.
Enoch got to know God quite well I assume.
And Noah had no problems hearing God either.
So if a 1232 indian worshiping God through nature, I believe God would love him and save him.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Rollo Tamasi
OzSpen mentioned reading Thiessen's Systematic Theology. Thiessen probably sees things from your perspective so he, I assume, would side with you in most areas. Here's what he wrote:

But men in general have always seen in nature a revelation of God. The more gifted of them have often expressed their convictions in language similar to that of psalmists, prophets, and apostles (Job 12:7-9; Ps. 8:1-3;19:lf.; Isa. 40:12-14, 26; Acts 14:15-17; Rom. 1:19f.). The revelation of God in nature reveals that there is a God and that he has such attributes as power, glory, divinity, and goodness. But there are limitations of the revelation of God in nature. Although leaving man without excuse, this revelation alone is insufficient for salvation; it is intended, however, to incite man to search for a fuller revelation of God and his plan of salvation, and it constitutes a general call of God to man to turn to him. Further, this revelation is obscured by the problem of physical evil in the world.

http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF Books/00045 Thiessen Lectures in Systematic Theology.pdf ... Page 8

That sounds pretty good.
There's room there for debate, but all in all, it's good.

 

[JLB]

I think your misunderstanding.
The Bible was not written in English. Faith is an English word that was translated from a foreign language.

Studying the original language helps to better understand the text.

A servant is not above its master. If God declared His word in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, then English is serving those languages.

To raise the English language above the original tongues of those whom the Holy Spirit imparted Gods Word is to cause the master to become the servant.

Of course I never said we are to raise the English language above the original language.

What I am saying is, when the bible defines for us what a word means, then to refer to comnentaries to validate a different definition is a recipe for division.

Believe and faith are two different words and should not be used interchanably.


JLB

 

[Fastfredy0]

I don't want to debate all your points, but the 1232 indian is the same as old testament saints.
Yes, Jews had the law and the promise of the Messiah, but Noah and Enoch has what?
They had faith in a God they believed was there but they could not see him.
No Law, no Messiah, no nothing.
Just a belief in a God and so they chose to worship and be obedient to him.
Enoch got to know God quite well I assume.

These are assumptions. I will grant they had faith in God. But faith requires content and the content of their faith and how they acquired said content is not revealed so one should not draw conclusions based on speculation IMO.

And Noah had no problems hearing God either.
So if a 1232 indian worshiping God through nature, I believe God would love him and save him.

Well, Moses we know had direct conversations with God and witnessed miracles so I would not conflate his experience with a 1232 Indian in order to corroborate your assumption that said Indian could be saved.

 

[OzSpen]

Romans 1:31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;

I don’t find the word love in this verse.


1 John 5:3 is the love of God.

For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 1 John 5:3

• Love does no harm to our neighbor.

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Romans 13:8-10


Without obedience to God there is no love of God, it’s only self love. We must obey the command to love our neighbor if we are to walk in the love of God.


If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also. 1 John 4:20-21

• this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. John 15:10



Getting a good understanding by reading scriptures from the Lord and His apostles about a subject will help us to build a solid foundation to build our lives upon.


Are there different words in Greek and Hebrew for love.

Yes. Agapeo and Phileo to name a few.


The question is: are we pointing people to God’s word and the Holy Spirit, to gain understanding or are we pointing them to commentaries, which are the opinions of man and breed division?



I have always used a Strongs Concordance to enhance or understand further what a Greek or Hebrew may mean.


However, if the scripture defines for us what a word means then we should use that as a foundation.


My main point remains: Faith and Believe are two different words, and should not be used interchangeably as one is a noun and one is a verb.


One is what we receive from God when we hear Him speak to us.


The other is our part that we must do if our faith is to be activated to function.








JLB

JLB,

You don't see "love" in Rom 1:31 (NKJV) because you don't seem to know how to understand the etymology of words. What does the word heartless/unfeeling/unloving mean in this verse: "foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (ESV)?

Is that word not in your Bible?

Romans 13:8 (ESV) uses "love" twice. What is the etymology of both uses? "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law."

How do we know the meaning of "love" in John 5:20? What is the etymology of that use of "love"?

