What the Gospel is not

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

That gives me a good sampling of what and how pastors preach in their churches.

:BangHead: When are you all going to get it through your heads I'm not talking about pastors?? Great googly moogly!!!

So, perhaps the problems you mention are more inherent in your SBC denomination. If they are (as I suspect), I object to you using such language as "the body of Christ," "Christianity," etc., when really you are only speaking of that one organization you belong to.

These are issues inherent in every evangelistic church in the world and I object to your attempting to disparage the SBC churches without good cause. The problem exists everywhere.

From a sign outside a church in Northern Ireland: "If we'd been born where they were born and taught what they were taught, we would believe what they believe." Jesus saved his most outward displays of anger for the self-righteous. The Pharisees and Sadducees knew the law and boasted of sinless perfection. They dubbed themselves the celestial scorekeepers here on earth.

Jesus called them blind guides. Fools. Hypocrites. A brood of vipers. Whitewashed graves. Clean on the outside but dead within. But despite His criticism of the Pharisees and their political followers, recall what Jesus told His closest followers the first time He sent them out. He told them to heal, cure, and comfort, proclaiming God's name, restoration, repentance and truth along the way. And he added,

Matthew 10, NASB
4 "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet."​

Note, He doesn't add, "And leavest thou a flaming bag of poo on their doorstep, and drapeth their olive trees in Charmin."

Jesus is telling us to let it go. Self-righteous outrage is not worth the trouble. When judgment comes, He will be the sword. Meanwhile, we should save the words of outrage, demands for justice and advocacy of systems of belief. They hold little value. He doesn't want our words nearly so much as He wants our lives. And He was sent by the Father to show us how to live them.

I pray that we transform our outer rage into both inward and outward action. First that we examine ourselves, park our anger in a corner, lose our unreasonable demands for justice in a fallen and unjust world, and lay aside our reliance on systems and expend that energy elsewhere.

Feed the hungry. Heal the sick. Aid the defenseless. Advocate for those on the margins. Most of all, preach the Gospel, a call to repentance spoken in love and truth ending with an invitation grounded in the cross and the tomb.

 

[DHK]

:BangHead: When are you all going to get it through your heads I'm not talking about pastors?? Great googly moogly!!!These are issues inherent in every evangelistic church in the world and I object to your attempting to disparage the SBC churches without good cause. The problem exists everywhere.

From a sign outside a church in Northern Ireland: "If we'd been born where they were born and taught what they were taught, we would believe what they believe." Jesus saved his most outward displays of anger for the self-righteous. The Pharisees and Sadducees knew the law and boasted of sinless perfection. They dubbed themselves the celestial scorekeepers here on earth.

Jesus called them blind guides. Fools. Hypocrites. A brood of vipers. Whitewashed graves. Clean on the outside but dead within. But despite His criticism of the Pharisees and their political followers, recall what Jesus told His closest followers the first time He sent them out. He told them to heal, cure, and comfort, proclaiming God's name, restoration, repentance and truth along the way. And he added,

Matthew 10, NASB
4 "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet."​

Note, He doesn't add, "And leavest thou a flaming bag of poo on their doorstep, and drapeth their olive trees in Charmin."

Jesus is telling us to let it go. Self-righteous outrage is not worth the trouble. When judgment comes, He will be the sword. Meanwhile, we should save the words of outrage, demands for justice and advocacy of systems of belief. They hold little value. He doesn't want our words nearly so much as He wants our lives. And He was sent by the Father to show us how to live them.

I pray that we transform our outer rage into both inward and outward action. First that we examine ourselves, park our anger in a corner, lose our unreasonable demands for justice in a fallen and unjust world, and lay aside our reliance on systems and expend that energy elsewhere.

Feed the hungry. Heal the sick. Aid the defenseless. Advocate for those on the margins. Most of all, preach the Gospel, a call to repentance spoken in love and truth ending with an invitation grounded in the cross and the tomb.

I am simply noting that you need to define your parameters a bit more--to where it is relevant.
"inherent in every evangelistic church in the world."
I disagree, and you have no way of proving of that. The statement is universal and absolute. It assumes you have been to all evangelistic churches.

"There is a church outside Ireland" So? That has nothing to do with me.
"I pray that 'we' transform our outer rage." Who is the "we"? I don't have outer rage.
"Preach the gospel." I do.

