Define "The Gospel"

[DHK]

Bob quotes Moody as saying:

I do not remember ever to have heard a sermon preached on the commandments. I have an index of two thousand five hundred sermons preached by Spurgeon, and not one of them selects its text from the first seventeen verses of Exodus 20.

What is wrong with this quote?
Moody was a dynamic preacher, an evangelist. He wasn't a genius, and he didn't have a photographic memory. Out of 2,500 sermons he can't "remember" him selecting a text from Exodus 20:1-17.
How do we know that Moody even read all the sermons by Spurgeon?

Furthermore, does one have to select Exodus 20 in order to preach on the Law?
Without going into any detailed search, here are some examples.

Christ the End of the Law http://www.apibs.org/chs/1325.htm

The Clean And The Unclean http://www.apibs.org/chs/0499.htm

The Curse Removed http://www.apibs.org/chs/3254.htm

Law And Grace http://www.apibs.org/chs/0037.htm

The Uses Of The Law http://www.apibs.org/chs/0128.htm

It is evident that Spurgeon did not ignore the Law.

 

[BobRyan]

Answer - there is nothing wrong with that quote.

You may differe with what D.L Moody said he read from Spurgeon's sermons all you wish - I was merely quoting what Moody said.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Note how Bob singles out this verse from 1John 2, and then

After quoting verse one, Bob stated his position as such:

This position denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. When Christ cried out: "It is finished" (John 19:30). The position stated here believes that Christ work was not finished, nor can ever be finished until each and every sin is atoned for by all who will walk the face of this earth.

You "imagination" has always been better than mine DHK. Thus you have no quote at all from me saying that the "blood of Christ is not sufficient" nor that "sins are atoned for by all who walk the face of the earth".

Nor even a comment to that effect from me - let alone the verbatim problem.

What we have is "you" not understanding the text of scripture and then trying to blame it on me.

Thus, as you can see, to maintain this position Bob conveniently left out of his quoting of 1John 2, the one verse that defeats his position:

1 John 2:2

On the contrary - (If I had been debating calvinists I would most certainly have hammered the 1John 2:2 point -- as I have done repeatedly on this board) -- here is the text you have misunderstood.

2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

The entire world is not going to heaven "as it turns out". The atoning sacrifice of Lev 16 (Day of Atonement) does not eliminate the need to also have the work of the High Priest completed. (Heb 8 points out that Christ is now in heaven in the Heavenly Sanctuary as our High Priest).

He paid the penalty, satisfied the demands of God.

That is the only part you seem to get right on this topic.

Christ satisifed the demands of the law (the penalty) for all of mankind.

Thus the "atoning sacrifice" of Lev 16 is completed - but the High Priestly work of Lev 16 (Day of Atonement) still continues.

The Calvinist position is that all of that ended and we can just ignore the High Priestly ministry of Christ so necessary to the Lev 16 doctrine on Atonment. Thus the innescapable Calvinist conclusion that whoever got covered 2000 years ago - are in fact not only OSAS - but also arbitrarily selected -- since they did not live at the time of the cross, thus no action on their part determines "selection".

Those Arminians who unwittingly fall into the path of embracing that Calvinist principle - are significantly compromised in their Arminian statements.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

.

Here is one that you might find interesting.

"These things I write to you that you sin not - but if anyone sins we HAVE an advocate with the Father". 1John 2:1.

Instead of the Bible saying that there is no penalty for sin - the Bible position on sin is that EACH sin must be paid for by someone. As long as we remain saved - our sins are paid for by the sacrifice of Christ. But if we fall from grace - if we are "severed from Christ" Gal 5:4 - then that ceases to be the case.

YET even then - "He is able to restore them again" Rom 11 - "IF they do not continue in unbelief".

However lest we let your question take us too far from the topic - the point of the quotes from Moody is that he calls the Ten Commandments "the Commandments of God".

So also does Paul as we see in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" and so also does Christ refer to them as God's Commandments in Mark 7.

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of Godin order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

And so it is no wonder John is so clear on this point.

1John 2
3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.[/b]
4 The one who says, "" I have come to know Him,'' and [b]does not keep His commandments, is a liar[/b], and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word[/b], in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.[/b]

Notice the repeated references to the "Commandments of God".

No Wonder Paul affirms that point in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

 

[DHK]

Notice the repeated references to the "Commandments of God".

