Is the Gospel simple?

[Shermana]

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation

I do like this verse. Repentences "leads" to Salvation.

Wait, that means that Salvation is not possible without repentance.

That means you're not saved just by claiming to believe in Jesus and to call him Lord. (Matthew 7:22-23).

Goes along with what Paul said that you have to "labor" for your Salvation. ("Work out" in the sense of "solve a problem with effort", not "Show off").

Consider your interpretation of John 3:16 REFUTED by Paul himself.

One sin keeps one out of Heaven, so if we forget or die before confession is made, according to you, we are done for.

That is indeed what some commentators have agreed Hebrews 10:26 is saying when its read plainly. How do you explain the episode of Ananias and Saphira?

 

[javajo]

I do like this verse. Repentences "leads" to Salvation.

Wait, that means that Salvation is not possible without repentance.

That means you're not saved just by claiming to believe in Jesus and to call him Lord. (Matthew 7:22-23).

Goes along with what Paul said that you have to "labor" for your Salvation. ("Work out" in the sense of "solve a problem with effort", not "Show off").

Consider your interpretation of John 3:16 REFUTED by Paul himself.




That is indeed what some commentators have agreed Hebrews 10:26 is saying when its read plainly.

Not gonna argue with you, sorry.

 

[Shermana]

Not gonna argue with you, sorry.

This is the debate section, are you looking for the DIRs?

Either way I appreciate the opprotunity to point out where Paul himself refutes most Christian's theology.

 

[javajo]

Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Not so!, A good exegesis includes the context as well as the textual verse. Also, what the Holy Spirit has inspired other writers to pen on the subject under examination
Sojourner, The Israelite Prophets were in tune with the previous and contemporary prophets. Also, they were in touch with all the instructions given by GOD to Moses.----From one generation to the next.
GOD didn't leave the people in the dark not knowing HIS Will. That is why GOD kept sending Prophets with messages to "Repent and Obey"the Previous instructions. GOD Changeth not from the original principles. God doesn't need to Lie---as humans do/will.
Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

Wait...
I thought the topic was gospel, which is, of necessity, limited to NT writings, specifically the gospels, themselves, except in cases where the epistle writer makes reference to Jesus' actual message of good news, or in cases where they, themselves, make their own proclamation based upon the Jesus Event. Why are you throwing OT stuff at me? The term "gospel" didn't even exist in those texts.

Hi Sojourner, It is! But it isn't limited to just the NT. GOD has been in the process of saving mankind since the "Fall of mankind in the Garden". The "Gospel"/Good News/ Good Tidings as the forth coming Salvation of mankind by Jesus was alluded to by GOD to Adam and Eve and confirmed in the symbolic clothing them with the skin of the Animal.
Jesus, in HIS beginning to teach and preach (Luke 4:18) quoted Isa.61:1 the preaching the "Good Tiding"/"Gospel".

The Gospel message is referred to as the "Everlasting Gospel"(Rev.14:6) and it has been preached/taught by GOD/Prophets through-out the Scriptures. To me, the Scriptures are valid from Gen.1:1-Rev.22:21.
Heb.4:2 confirms that truth. "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it]."

 

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Not so!, A good exegesis includes the context as well as the textual verse. Also, what the Holy Spirit has inspired other writers to pen on the subject under examination
Sojourner, The Israelite Prophets were in tune with the previous and contemporary prophets. Also, they were in touch with all the instructions given by GOD to Moses.----From one generation to the next.
GOD didn't leave the people in the dark not knowing HIS Will. That is why GOD kept sending Prophets with messages to "Repent and Obey"the Previous instructions. GOD Changeth not from the original principles. God doesn't need to Lie---as humans do/will.
Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."



Hi Sojourner, It is! But it isn't limited to just the NT. GOD has been in the process of saving mankind since the "Fall of mankind in the Garden". The "Gospel"/Good News/ Good Tidings as the forth coming Salvation of mankind by Jesus was alluded to by GOD to Adam and Eve and confirmed in the symbolic clothing them with the skin of the Animal.
Jesus, in HIS beginning to teach and preach (Luke 4:18) quoted Isa.61:1 the preaching the "Good Tiding"/"Gospel".

The Gospel message is referred to as the "Everlasting Gospel"(Rev.14:6) and it has been preached/taught by GOD/Prophets through-out the Scriptures. To me, the Scriptures are valid from Gen.1:1-Rev.22:21.
Heb.4:2 confirms that truth. "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it]."