I am responsible for my local church; not for the world. We each have our own sphere of ministry. There is not one of us that is responsible for the "entire evangelistic world." We do what we can where we can. No one can be a spokesperson for the world, and whitewash the world with the same symptoms. Only God has the eyes to make such far-reaching judgments.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I am simply noting that you need to define your parameters a bit more--to where it is relevant.
"inherent in every evangelistic church in the world."
I disagree ...

Convenient that you ignore the fact that response comes directly from your accusation that perhaps it is only an SBC problem. Meaning the definition is one you set, not me. Again ... :BangHead:

... and you have no way of proving of that. The statement is universal and absolute. It assumes you have been to all evangelistic churches.

Just as you assume that because it isn't a problem in your church or others you're familiar with, it isn't a problem anywhere. That's a dicto simpliciter, a sweeping generalization fallacy.

"There is a church outside Ireland" So? That has nothing to do with me.

Well, which is it? Either I have to go to all churches to prove my point, or one church doesn't prove my point. I don't even know what to call that, other than a circular argument. Which of course is another logical fallacy.

"I pray that 'we' transform our outer rage." Who is the "we"? I don't have outer rage.

The way you've jumped to conclusions, ignored context, engaged in numerous logical fallacies and generally failed to make a point relative to the subject, I'd say some emotion is feeding your wordy, nebulous responses. Perhaps, if it isn't anger, you can tell me what it is?

"Preach the gospel." I do.

Where did I say you did not?

I am responsible for my local church; not for the world. We each have our own sphere of ministry. There is not one of us that is responsible for the "entire evangelistic world." We do what we can where we can. No one can be a spokesperson for the world, and whitewash the world with the same symptoms. Only God has the eyes to make such far-reaching judgments.

And yet, if we see error, sin or false teaching in the church, the body of Christ, we are to do something about it, are we not? So how does that fit with your denial of responsibility to the body of Christ?

Really, DHK, your participation here has been eristic, with no other apparent purpose. I have to wonder why.

 

[DHK]

And yet, if we see error, sin or false teaching in the church, the body of Christ, we are to do something about it, are we not? So how does that fit with your denial of responsibility to the body of Christ?

As long as it is relevant.
For example, when John MacArthur saw the problem of the Charasmatic Movement permeating almost every sphere of Christianity, including almost every part of the world, he did something about it. He has written at least three books on the subject and has preached on it numerous times.
The Charismatic movement is pervasive. I encounter it on the mission field over in Asia. It is everywhere. There is nowhere where it doesn't have its tentacles.

But the symptoms that you describe are relevant only to certain churches/cultures/ etc. It is something I have been trying to narrow down. That is why I first mentioned the SBC. It certainly isn't the entire "body of Christ," as you define it. They symptoms you describe are not indicative on the churches I minister to in Asia for example. They are far from it.

Yes, preach against sin. I have been saying that all along. It is our duty: both to the believer and unbeliever alike.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

DHK and others have said they don't see the problem I have been attempting to describe. I say maybe we all need to look harder, because it is there.

A good example is Mark Hall's account of the public reaction to Casting Crown's song "Jesus, Friend of Sinners." He talks about it in the book he wrote to go with the group's latest album, "Thrive", in Chapter 26.

Hall said he received two criticisms. The lyrics that attracted the most flack were these:

Nobody knows what we're for
Only what we're against
When we judge the wounded.
What if we put down our signs,
Crossed over the lines
And loved like You did?

The first was, "I can't believe you would suggest that we support abortion." Good grief! First, Casting Crowns has recorded at least a half dozen pro-life songs. Second, he says that by the time the protestors at abortion clinics get there with signs and start screaming "You're killing your child!" they are several years too late. Hall suggests that they use the time they have to prepare their protests and make their signs to instead spend a half-hour every week at the church discipling young girls before they ever get to the point of needing to make the decision most of them don't want to make in the first place.

The problem isn't when the girls or women get to the abortion clinic. The problem is somewhere in their past, when Daddy left and Mommy stopped caring, or had to work two jobs to put food on the table and didn't have the time or energy to care, or did care but most of all, the little girl needed Daddy. Any of those scenarios leads to bad decisions.

The second complaint he got regarding the song was typical of what I sometimes see here, on this board: "I love your ministry and I love your music, but I just have a problem with this song because Jesus was not a friend of sinners. He was holy and He can have no fellowship with sin and cannot tolerate sin. We are all enemies of God until we are saved. God cannot have fellowship with sin."

To this Hall asks, "What is a friend?" Does he/she approve of everything a friend does? No. It is as I (me, thisnumber) has been saying all along, Jesus meets people where they are at, and He did so when He walked Earth in the flesh, too. Again as I've said, He told them the truth in love. That's all He did, and we are to do the same.