No Wonder Paul affirms that point in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

What I notice is Bob taking Scripture out of context when referencing the topic of salvation:
1. He uses 1Cor.7:19. The context is marriage, not salvation.
2. He uses Romans 11. The context is God's dealing with the nation of Israel, not our salvation.
3. He uses Mark 7. The context is Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees emphasis of putting the traditions of men more important than the Word of God, not our salvation.

Bob continues to take Scripture out of context to try to prove a point that he does not have and cannot substantiate.

 

[DHK]

You "imagination" has always been better than mine DHK. Thus you have no quote at all from me saying that the "blood of Christ is not sufficient" nor that "sins are atoned for by all who walk the face of the earth".

Nor even a comment to that effect from me - let alone the verbatim problem.

What we have is "you" not understanding the text of scripture and then trying to blame it on me.

"It is finished" The work of salvation is finished.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,

Not one Scripture Bob; not even one? I think you better re-think your position.

On the contrary - (If I had been debating calvinists I would most certainly have hammered the 1John 2:2 point -- as I have done repeatedly on this board) -- here is the text you have misunderstood.

2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

The entire world is not going to heaven "as it turns out". The atoning sacrifice of Lev 16 (Day of Atonement) does not eliminate the need to also have the work of the High Priest completed. (Heb 8 points out that Christ is now in heaven in the Heavenly Sanctuary as our High Priest).

No, the entire world is not going to heaven; but all those who put their trust in them are. Why? Because Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world (1John 2:2). Unbelief is a great sin. Christ died for the sins of the whole world. There must be an appropriation of that gift of eternal life provided by that sacrifice of Christ.

Christ is not still atoning for our sins in a Heavenly Sanctuary. That is heresy and is no where taught in Scripture. "It is finished," he said. His atonement was finished. His work on the cross of atoning for our sins is finished. This is one of the most damnable heresies of the SDA.

It speaks to the insufficiency of the blood of Christ.

That is the only part you seem to get right on this topic.

Christ satisifed the demands of the law (the penalty) for all of mankind.

Thus the "atoning sacrifice" of Lev 16 is completed - but the High Priestly work of Lev 16 (Day of Atonement) still continues.

No it does not.
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
--There was only one sacrifice; one atonement.
Your belief is no better than the RCC belief on this matter.

The Calvinist position is that all of that ended and we can just ignore the High Priestly ministry of Christ so necessary to the Lev 16 doctrine on Atonment.

That is because there is not one. It is fiction. You and the RCC get along just fine here. Do you confess your sins to a priest as well?

Thus the innescapable Calvinist conclusion that whoever got covered 2000 years ago - are in fact not only OSAS - but also arbitrarily selected -- since they did not live at the time of the cross, thus no action on their part determines "selection".

No, they, in the forekowledge of God, choose whether to trust or reject Christ. God does not force anyone to believe.

Those Arminians who unwittingly fall into the path of embracing that Calvinist principle - are significantly compromised in their Arminian statements.

I am not a Calvinist, nor am I an Arminian.
Those who think there are just two choices and two camps are naive.

 

[steaver]

George Whitefield (1714-1770)

FIRST, What think you about the person of Christ? "Whose Son is he?" This is the question our Lord put to the Pharisees in the words following the text; and never was it more necessary to repeat this question than in these last days. For numbers that are called after the name of Christ, and I fear, many that pretend to preach him, are so far advanced in the blasphemous chair, as openly to deny his being really, truly, and properly God. But no one that ever was partaker of his Spirit, will speak thus lightly of him. No; if they are asked, as Peter and his brethren were, "But whom say ye that I am?" they will reply without hesitation, "Thou art Christ the Son of the ever-living God." For the confession of our Lord's divinity, is the rock upon which he builds his church. Was it possible to take this away, the gates of hell would quickly prevail against it. My brethren, if Jesus Christ be not very God of very God, I would never preach the gospel of Christ again. For it would not be gospel; it would be only a system of moral ethics. Seneca, Cicero, or any of the Gentile philosophers, would be as good a Savior as Jesus of Nazareth. It is the divinity of our Lord that gives a sanction to his death, and makes him such a high-priest as became us, one who by the infinite mercies of his suffering could make a full, perfect sufficient sacrifice, satisfaction and oblation to infinitely offended justice. And whatsoever minister of the church of England, makes use of her forms, and eats of her bread, and yes holds not this doctrine (as I fear too many such are crept in amongst us) such a one belongs only to the synagogue of Satan. He is not a child or minister of God: no; he is a wolf in sheep's clothing; he is a child and minister of that wicked one the devil.
Many will think these hard sayings; but I think it no breach of charity to affirm, that an Arian or Socinian cannot be a Christian.