Yes, but this is a biblical, not a theological debate. Therefore, in order to adequately debate the bible, we need to confine parameters to exegetical concerns of certain texts, not broad theological considerations. Unless you'd like to engage a theological debate in the proper forum.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
JavaJo,In this post you have not said anything which I hadn't already expressed concerning those who have genuinely Repented as is seen in 2Cor.7:8-12, "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death."

Here's my beliefs: The matter which the Corinthian believers zealously wanted to be clear of was that in which the believer had had sex with his Dad's wife. Interestingly Paul told them in his first letter to turn him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh THAT HIS SOUL MAY BE SAVED. Also, in the second letter the fellow was restored back to fellowship and comforted. So, he did not lose his salvation, but he lost fellowship for a time and almost lost his life.

Yes, the "man' was told to be turned over to Satan. He was a member of the "Believing Body" there. However, from the correspondence his actions in this matter was contrary to the teachings of GOD. Let's look at some other verses to understand what Paul was meaning.
Matt.18:15-17, Jesus has said to take disputations before the parties, then with witnesses, then before the church body--and if still no repentance, he is to be as not a member.
In Acts26:18, Jesus told Paul he was to:, "To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."

Heb.6:4-6, speaks of members who have known the message, "For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame."

IN (1Tim.1:20) Paul uses a similar expression. "Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme."

Paul is acknowledging that desire of GOD'S that none should perish , but come to Repentance. By the turning over to Satan, the disobedient one is aware that their former status within the "Body" no longer exists----therefore, in an unsaved condition. And Hopefully, the one will seek repentance and restoration(Learn).

First of all let’s understand what it(repentance) does not mean so that we can grasp the true meaning.
1. It does not mean to turn away from sin.
2. It does not mean to quit sinning.
3. It does not mean to feel sorry for sin.
4. It does not mean to change your sinful ways before you can be saved.
5. It does not imply salvation.
6. It is not the means of forgiveness of sin.
7. It is not salvation nor does it imply that we should live a sinless life.
8. It does not imply sin.

1. Metanoeo. This is a compound word. “Meta” means change “noeo” means thinking. This word is derived from “nous” which means mind. So, metanoeo means to “change your mind”
2. Metamellamai. This is also a compound word. “Meta” means change
“mellamai” means emotions. It means to have a “change of emotions”.

The Scriptures have as their function the penalty for SIN/being guilty; and the salvation from that SIN/Guilt penalty by /through the Atoning Blood of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, which are you "changing your mind" against?? Your 8 statements say SIN, whose Penalty is death, is not a factor and those claims are contrary to the Scriptures.

Wow, that was completely out of context. Paul was saying how he rebuked Peter and NOT to go back under the law (build what I destroyed) but to have simple faith in Christ. They needed to change their minds about how they were saved, by keeping the law or by faith in Christ. Here is the passage:

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 with Christ I am crucified : nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Javajo, The Decalogue was never intended to Save a person; its function is to point out disobedience/Sin that a person has commented and needs the Atoning Blood of Jesus to blot out those Sins which have been placed in the book by which one is judged. However, the Sacrificial laws were designed to forgive those sins "UNTIL" JESUS CAME AND SHED HIS BLOOD TO REPLACE THOSE ANIMAL SACRIFICES. (See Heb.9:1-10+)
To be "Found a Sinner"---Means that one has sinned and is in need of confession and repentance("the changing of mind" concerning the cause of the SIN.). A Sin places one back under the death penalty.
As Jesus stated, (Luke 17:3-4) "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."
Jesus knows the heart; Revenge is HIS; The Lord's Prayer.

One sin keeps one out of Heaven, so if we forget or die before confession is made, according to you, we are done for. No, salvation is a free gift, we are freely justified from all sin by faith in Christ. Christ said to repent and believe the Gospel. We change our mind and trust in Christ alone for salvation, for salvation is all from God to us, he does the free and undeserved saving, and he does the keeping. Then God works in our life and corrects us and we grow in grace and don't let sin have dominion over us. Repenting of sin does not save, it is repenting and changing one's mind about Christ and trusting him that saves. Of course when we trust Christ we are admitting we are a hopelessly lost sinner in need of salvation so we are aware of and sorry for sin, and we don't want to nor should we let sin reign over us. Ok, 'nuff said.