Jesus welcomed children into His presence, let them sit on His lap, or He'd crouch down to talk to them. They were sinners too, but He loved them and loved on them. He touched lepers, who were considered pariahs. He treated women with love, respect and dignity. He ate with tax collectors, the filth of the first century as far as the Jewish community -- and just about all others as well -- was concerned. He called the most hated man in town, Zacchaeus, down out of his tree perch and said, "Hey, come down. I want to eat lunch with you today." And what happened? This "wee little" tax collector confessed his sins and immediately stated publicly before his God that he would make everyone he had wronged whole again.

People thought they were giving Hall a theology lesson in their criticism of the song "Jesus, Friend of Sinners." What he heard -- what they were saying -- was that they are mad because the world is lost, and sins. Earlier in the chapter, Hall speaks of the "grace-vs.-law" reaction we have to sin. When it's ours, we expect grace. But when someone sins against us, we bring down the law on them, complete with charts and graphs and a grilling during which we expect a full confession and apology.

It's like picking our nose. How often do we do that every day? What do we do when we stop at a traffic signal and see someone else doing it? "Eww, that's disgusting!" Right? What makes us think we're invisible? We're just as vile and disgusting to others as they are to us. Yet we expect forgiveness without giving it ourselves? What does Jesus say about our not offering forgiveness?

Matthew 6, NASB
15 "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."​

Seems pretty definitive to me. People don't even have to know you forgive them. Forgiveness isn't for them, anyway. It is for us.

Please don't go off the deep end here as you have with the rest of the thread. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. All these statements are general in nature. Not everyone is guilty, and those who are, aren't guilty all the time. I'm as guilty as anyone, perhaps more so.

There is a problem, though, and I believe the reaction to Hall's song on the album "The Well" proves that. Maybe others here don't, and if you don't, just continue what you're doing. For me, I intend to try to be more aware of my reactions, to be loving, and to do the will of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

DHK

Please don't go off the deep end here as you have with the rest of the thread. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. All these statements are general in nature. Not everyone is guilty, and those who are, aren't guilty all the time. I'm as guilty as anyone, perhaps more so.

There is a problem, though, and I believe the reaction to Hall's song on the album "The Well" proves that. Maybe others here don't, and if you don't, just continue what you're doing. For me, I intend to try to be more aware of my reactions, to be loving, and to do the will of God.

There has always been a problem with phariseeical attitudes or "better than thou" attitudes as well as the opposite attitude of despising that which is holy. Both are equally condemned in God's Word and it is difficult to determine which one God more despises.

Despising that which is holy begins with passivity toward things that should cause righteous indignation. The obvious and profound moral shift in our cultural is gaining extreme public headway because professed Christians are experiencing the "frog in the pot" syndrome.

Pulpits in our country have shifted from moral outrage to tolerance, and from tolerance to acceptance and acceptance to silence. Might your posts characterize such a process in your own attitude?????

Tell me, what do you think God thought of the moral outrage of the following person:

Nmb. 25:6 ¶ And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.


If your response is this was under "law" instead of Grace then what about this example of moral outrage:

Acts 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.
9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.

Could it be that America needs more indignant righteousness than passive tolerance under the disguise of "love" or sloppy agape??? Share the gospel in a loving spirit but make sure you let them know God's moral outrage at the sin and nothing can express that moral outrage than letting them know that God's wrath IS abidng over unbelievers (Jn. 3:36) and warn them to flee from the wrath to come.

The new birth is in essence, the impartation of the moral taste bud of God, so that the believer loves what God loves and hates what God hates. God's moral taste bud has not changed from Genesis to Revelation as He is immutable in nature. People change but God does not. What causes righteous indignation with God should cause righteous indignation in His children. If not, then his children are not reflecting his moral loves and hates.

The gospel reflects both God's moral outrage against sin and calls for repentance and His love for sinners in calling them to believe in Christ.

 

[quantumfaith]

:BangHead: When are you all going to get it through your heads I'm not talking about pastors?? Great googly moogly!!!These are issues inherent in every evangelistic church in the world and I object to your attempting to disparage the SBC churches without good cause. The problem exists everywhere.

From a sign outside a church in Northern Ireland: "If we'd been born where they were born and taught what they were taught, we would believe what they believe." Jesus saved his most outward displays of anger for the self-righteous. The Pharisees and Sadducees knew the law and boasted of sinless perfection. They dubbed themselves the celestial scorekeepers here on earth.