Arianism was a 4th-century Christian heresy named for Arius (c.250-c.336), a priest in Alexandria. Arius denied the full deity of the preexistent Son of God who became incarnate in Jesus Christ. He held that the Son, while divine and like God ("of like substance"), was created by God as the agent through whom he created the universe. Arius said of the Son, "there was a time when he was not." http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/arianism.htm

The founder of the Socinian movement was Faustus Socinus (1539-1604),whose writings were so inflammatory that they were never published. The best sources for understanding the Socinian system of thought are Faustus Socinus’s De Jesu Christo Servatore (1594),


The two basic principles of Socinian theology:
· A strict unitarianism which denied the deity of Christ (see below)
· A rationalistic approach to Scripture according to which religious doctrines, if they are to be believed, must first be amenable to reason; faith is defined in purely intellectual terms

One section of the Racovian Catechism bore the heading, “Refutation of the Vulgar Doctrine about the Satisfaction of Christ for Our Sins.” How, then, does Jesus Christ accomplish our salvation? Socinus answers:

“The common and, as you would say, orthodox view is, that Jesus Christ is our Savior, because He made full satisfaction for our sins to the divine justice through which we sinners deserved to be condemned, and this satisfaction is through faith imputed by the gift of God to us who believe. But I hold, and think it to be the orthodox view, that Jesus Christ is our Savior because he announced to us the way of eternal salvation, confirmed, and in his own person, both by the example of his life and by rising from the dead, clearly showed it [i.e., eternal life], and will give that eternal life to us who have faith in him. And I affirm that he did not make satisfaction for our sins to the divine justice, . . . nor was there any need that he should make satisfaction” (De Servatore, chp. 1).

Again:

“Christ takes away sins because by heavenly and most ample promises He attracts and is strong to move all men to penitence, whereby sins are destroyed. . . . He takes away sins because by the example of His most innocent life, He very readily draws all, who have not lost hope, to leave their sins and zealously to embrace righteousness and holiness” (Prael. Theol., 591).

http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/23-socinianism/

Do we agree with Whitefield's sermon on this subject?

(before anyone cries Calvinist, this sermon has nothing to do with freewill verse election, so please stay on topic, which is defining the gospel)

 

[steaver]

George Whitefield sermon continued....

The one would make us believe Jesus Christ is only a created God, which is a self-contradiction: and the other would have us look on him only as a good man; and instead of owning his death to be an atonement for the sins of the world, would persuade us, that Christ died only to seal the truth of hid doctrine with his blood. But if Jesus Christ be no more than a mere man, if he be not truly God, he was the vilest sinner that ever appeared in the world. For he accepted of divine adoration from the man who had been born blind, as we read John 9:38, "And he said, Lord I believe, and he worshipped him." Besides, if Christ be not properly God, our faith is vain, we are yet in our sins: for no created being, though of the highest order, could possibly merit anything at God' s hands; it was our Lord's divinity, that alone qualified him to take away the sins of the world; and therefore we hear St. John pronouncing so positively, that "the Word (Jesus Christ) was not only with God, but was God." For the like reason, St. Paul says, "that he was in the form of God: That in him dwelt all the fullness of the godhead bodily." Nay, Jesus Christ assumed the title which God gave to himself, when he sent Moses to deliver his people Israel. "Before Abraham was, I AM." And again, "I and my father are one." Which last words, though our modern infidels would evade and wrest, as they do other scriptures, to their own damnation, yet it is evident that the Jews understood our Lord, when he spoke thus, as making himself equal with God; otherwise, why did they stone him as a blasphemer? And now, why should it be thought a breach of charity, to affirm, that those who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, in the strictest sense of the word, cannot be Christians? For they are greater infidels than the devils themselves, who confessed that they knew who he was, "even the holy one of God." They not only believe, but, which is more than the unbelievers of this generation do, they tremble. And was it possible for arch-heretics, to be released from their chains of darkness, under which (unless they altered their principles before they died) they are now reserved to the judgment of the great day, I am persuaded they would inform us, how hell had convinced them of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and that they would advise their followers to abhor their principles, lest they should come into the same place, and thereby increase each others torments.

Can a person deny Jesus is God and be saved?

What scriptures would you reference to prove your belief?

 

[BobRyan]

George Whitefield (1714-1770)

FIRST, What think you about the person of Christ? "Whose Son is he?"

It is pretty hard to find anyone anywhere that denies the Christ is the Son of God.