Yes, One cannot earn Salvation; it is bestowed upon those who truly Believes and Obeys. GOD'S guidance is in those Scriptures for all to read and understand. It is in the difficult areas of ones life that one is following closely in the footsteps of Jesus's leading. It is when one walks as HE walked that one "sins not". No one is dragged away from committing sin or disobeying. "To him that overcometh" is the reward of eternal life.

 

[sincerly]

Yes, but this is a biblical, not a theological debate. Therefore, in order to adequately debate the bible, we need to confine parameters to exegetical concerns of certain texts, not broad theological considerations. Unless you'd like to engage a theological debate in the proper forum.

However, we aren't debating "theological concepts", but the Biblical Scriptures and their meaning in context and within the scope of all Scriptures concerning the topic/subject.

 

[sincerly]

Read it in Context to Romans 2:13 and 3:31 and you'll see that Paul is saying Law obedience is in fact necessary. Abraham's belief in God involved works. He actually heard God's voice and offered to sacrifice his son. This example is commonly used without showing how deep the context of Abraham's "faith" actually was.

Hi Shermana, Aren't you "cherry-picking"?? You claim that Romans is not valid nor is Paul speaking/writing the truth, yet are claiming Paul is actually truthful in Romans.
Yes, Paul is truthful( valid) in his teachings both in Romans and in Corinthians.

Rom.2:11-15, " For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) "

Rom.3:20, 31,"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin....Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

SIN is made known by the Decalogue. The Obeyers of the Law are not condemned and are JUST before the LORD GOD. Paul doesn't stop there because He has shown all to be sinners without excuse---1:16-20+
ALL are sinners in need of redemption---not by the blood of bulls and goats, but by the BLOOD of JESUS, the one GOD sent for the propitiation of all mankind who would believe in HIS SACRIFICE. John3:16

The "Work out your own salvation" isn't by physical labor/acts to "obtain", but by the mental affirming/appropiating to ones-self the "doings of Christ" in the behalf of the Sinner.
One will acknowledge that one is a sinner and repent of those actions which caused that status. One will continue that remorseful attitude in totally surrendering of one's Will to the Father. This is the Scriptural accounting of Salvation.

 

[Shermana]

I don't think you understand what Cherry picking means. Neither do I see how you refuted what I said about what Paul says. Neither do I see how you've addressed what 2:13 and 3:31 actually means unless you meant to say that it can be totally ignored by Jesus's blood. Can someone else help make sense of what Sincerly said?

"Work out your own salvation" isn't by physical labor/acts to "obtain", but by the mental affirming/appropiating to ones-self the "doings of Christ" in the behalf of the Sinner. One will acknowledge that one is a sinner and repent of those actions which caused that status. One will continue that remorseful attitude in totally surrendering of one's Will to the Father. This is the Scriptural accounting of Salvation.

Repenting of your sins "leads to salvation" as I said, one is obviously thus not saved without repenting if repenting is what "leads to salvation". However, Paul does in fact say that one must "Work out" (labor for) their Salvation, so the idea that he's only referring to repentance fits with what he said how unrepentant sinners won't be going to the Kingdom, but how do we know that's all he's referring to? He could mean that repentance will cause you to "work out" and obtain your salvation. I don't understand however your reply, what does it mean to "appropriating to one's self the doings of Christ in the behalf of the sinner", are you ultimately saying that working out means believing? That's what I'm saying it does NOT say. Believing may be part of what causes you to work out your salvation, but in this sense, it's not what's being referred to directly.

I sincerely don't know what exactly to make of Romans, as it seems to contradict itself, I think Goodspeed was right in that like both Corinthians it's a patchwork of previous works with interpolations thrown in, and that Paul may have been very Jewish at first and later the entire interpretation was de-Judaized by Proto-Marcionite type groups. Until then, I take the view that Paul said one thing to one people and another thing to another, kind of like how he said he was a bit of a chameleon, so in that sense one must look at both sides of what he says to see if he's saying a consistent message. And he's not. He's consistent on certain things, but on the law, it seems Galatians clashes with what he says in the early parts of Romans.

However, verses like this it's hard to find a slippery de-Judaizing interpretation for:

.Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

The word for "Establish" is more or less "Uphold", which means "We still obey the Law". Which is why Paul says that one is not to sin (Which means to against the Law). So what Paul says seems to contradict itself: You are free from the Law, yet its those who obey the Law who are righteous and unless you restrain from sin, you're not going to Heaven. The only way to resolve that is to come up with things like "The ceremonial Law is undone" but otherwise there is no way to reconcile what Paul says (in some places as opposed to others) and what Jesus says. Regardless, when Paul says something, it can't just be ignored by reciting other verses as if the context somehow changes to the point that it can be ignored altogether.