Jesus called them blind guides. Fools. Hypocrites. A brood of vipers. Whitewashed graves. Clean on the outside but dead within. But despite His criticism of the Pharisees and their political followers, recall what Jesus told His closest followers the first time He sent them out. He told them to heal, cure, and comfort, proclaiming God's name, restoration, repentance and truth along the way. And he added,

Matthew 10, NASB
4 "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet."​

Note, He doesn't add, "And leavest thou a flaming bag of poo on their doorstep, and drapeth their olive trees in Charmin."

Jesus is telling us to let it go. Self-righteous outrage is not worth the trouble. When judgment comes, He will be the sword. Meanwhile, we should save the words of outrage, demands for justice and advocacy of systems of belief. They hold little value. He doesn't want our words nearly so much as He wants our lives. And He was sent by the Father to show us how to live them.

I pray that we transform our outer rage into both inward and outward action. First that we examine ourselves, park our anger in a corner, lose our unreasonable demands for justice in a fallen and unjust world, and lay aside our reliance on systems and expend that energy elsewhere.

Feed the hungry. Heal the sick. Aid the defenseless. Advocate for those on the margins. Most of all, preach the Gospel, a call to repentance spoken in love and truth ending with an invitation grounded in the cross and the tomb.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Could it be that America needs more indignant righteousness than passive tolerance under the disguise of "love" or sloppy agape???

First, to answer you question: No. we have much too much of the former and far, far too little of the latter.

Secondly, these examples you cite are irrelevant to the subject of this thread. They deal with sin within the body -- the body of Israel, to be sure, but nonetheless, within the body of those whom God has adopted as sons. Therefore it is an example that utterly fails to address the issue of our outrage on the one hand (more conservative believers) and a demand for justice on the other (among the liberal believers), as well as the "do-nothings" who talk about systems of belief rather than address the need of faith and repentance in the world. Those three things are what this thread is about.

Share the gospel in a loving spirit but make sure you let them know God's moral outrage at the sin and nothing can express that moral outrage than letting them know that God's wrath IS abidng over unbelievers (Jn. 3:36) and warn them to flee from the wrath to come.

I have shocking news for you. God's "moral outrage" is yet to be expressed and until such time as the trumpet sounds -- regardless of what event you believe that announces -- He will continue to love the sinner so much that He leaves as completely effective for the sinner today the atonement of Christ, which is the sacrifice of His only begotten Son on the cross as well as His burial and finally His resurrection from the tomb.

We have no right to express "outrage" at anything, given we were never outraged at our own sin before we laid it at the foot of the cross. We have no right to demand justice for anyone given such justice would necessarily result in their punishment, not the "free pass" such demands seek. And we have no right to yammer on about "systems" when it is not a system the sinner needs.

Yes, talk about sin. Talk about the sin we left at the cross. Talk about the love and grace we found at the cross. No one is going to be won to the cross only by hearing about their sin. They need to know about their sin, without doubt, but they need to be taken from the depths of hopelessness regarding that sin, to the heights of hope, love, grace, mercy and peace at the feet of Jesus.

You don't get there from here with "outrage." That vehicle takes you farther from love than almost any other emotion there is. The depth of the lack of understanding regarding that truth is stupefying.

 

[The Biblicist]

First, to answer you question: No. we have much too much of the former and far, far too little of the latter.

Your personal opinion for sure, but not mine!

Secondly, these examples you cite are irrelevant to the subect of this thread. They deal with sin within the body -- the body of Israel,

You need to read more carefully. I gave two examples, one from the Old Testament and Israel and another from the New Testament and the ministry of Paul. Second, I pointed out that God's moral nature is immutable, it does not change from the Old to the New Testament.

but nonetheless, within the body of those whom God has adopted as sons. Therefore it is an example that utterly fails to address the issue of our outrage on the one hand (more conservative believers) and a demand for justice on the other (among the liberal believers), as well as the "do-nothings" who talk about systems of belief rather than address the need of faith and repentance in the world.

Again, you need to read more carefully. The New Testament example I gave was not of a believer but of a lost man. Second, you are making the unfounded assumption that all who profess possess and that is not only a false assumption but clearly repudiated by Christ and the apostles (Mt. 13; 1 Jn. 2:19). God's moral nature has not changed as the gospel was preached unto them equally as unto us (Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43). Remember it is Abraham, a pre-cross believer that is the example of "all who are of faith" whether before or after the cross (Rom. 4:11-12, 16; Gal. 3:6-7).