This is the question our Lord put to the Pharisees in the words following the text; and never was it more necessary to repeat this question than in these last days. For numbers that are called after the name of Christ, and I fear, many that pretend to preach him, are so far advanced in the blasphemous chair, as openly to deny his being really, truly, and properly God. But no one that ever was partaker of his Spirit, will speak thus lightly of him. No; if they are asked, as Peter and his brethren were, "But whom say ye that I am?" they will reply without hesitation, "Thou art Christ the Son of the ever-living God." For the confession of our Lord's divinity, is the rock upon which he builds his church. Was it possible to take this away, the gates of hell would quickly prevail against it. My brethren, if Jesus Christ be not very God of very God,

Again the obvious fact that Christ is the 2nd member of the Trinity - the 2nd person of the Godhead is pretty much accepted by almost everyone.

. And whatsoever minister of the church of England, makes use of her forms, and eats of her bread, and yes holds not this doctrine (as I fear too many such are crept in amongst us) such a one belongs only to the synagogue of Satan. He is not a child or minister of God: no; he is a wolf in sheep's clothing; he is a child and minister of that wicked one the devil.

It is also pretty easy to conclude that a minister in the Church of England should be accepting the fact that Christ was God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What I notice is Bob taking Scripture out of context when referencing the topic of salvation:
1. He uses 1Cor.7:19. The context is marriage, not salvation.
2. He uses Romans 11. The context is God's dealing with the nation of Israel, not our salvation.
3. He uses Mark 7. The context is Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees emphasis of putting the traditions of men more important than the Word of God, not our salvation.

Bob continues to take Scripture out of context to try to prove a point that he does not have and cannot substantiate.

You have yet to actually prove that I have taken anything out of context.

It is one thing to make empty accusations - it is quite another to prove they are true. In your text above - you prove nothing.

It would be better to address the posts themselves.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
You "imagination" has always been better than mine DHK. Thus you have no quote at all from me saying that the "blood of Christ is not sufficient" nor that "sins are atoned for by all who walk the face of the earth".

Nor even a comment to that effect from me - let alone the verbatim problem.

What we have is "you" not understanding the text of scripture and then trying to blame it on me.

"It is finished" The work of salvation is finished.

1 John 2:2 And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)

Thus the atoning sacrifice was indeed "finished" at the cross - just as Christ claimed.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,

Heb 8
8 For finding fault with them, He says, "" BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
9 NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10 "" FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: [b]I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11 "" AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, "KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME[/b], FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12 "" FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.''


Thus it is affirmed that the Gospel offers the New Covenant promise of forgiveness of sins, the new birth, the Law of God written on the mind and heart.

Not one Scripture Bob; not even one? I think you better re-think your position.

[/b][/b]My point is that you have not given a single scripture showing my position to be in error NOR you have found any quote from me saying that "the blood of Christ is not sufficient".

On the contrary - I repeatedly affirm the 1John 2:2 point of the completed atoning sacrifice on the cross.


1 John 2:2 And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)

This is not sending all people to heaven - because Christ also "Ever liveth to make intercession for us" and as 1John 2:1 says "WE have an ADVOCATE with the Father" that is working to this very day in our behalf when it comes to the forgiveness of sins.

No, the entire world is not going to heaven; but all those who put their trust in them are.

Indeed. A point of agreement. Those who are placing trust in Christ (in reality not merely as a pretence) are born again and are saved.

Unbelief is a great sin. Christ died for the sins of the whole world. There must be an appropriation of that gift of eternal life provided by that sacrifice of Christ.

[/b]The work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary is found in Heb 9 where we see that his blood cleanses our conscience from dead works Heb 9:14

Those who wish to deny the Work of Christ for us as our High Priest - should spend some quality time with the NT texts that speak to this point.

1Tim 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

John shows us that continued pardon for sin even AFTER being saved depends on Christ's role before God as our advocate - our representative - our high priest.

1John 2:1
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

Our access to God the Father is “through Him” (Jesus our High Priest) still. And we continue to rely upon that High Priestly work being done for us – (now – in heaven).

Heb 7

25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;
27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ is doing real ministry in the real heavenly sanctuary – of which the earthly was merely a type – a shadow.

Hebrews 8
1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.
3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.
4 Now [b]if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;
5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "" SEE,'' He says, ""THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN[/b] WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.''

Heb 9:11

"But WHEN Christ APPEARED as a HIGH PRIEST of the GOOD things
to come HE ENTERED through the GREATER and MORE PERFECT TABERNACLE, NOT MADE with HANDS, that IS to say, NOT OF THIS creation;..