 

[sincerly]

I don't think you understand what Cherry picking means. Neither do I see how you refuted what I said about what Paul says. Neither do I see how you've addressed what Rom.2:13 and 3:31 actually means unless you meant to say that it can be totally ignored by Jesus's blood. Can someone else help make sense of what Sincerly said?

2Pet.3:16, (since you reject Peter's epistles), "As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Your questionings are in line with Peter's assessment.

 

[Shermana]

2Pet.3:16, (since you reject Peter's epistles), "As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Your questionings are in line with Peter's assessment.

You can use that line against anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Paul.

And despite my agreement with what that line says, Peter probably didn't write it. 2 Peter was disputed even in the early church.

Either way though I don't see how you in any way actually addressed those verses in what you said. Maybe someone else can help.

 

[sincerly]

You can use that line against anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Paul.

And despite my agreement with what that line says, Peter probably didn't write it. 2 Peter was disputed even in the early church.

Either way though I don't see how you in any way actually addressed those verses in what you said. Maybe someone else can help.

Shermana, you know that anyone who agreed with me would not be believed by you. And any one who agreed with you will not be believed by me unless there is some miraculous writing in the Scriptures which denounce Jesus Christ.
The OT scriptures point to HIM and the NT writers all attest to HIS being the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures----the Emanuel----"GOD with US."

 

[Shermana]

And any one who agreed with you will not be believed by me unless there is some miraculous writing in the Scriptures which denounce Jesus Christ.

So in order to agree with me you must renounce Jesus? Here we see an example of what the problem with most "Christians" are. The only way they'd change their minds about particular interpretations and doctrines in relation to textual and higher criticism is to say that they "denounce Jesus Christ". Because only in their views does one not "Denounce Christ" and thus you say that I "denounce Christ".

You have basically flat out said that you consider all interpretations besides your own to be "Denouncing Christ" as a substitution for addressing the critiques of another viewpoint. This mentality may have worked for the Medieval church, but in modern times it's a reason why Western Christianity is on its way to extinction.

And Immanuel = God is with us. It doesn't mean "This person here is God Himself and Here he is with us today!" To say that the Name itself means it is God Incarnate reveals ignorance of how Hebrew names work. All Hebrew names involving "El" or like Obadiah are about characteristics of God. And the word "Is" is implied but not written like in Russian and Greek and other languages. To be "The Immanuel" would be little different in concept than "The Ezekiel" as a name.

And I don't disagree that the Hebrew scriptures point to Yashua as the Moshiach, but I also believe there are other "non-canonical" scriptures that prophetically wrote about the concept too.

 

[sojourner]

However, we aren't debating "theological concepts", but the Biblical Scriptures and their meaning in context and within the scope of all Scriptures concerning the topic/subject.

Ok, that would be "theological concept."

 

[sincerly]

Ok, that would be "theological concept."

Sojourner, that isn't so!
Here is the threadline for this topic.
/ Religious Topics / Religious Debates / Scriptural Debates / Biblical Debates / Is the Gospel simple?



Theological Concepts (2 Viewing)

Discussion

1. Sub-Forums:
   
   Theism
   
   Non-theism
   
   Monism
   
   Deism

That is a separate category and deals with different subjects.

 

[waitasec]

However, we aren't debating "theological concepts", but the Biblical Scriptures and their meaning in context and within the scope of all Scriptures concerning the topic/subject.

:spit:

 

[sincerly]

:spit:

Be my guest! I'm sure that will not be the last laugh you will have from the true beliefs of the "Simple Gospel".

 

[InfidelRiot]

If gospel was simple, there would not be multiple interpretations of it. If it was simple, everyone would agree on its meaning.

 

[sincerly]

If gospel was simple, there would not be multiple interpretations of it. If it was simple, everyone would agree on its meaning.

Hi IR, Welcome to the Forums.
The Gospel is simple, but it is the multiple persons who prefer that it not say That which it does and who then twist the messages to please themselves.
You know---"I can't let my pet sin be gored. A little manipulation of the message will
not hurt and will allow one to remain in contradiction to the scriptures".

Since there are many topics to agree or disagee upon there are the many "interpretations."
However, when one reads the Scriptures from GOD'S intended sent message, it is Simple and truth. Believe as you choose.