God's "moral outrage" is yet to be expressed and until such time as the trumpet sounds -- regardless of what event you believe that announces

I have some shocking news for you, Romans 1:18-32 claims that God's wrath has already appeared, and those very sins are the evidence of God's wrath upon a people:

Rom. 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Do you understand the meaning of "IS" or are you going to join Bill Clinton and debate what the the meaning of "is" is?????? This is a New Testament presentation of God's wrath and it is not in the context of the body of Christ or believers but unbelievers.

- He will continue to love the sinner so much that He leaves as completely effective for the sinner today the atonement of Christ, which is the sacrifice of His only begotten Son on the cross as well as His burial and finally His resurrection from the tomb.

Sorry to inform you of this shocking news, but the love of God did not change to something different after the cross than it was before the cross, any more than his moral indignation at sin changed to something other than after the cross. He loved His people and justified them by faith through grace as much as prior to the cross as after the cross. Remember, he did not choose a Post-cross example for believers but a pre-cross, pre-Mosaic example in the person of Abraham. There are not two different gospels, one type before the gospel and a different one after the cross according to Heb. 4:2 and Acts 26:21-22 and Acts 10:43. There is not another Savior, another salvation before than after. Your whole argument ultimatley hindges upon ths false premise. God is immutable in regard to his nature and especially His moral nature. Is not "Jesus" the same, today, YESTERDAY and forever? He is Jehovah our Saviour before the cross that was the object of faith according to Peter in Acts 10:43.

We have no right to express "outrage" at anything, given we were never outraged at our own sin before we laid it at the foot of the cross.

Tell David that! Tell Paul that! Tell our supreme example that (Jesus)! All three expressed righteous indignation at those hardened in sin both unbelieveres and professed believers.

Do you know the meaning of repentance???? Apparently not! True repentance includes a change of heart toward sin, so that you view sin as God does in so much you take sides with God against self and your sins,utterly hating the defilment of sin. True conviction over sin is inclusive of hate toward sin.

We have no right to demand justice for anyone

Who said anything different? We are not the judge. However, we should hate what God hates and God hates sin and God's wrath IS abiding on unbelievers continuously in the state of unbelief.

And we have no right to yammer on about "systems" when it is not a system the sinner needs.

It is difficult to continue in a civil manner with such a haugty and arrogant tone.

Yes, talk about sin. Talk about the sin we left at the cross. Talk about the love and grace we found at the cross. No one is going to be won to the cross only by hearing about their sin.

Why the extremes? Who said that we are "only" to talk about sin???? Not I! However, repentance is impossible without confrontation of sins, and those who see no need of repentance see no need of salvation because salvation is from sins. The cross is a condemnation of sin and you cannot preach the cross or the gospel without first addressing the need of repentance as there is no remission where there is no knowledge of sin.

They need to know about their sin, without doubt, but they need to be taken from the depths of hopelessness regarding that sin, to the heights of hope, love, grace, mercy and peace at the feet of Jesus.

You are assuming sinners are in despair and hopelessness and that is simply false. You cannot take someone from hopelessness who is not aware of their sin and its consequences. There is not going to the heights of hope unless FIRST they know the DEPTH of their sin.

You don't get there from here with "outrage." That vehicle takes you farther from love than almost any other emotion there is. The depth of the lack of understanding regarding that truth is stupefying.

Don't confuse the issue. I never said that anyone should simply show outrage to sins. Ho wever, there is a place for outrage, or righteous indignation and for making it clear that God is outraged at their sin in so much that He would crucity His own Son for such sins, in so much, he will send sinners into an eternity of wrath. iT IS PLAIN SLOPPY AGAPE AND EASY BELIEVISM TO SIMPLY ADDRESS THE NEED TO BELIEVE WITHOUT FIRST ADDRESSING SIN. Note that I said "FIRST" not "only."

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Your personal opinion for sure, but not mine!

More's the pity.

You need to read more carefully. I gave two examples, one from the Old Testament and Israel and another from the New Testament and the ministry of Paul. Second, I pointed out that God's moral nature is immutable, it does not change from the Old to the New Testament.

I admit to being unclear in my response in failing to address the New Testament passage. I intended to, but simply faltered in doing so. My apologies., but the fact is, Paul was dealing with believers as well -- sin within the body. So it also is a failure in addressing the issue at hand.

Again, you need to read more carefully. The New Testament example I gave was not of a believer but of a lost man.