Heb 9:23

"THEREFORE it was necessary that the COPIES OF the THINGS in
heaven[/b] to be cleansed with these, but the HEAVENLY THINGS THEMSELVES
with BETTER sacrifices than these. For [b]Christ did NOT enter a holy place MADE'
with HANDS, a MERE COPY of the TRUE ONE, but into HEAVEN ITSELF"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christs role as our High Priest after the cross is essential for salvation according to the writer of Hebrews --.

Heb 5
8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.
9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,
10 being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

===================================================================



"We" are also there by faith - with Christ - receiving the benefits of His intercession - salvation, forgiveness of new sins.

Heb 6:
19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,
20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever[/b] according to the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 4
13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
14 Therefore, since we have a great high priestwho has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Heb 7
25Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;
27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Daniel 7 shows us Christ in the sanctuary doing His High Priestly work - we find multitudes are in there as well and court is "in session".



Daniel 7
9 ""I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire.
[/b][/b]10 ""A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; The court sat, And the books were opened.

. This is one of the most damnable heresies of the SDA.

Again - pulpit pounding and name calling may work for "some" - but not all of us will be impressed by such antics.

It speaks to the insufficiency of the blood of Christ.

Your imagination being better than mine in this case - please explain.

No it does not.
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
--There was only one sacrifice; one atonement.

The "one" atoning sacrifice made at the cross is clearly stated in 1John 2:2

Do I need to quote it to you "again"??


ok - just "in case" --

1 John 2:2 And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)

Thus the atoning sacrifice was indeed "finished" at the cross - just as Christ claimed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

You have yet to actually prove that I have taken anything out of context.

It is one thing to make empty accusations - it is quite another to prove they are true. In your text above - you prove nothing.

It would be better to address the posts themselves.

in Christ,

Bob

The question asked in the OP is this:

Just what is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

These are the observations I made about you:
"1. He uses 1Cor.7:19. The context is marriage, not salvation.
2. He uses Romans 11. The context is God's dealing with the nation of Israel, not our salvation.
3. He uses Mark 7. The context is Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees emphasis of putting the traditions of men more important than the Word of God, not our salvation."

Here is how the Bible defines the gospel:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

It is that simple:
The gospel saves.
Christ did for our sins; He was buried; and he rose again the the third day according to the Scriptures.
--That is the gospel, clearly defined in the Word of God.

Paul says:
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

By the Scripture that you use, and you use it out of context, you have added works to the gospel. You have polluted the gospel of Christ, and Paul condemns the one who does that as being accursed.

The gospel is a gospel of grace by faith, and not of works. There are no works involved in the gospel. You have not posted one post where works or commandments of God relate to the gospel. And when you do refer to Scripture referring to "commandments" they are in the context of marriage, which is totally absurd.

Your posting on this subject of the gospel demonstrates a polluted message of the purity of the gospel which the Lord commanded us to preach.

 

[BobRyan]

DHK - you quote me saying that you are making empty hollow accusations.

Your response is to add more accusations and to quote "you".

Is that supposed to suffice for actually showing a problem with one of my posts???

In Romans 2 Paul says that "according to my Gospel God WILL judge the World" and the judgment process is explained in detail in Romans 2:4-16.

In Rev 14:6-7 the "Everlasting Gospel" is stated as including the proclamation "the hour of his judgment has come".

In 2cor 3 the New Covenant is shown to BE the Gospel that saves and Heb 8 shows the New Covenant to include the New Birth with the Law of God written on the heart and mind, and with sins forgiven, and with adoption into the family of God.

In 1Cor 15 the Gospel is said to include not only the life, death and resurrection of Christ - but even the evangelism of Paul.

In Lev 16 the Atonement doctrine is explained by God.

In 1John 2:2 Christ is affirmed as our "Atoning Sacrifice" not only for OUR sins (saints) but for the sins of the WHOLE World!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

DHK - you quote me saying that you are making empty hollow accusations.

Your response is to add more accusations and to quote "you".

Is that supposed to suffice for actually showing a problem with one of my posts???

in Christ,

Bob

The thread is about the gospel. Read the OP. Read the title of the thread.
All of your posts are about the law.
One can only conclude that you believe the gospel = the law.
Otherwise why are all of your posts about the law, when the thread is about the gospel?

