What is the Gospel?

[Robert Pate]

Taking a single verse out of context to prove doctrine is absurd. Can't you do better than that?

How many do you need? Humanity is a mess.

 

[jaybo]

How many do you need? Humanity is a mess.

LOL. You can prove nonsense by taking a single verse as doctrine. I'm sure that you know that chapters and verses are very late additions to Scripture and are intended for reference only.

And it's too bad that you felt the need to add the comment on humanity. Are you human, and therefore also a mess?

 

[Robert Pate]

LOL. You can prove nonsense by taking a single verse as doctrine. I'm sure that you know that chapters and verses are very late additions to Scripture and are intended for reference only.

And it's too bad that you felt the need to add the comment on humanity. Are you human, and therefore also a mess?

Yes, I am a part of the mess.
Jesus came into the world to save sinners and I am the chief, 1 Timothy 1:15.

 

[jaybo]

Yes, I am a part of the mess.
Jesus came into the world to save sinners and I am the chief, 1 Timothy 1:15.

No, Paul is the chief (historically). I don't think you've set out to murder Christians, have you?

 

[Iconoclast]

Calvinism is an attempt to by-pass the Gospel of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the judgment.

If you have been predestinated by God before the foundation of the world to be saved, then you don't need Jesus Christ and his Gospel, nor do you need to be judged.

Calvinism makes a sham out of the Bible.

Calvinism teaches what the bible says unlike your objection.

You say;
[If you have been predestinated by God before the foundation of the world to be saved,

Yes, we have ELECTED by God before the world was, to believe in Jesus, His Holy Person, His sinless, law-keeping life.

then you don't need Jesus Christ and his Gospel, nor do you need to be judged]

Of course, we need Jesus, what are you talking about?
He seeks and saves us giving His perfect law-keeping to us, taking our sin upon Himself.
We are predestined to be conformed to His Image Rom8:29-30

So we see no by pass, no sham. We see these first charges are shallow and void of credibility

 

[Iconoclast]

Does Effectual Grace Make Us Automatons? | Monergism

Because we affirm the Biblical doctrine of effectual grace, some (often well-meaning) Christians make the charge that this would make human beings into

www.monergism.com

Does Effectual Grace Make Us Automatons?​

Because we affirm the Biblical doctrine of effectual grace, some (often well-meaning) Christians make the charge that this would make human beings into automatons or robots. And the love of God requires (libertarian) freedom of the will, they claim.
First we must recognize that such an objection is moral rather than exegetical. Such persons, therefore, are basing their considerations and thus their theological future on shaky ground...The conclusions we reach, I would contend, should be based solely on what the Scripture says. For the alternative is to draw our highest presuppositions from something other than an authoritative source, such as unaided human reason.
But lets take their moral argument at face value. Does it follow that effectual grace cannot be loving because, they claim, it makes people into automatons?
Let's give an every day example. Imagine that a toddler willfully disobeys their parent by running into the street into oncoming traffic. Which parent is more loving: 1) the parent who runs into the street at the risk of their life to scoop up their child to make certain they were safe, REGARDLESS of the child's will at the time? or 2) the parent who sits at the curb calling out to the child, and won't lift a finger to save the child unless he/she first gives them permission?
So we can see that there are clear instances where loving someone does not require a consideration of their will. We understand that in such an instance, love shows itself by getting the job done. i.e saving their child. In fact, we would consider parent #2 to actually be unloving, because such a love requires a condition before it acts.
At this point in the conversation, almost without fail, like clockwork, the response will be to say "but then why doesn't God save everyone." Ahhh!, notice the subtle shift. By changing the subject they are tacitly acknowledging the truth of the example. How God can be loving if He saves some and not others was NOT the original question. It is a good question, one well worth exploring and one that we have treated elsewhere, but a deflection. So given that we have demonstrated that genuine love does not necessarily require both parties to freely choose at the time, the fallacious charge of "automatons" should be relegated to the dustbin of history. It does not necessarily follow that a parent only loves the child if he must give him/her a choice. The lack of choice, in this instance, is the only option which demonstrates true love.

 

[Hopeful]

Paul said, "There is none righteous, no, not one" Romans 3:10.

If your interpretation of Paul's use of an OT verse is correct, than Jesus was not righteous.
Is that likely?
Paul used the OT verses in Rom 3 to make it clear that the Jews were no better off than the Gentiles, despite having had the Law.
Everyone needs a Redeemer.

We are sinners from the day that we are born until the day that we die.

You are correct, but we die when we are crucified with Christ at our water baptism into Him and into His death. (Rom 6:3, Gal 5:24)
From there, we are raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)
Thanks b to God !

 

[Iconoclast]

Calvinism teaches what the bible says unlike your objection.

You say;
[If you have been predestinated by God before the foundation of the world to be saved,

Yes, we have ELECTED by God before the world was, to believe in Jesus, His Holy Person, His sinless, law-keeping life.

then you don't need Jesus Christ and his Gospel, nor do you need to be judged]

Of course, we need Jesus, what are you talking about?
He seeks and saves us giving His perfect law-keeping to us, taking our sin upon Himself.
We are predestined to be conformed to His Image Rom8:29-30

So we see no by pass, no sham. We see these first charges are shallow and void of credibility

Robert, do you have a response? Your post does not seem to hold water.