Elymas was hindering the preaching of the Gospel, and as such was clearly under the influence if not a follower of Satan, and therefore was a sign to Salamis -- the person to whom Paul was witnessing. He did not confront Salamis with a bludgeon of his sin, but silenced the evil spirit attempting to prevent his conversion.

Second, you are making the unfounded assumption that all who profess possess and that is not only a false assumption but clearly repudiated by Christ and the apostles (Mt. 13; 1 Jn. 2:19).

Irrelevant. You don't present the Gospel to those who claim to be followers. You confront them in their sin per Matthew 18:15-17.

God's moral nature has not changed as the gospel was preached unto them equally as unto us (Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43).

Acts 10:43 states nothing regarding preaching "God's moral outrage." Hebrews 4:2 follows Hebrews 3:12-17, which is written of the perils of unbelief, and references Israel's unfaithful in vv. 16-18. They never believed, but the audience of the writer of Hebrews were believers. This reference also fails.

Remember it is Abraham, a pre-cross believer that is the example of "all who are of faith" whether before or after the cross (Rom. 4:11-12, 16; Gal. 3:6-7).

Also irrelevant. Salvation is by faith alone, whether Old Testament or New.

I have some shocking news for you, Romans 1:18-32 claims that God's wrath has already appeared, and those very sins are the evidence of God's wrath upon a people:

Very, very, unadulteratedly wrong. It says God has "turned them over" to their own lusts, desires and sins. It doesn't say they are not redeemable. Again, epic fail.

I won't deal with the rest of your "reply." It is arrogant self-righteous nonsense that deliberately misreads what I've said, ignores previous comments I've made on the thread, and generally attempts to make you appear as my moral and exegetical superior when your words obviously prove you to be neither. You insist on being morally outraged and systematically inhibited. You're welcome to it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Very, very, unadulteratedly wrong. It says God has "turned them over" to their own lusts, desires and sins. It doesn't say they are not redeemable. Again, epic fail.

Actually it does say that God's wrath is revealed in doing that.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed....Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.



Giving them up to the lusts of their heart is the wrath of God and it means He will no longer offer them grace.

Your position is actually unorthodox. What is commonly believed and preached is what I have laid out.

 

[quantumfaith]

DHK and others have said they don't see the problem I have been attempting to describe. I say maybe we all need to look harder, because it is there.

A good example is Mark Hall's account of the public reaction to Casting Crown's song "Jesus, Friend of Sinners." He talks about it in the book he wrote to go with the group's latest album, "Thrive", in Chapter 26.

Hall said he received two criticisms. The lyrics that attracted the most flack were these:

Nobody knows what we're for
Only what we're against
When we judge the wounded.
What if we put down our signs,
Crossed over the lines
And loved like You did?

The first was, "I can't believe you would suggest that we support abortion." Good grief! First, Casting Crowns has recorded at least a half dozen pro-life songs. Second, he says that by the time the protestors at abortion clinics get there with signs and start screaming "You're killing your child!" they are several years too late. Hall suggests that they use the time they have to prepare their protests and make their signs to instead spend a half-hour every week at the church discipling young girls before they ever get to the point of needing to make the decision most of them don't want to make in the first place.

The problem isn't when the girls or women get to the abortion clinic. The problem is somewhere in their past, when Daddy left and Mommy stopped caring, or had to work two jobs to put food on the table and didn't have the time or energy to care, or did care but most of all, the little girl needed Daddy. Any of those scenarios leads to bad decisions.

The second complaint he got regarding the song was typical of what I sometimes see here, on this board: "I love your ministry and I love your music, but I just have a problem with this song because Jesus was not a friend of sinners. He was holy and He can have no fellowship with sin and cannot tolerate sin. We are all enemies of God until we are saved. God cannot have fellowship with sin."

To this Hall asks, "What is a friend?" Does he/she approve of everything a friend does? No. It is as I (me, thisnumber) has been saying all along, Jesus meets people where they are at, and He did so when He walked Earth in the flesh, too. Again as I've said, He told them the truth in love. That's all He did, and we are to do the same.

Jesus welcomed children into His presence, let them sit on His lap, or He'd crouch down to talk to them. They were sinners too, but He loved them and loved on them. He touched lepers, who were considered pariahs. He treated women with love, respect and dignity. He ate with tax collectors, the filth of the first century as far as the Jewish community -- and just about all others as well -- was concerned. He called the most hated man in town, Zacchaeus, down out of his tree perch and said, "Hey, come down. I want to eat lunch with you today." And what happened? This "wee little" tax collector confessed his sins and immediately stated publicly before his God that he would make everyone he had wronged whole again.