 

[BobRyan]

you are free to make conclusions and guesses - but before arguing that I am in agreement with your guesses - it is best to post something and have the statement from me be the thing that you either differ with - or agree with rather than simply issuing a list of accusations.

As for the the New Covenant BEING the Gospel that provides for forgiveness of sins, adoption into the family of God AND the Law of God written on the heart and mind(the New Birth, New Creation) feel free to debate that point - and use the text of Heb 8 and 2Cor 3 to show how my position there is wrong (if you can ).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

It is pretty hard to find anyone anywhere that denies the Christ is the Son of God.



Again the obvious fact that Christ is the 2nd member of the Trinity - the 2nd person of the Godhead is pretty much accepted by almost everyone.





It is also pretty easy to conclude that a minister in the Church of England should be accepting the fact that Christ was God.

in Christ,

Bob

So you would agree with Whitefield on this point?

I know Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons do not believe Jesus is God. These groups strive to be accepted as "Christian".

 

[BobRyan]

IF Jews, JWs and Mormons were in fact "ministers in the Church of England" you might actually have a point.

And that is kind of scary to think about. ---- shudder....



In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

IF Jews, JWs and Mormons were in fact "ministers in the Church of England" you might actually have a point.

And that is kind of scary to think about. ---- shudder....



In Christ,

Bob

I didn't know I was making a point. I thought I was asking a question.

 

[DHK]

DHK - you quote me saying that you are making empty hollow accusations.

Your response is to add more accusations and to quote "you".

I am not sure which statement your referring to. Sometimes I do refer to "you." And often "you" refers to all in general. Hopefully the context of my statement would make it clear enough.

Is that supposed to suffice for actually showing a problem with one of my posts???

The problem with most of your posts in this thread is that you have substituted law for gospel. You have redefined the gospel as it is clearly defined in 1Cor.15:1-4.

In Romans 2 Paul says that "according to my Gospel God WILL judge the World" and the judgment process is explained in detail in Romans 2:4-16.

As others have observed on this thread you have a propensity for taking one verse here and there; one reference or passage here and there and try to build a case on it. One of your favorite references, for example, is 1Cor.7:19--a verse in the context of marriage. But you take it out of the context of marriage and use it as a proof text for law or commandments--ludicrous.
And here, in Romans 2, you do the same thing. Romans 2:4-16, Paul is speaking of the Jews.
CONTEXT: Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
--The passage has nothing to do with OSAS, or the gospel. He is speaking of the Jews.

In Rev 14:6-7 the "Everlasting Gospel" is stated as including the proclamation "the hour of his judgment has come".

Revelation 14:6-7 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

First, he doesn't define in that passage what that everlasting gospel is in the above two verses.
Second, there is only one gospel.
Third, do you think that the Holy Spirit would allow Paul and other authors of Scripture to put descriptive adjectives before the gospel, such as we also do.
It is a glorious gospel, a saving gospel, a unique gospel, a wonderful gospel, etc. We also describe the gospel message, often with words that are not found in the Bible. Just because it is defined as the "everlasting" gospel in one place, does not make it any different than "my" gospel in another place. There is only one gospel.
It is defined in 1Cor.15:1-4

In 2cor 3 the New Covenant is shown to BE the Gospel that saves and Heb 8 shows the New Covenant to include the New Birth with the Law of God written on the heart and mind, and with sins forgiven, and with adoption into the family of God.

In 2Cor.3 Paul gives a defense of himself as an apostle. You are way off base. I don't know what you are talking about.
In Hebrews 8, the author compares the high priestly functions of the Old Testament Levitical system to our Great High Priest of today. It does not describe the New Birth. That is in John chapter 3.

In 1Cor 15 the Gospel is said to include not only the life, death and resurrection of Christ - but even the evangelism of Paul.

No, the gospel does not include evangelism. One does not need to evangelize in order to be saved. That is backwards.

In Lev 16 the Atonement doctrine is explained by God.

In Lev.16 the OT Atonement is explained. That is a picture of what Christ did for us on the cross and that is as far as it goes. There is no atonement that now goes on. The atonement was finished at the cross. Our sins have been paid for in full: past, present, and future. They are all under the blood.

In 1John 2:2 Christ is affirmed as our "Atoning Sacrifice" not only for OUR sins (saints) but for the sins of the WHOLE World!

in Christ,
Bob

If you would learn the meaning and truth of that verse you would be better off. Those who by faith alone appropriate that sacrifice have eternal life and shall never come into condemnation because he has atoned for the sins of the whole world, i.e. the sins of all those in the world of them who have believed in him.