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

Definition of ATTRIBUTE: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

I've read 10 or so books about God attributes and never heard that "prevenient grace" is one of His attributes. In fact many (most?) contend that "prevenient grace" is a myth. Please give scriptures supporting "prevenient grace". (Aside: I've heard rumors of 4 such verses ... "prevenient grace" is 'a posteriori' thinking (an effect stuggling to find a cause that doesn't contradict 'libertarian free will') ... but let's see what verses you have to support it)

FF,
First of all, YOU brought up prevenient grace...not ME.
This is not a phrase I ever use.
You said I should study it ... as if I didn't know what it is.
I only mentioned to someone that YOU like to speak of this,,,

Prevenient Grace
and
Irresistable Grace are man-made words.
I only use the word Grace, as is written in the bible.

And for prevenient grace, I just say that God REVEALS HIMSELF.
It's not that simple...but it's good enough when discussing the ATTRIBUTES of God.

I'm happy to hear that you've read 10 books on §God's attributes....
Did any of them say He is a LOVING GOD?

So, due to the above, I will NOT be giving you any verses about prevenient grace.
But you could much on this:
John 6:44
44“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.


How do you suppose the Father draws someone to Jesus?
Does God want to draw all persons to Jesus, or just a select few lucky ones?

Calvinists love this verse...unfortunately it doesn't help them much and they like it only
because they misunderstand the entire concept of salvation.

You haven't define what you mean by "know" ... today that is not one person alive who is born again that does not know of Christ, though that is not the only perquisite for salvation. If you can show me an exception, point him out to me and tell me the gospel by which that person is saved. There are still people on earth who have not heard of Christ. (Exception: age of accountability)

I don't know what you're talking about.....

(Not trying to put words in your mouth)... given Faith requires content, the question I asked was: What is the content of faith for an American Indian of 1232 that must be believed in order that that person be saved ????

Still discussing the Indian from 1232?

I'll tell you this: He didn't know about the reformed faith.

... and the gospel by which you say the 1232 Indian was saved was knowing "looked up at the sky and knew that a great spirit must have made the heavens and the earth...then God put His knowledge into him". So, this is the gospel (good news) for those who have not heard the salvific gospel of the Bible. Yet, I suppose you contend that this is not a different gospel that spoken of by Paul in Gal. 1:8.
Well, you surprised me and did answer the question. Thank you.
So, I guess Muslims that have no heard of Christ ... I guess they worship the same God as us and can be saved? (John 14:6)

Some Muslims are saved...
most are not.
It's up to God to judge...
Not me...so please stop asking me who is saved and who isn't.

What happens to a person that is saved that has not heard of Christ using the gospel of "looked up at the sky and knew that a great spirit must have made the heavens and the earth...then God put His knowledge into him" ... what happens to them when they hear of Christ? Do all of them believe salvifically (which seems to contradict libertarian free will) or can they lose their salvation?

Dear FF....whether or not the above hypothetical persons are saved
CONFIRMS libertarian free will. They are free to choose to serve God or to choose not to serve God.

Is the gospel of believing by "looked up at the sky and knew that a great spirit must have made the heavens and the earth...then God put His knowledge into him" ... is the gospel more efficient that the one of the bible? If not, should we evangelize?

Rollo Tamasi agrees with you apparently ... so the same questions can be answered by him if he wishes ... welcome aboard

My faith system definitely supports evangelization.
Yours does not since the person to whom you're evangelizing does not have free will to choose or not to choose for God.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,
I couldn't write to you last night from the phone....

What I wanted to say is that MAN made up the terms prevenient grace and irresistable grace.

The bible only speaks of grace....
I had read a book once, long time ago, about grace...which means a whole book could be written
on it....but I don't remember either term being used.

Seems like it's denominations that use terms such as GRACE in different ways.

wondering,

I'm not convinced the nature of grace is invented by denominations or theological streams. I understand historically that grace has been understood from the biblical text, a name was given to it, but the 'other side' saw holes in the original argument that needed to be 'plugged', thus giving grace another name.

I have no problem with use of irresistible grace and prevenient grace as long as the terms are defined - with biblical backing.

The church has had the same kind of process with formulating the term, Trinity, when regeneration happens, free will or no free will in salvation, etc.

My shopping, ironing lady comes today and I must make sure those goods are ready.:yes

Oz