People thought they were giving Hall a theology lesson in their criticism of the song "Jesus, Friend of Sinners." What he heard -- what they were saying -- was that they are mad because the world is lost, and sins. Earlier in the chapter, Hall speaks of the "grace-vs.-law" reaction we have to sin. When it's ours, we expect grace. But when someone sins against us, we bring down the law on them, complete with charts and graphs and a grilling during which we expect a full confession and apology.

It's like picking our nose. How often do we do that every day? What do we do when we stop at a traffic signal and see someone else doing it? "Eww, that's disgusting!" Right? What makes us think we're invisible? We're just as vile and disgusting to others as they are to us. Yet we expect forgiveness without giving it ourselves? What does Jesus say about our not offering forgiveness?

Matthew 6, NASB
15 "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."​

Seems pretty definitive to me. People don't even have to know you forgive them. Forgiveness isn't for them, anyway. It is for us.

Please don't go off the deep end here as you have with the rest of the thread. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. All these statements are general in nature. Not everyone is guilty, and those who are, aren't guilty all the time. I'm as guilty as anyone, perhaps more so.

There is a problem, though, and I believe the reaction to Hall's song on the album "The Well" proves that. Maybe others here don't, and if you don't, just continue what you're doing. For me, I intend to try to be more aware of my reactions, to be loving, and to do the will of God.

Standing :applause::applause::applause:

 

[The Biblicist]

More's the pity.I admit to being unclear in my response in failing to address the New Testament passage. I intended to, but simply faltered in doing so. My apologies., but the fact is, Paul was dealing with believers as well -- sin within the body. So it also is a failure in addressing the issue at hand.Elymas was hindering the preaching of the Gospel, and as such was clearly under the influence if not a follower of Satan, and therefore was a sign to Salamis -- the person to whom Paul was witnessing. He did not confront Salamis with a bludgeon of his sin, but silenced the evil spirit attempting to prevent his conversion.

Elymas was a LOST person regardless how he figures into the circumstance and Paul did not deal lovingly with this LOST person. Paul did not lovingly and tenderly point him to the lofty truths of the cross but rather handle him in obvious righteous indignation. You can weasel around this all you like but it does not change any contextual facts whatsoever. He was a LOST man and Paul did not deal with this LOST man lovingly but in righteous indignation.

Acts 10:43 states nothing regarding preaching "God's moral outrage."

Who says it was given for that intention? I certainly never did! I gave it to prove that God's way of salvaiton, along with his moral nature does not change after the cross as the same gospel and same God before the cross. However, your whole issue rests upon a different God prior to the cross than after the cross in regard to sin and righteous indignation. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Hebrews 4:2

Again, read more carefully and respond to the point I am making by that passage. God is the same, His message is the same before as well as after the cross. His nature, His righteous indignation toward ungodliness has not changed.

This reference also fails.Also irrelevant.

Read what it says, it says His wrath "IS REVEALED" and such sins are manifestations of JUDGEMENT ALREADY.

I won't deal with the rest of your "reply." It is arrogant self-righteous nonsense that deliberately misreads what I've said,

No, it simply means you are incapable of giving an honest reasonable response. Your responses above intentionally distort what I presented and that seems to be your MO.

 

[Iconoclast]

The old saying "You gotta get 'em lost before you can get 'em found" is nonsense

,
These two statements display a lack of understanding of the fundamental truths of the fall and the gospel.

particularly these days, in the era of "me," "self," and "my rights." Better is to meet them where they are at -- hurting, addicted, angry, depressed. Show them why, without the accusation or the "outrage." Don't try to tell them about "justice" or beliefs. Talk to them about life, and show them it can be better in Christ.

This humanistic approach which is doomed to fail....trades gospel truth and reality...for a live your best life now mentality...a cure all.... philosophy rather than following scripture.

 

[gb93433]

James 1:22 talks about being a Christian, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves." Being is active. Belief is a verb.

 

[HankD]

These two statements display a lack of understanding of the fundamental truths of the fall and the gospel.

Don't want to put words in his mouth but perhaps he means that a sinner must come to the "realization" that he is lost, like the pharisee versus the publican in the temple.

Humanly speaking - I don't think it's possible for one human being to convict another of sin without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit before, during or after said preaching of the Gospel.

Not that sin cannot be preached during the presentation of the gospel (and, in fact, should be preached and related to His death, burial and resurrection).

The point - leave conviction of sin the the Holy Spirit, it is not our responsibility. Relating sin to the gospel, of course, but only the Spirit can convict.

HankD

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Don't want to put words in his mouth but perhaps he means that a sinner must come to the "realization" that he is lost, like the pharisee versus the publican in the temple.

Yes, but he can only come to that realization by the power of the Holy Spirit. Hypers like to believe they've got it figured out. In reality, they are over-simplifying a complex process that I don't believe can be understood this side of heaven.

Humanly speaking - I don't think it's possible for one human being to convict another of sin without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit before, during or after said preaching of the Gospel.

Tony Miano, a retired L.A. County Deputy Sheriff, former chaplain to the department's road deputies, and founder of Ten-Four Ministries, a missionary organization serving the worldwide law enforcement community, says he is often asked, "How many people have you led to Christ?" His response: "All of them." He goes on to say he leads all that he speaks with to the foot of the cross, where he leaves them in the sovereign hands of Christ Jesus.

That's what I believe as well. We can just speak. We have no power to convince, that is in His perfect hands. We are just an instrument, and the reality is, He doesn't need us at all. One prisoner doing a lengthy sentence eagerly went to a chapel service because he knew the minister coming into the facility was going to pass out New Testaments -- and he couldn't afford cigarette papers from the commissary. He used the pages of the Bible. After several months, he had worked his way to John -- and stopped. The words caught his eye. He read the page -- then the back of it. Then the rest of the Gospel. And got down on his knees, convicted of his sin, cried out to God and asked to receive Christ.

We're just the delivery boy. Christ is the message. If we give it in love, He will do the rest. If we yammer, condemn and browbeat, they've turned us off before the Holy Spirit has a chance to do His work.

 

[Rippon]

Hypers like to believe they've got it figured out.

Who and what are the "hypers" TND?

He goes on to say He leads all that he speaks with to the foot of the cross,

He leads?! Tony may be a swell guy but the personal pronoun referring to him should not be capitalized.

 

[Aaron]

Dr. Russell Moore, president of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, recently created a stir among conservative Christian talk show hosts when, during an address to the ERLC's Leadership Summit in Nashville in late April, he said:Christian talk show hosts were up in arms, feeling that his comments slighted an entire industry. Well, my feeling is, if the shoe fits, wear it.

We are all guilty of much the same thing. We have labeled many things, erroneously, as "the Gospel." I want to offer an opinion about what the Gospel isn't.

The Gospel is not moral outrage.
Much of what we hear from Christians today is unbiblical, even though it rightly repeats biblical truths. We allow ourselves to provide an outlet for the flesh by castigating others in great flourishes of carnal pageantry. It as though we attempt to fulfill the lust of the flesh and simultaneously claim divine direction and divine favor inherent in that very act, a feat of tremendous spiritual and mental gymnastics. Add a dose of "courage" as well as "boldness," and we have the perfect example of allowing the old man to once again have free reign.

There is a distinct difference between correction within the body and castigating sinners. It is beyond me how anyone could read the gospels and not see that one of the reasons our Lord was criticized was because He was a friend to sinners. He was seen in their company, and He showed uncommon love for them in spite of their sin. He reserved His most poignant rebukes for the self righteous leaders of the Temple. Yet we act as though setting foot among the sinners would turn our flesh to salt. Hint: That has only happened once in history, and that wasn't the reason it happened.

Within today’s church it has become fashionable to exhibit moral outrage to lost sinners and their sin. Instead of spreading the good news of the Gospel, and instead of fasting and praying inside the kingdom of God, the church releases concerted efforts to change the culture. The church even goes so far as to embrace a false mission to return America to the intent of the founding fathers. We as Americans of any stripe can desire to do so, but it is not a mission of the church, but in undertaking that as our mission, we have left the Christ and chased after idols. We can only change the culture by preaching the Gospel -- the real Gospel -- and watching the Holy Spirit change lives, which in turn will change the culture.

The Gospel is not justice.
The works we do because we love God are important, but they are not the mission of the church, nor were they integral to the gospel. Jesus said the two great commandments are "Love God, love your neighbor." He didn't say doing so would get you into heaven, or more importantly, provide you His grace to do the things we otherwise are incapable of doing.

Everything the church does is not its mission. There are many things that the church is involved with that are not essentially its mission but are nonetheless what Christ's people do precisely because they belong to Christ. We unfortunately get the two confused, and believe that in doing the mission, we are "doing" the Gospel. But when the apostles preached the Gospel in the New Testament, they were referencing God's redemption of sinners -- and not social justice.

The Gospel is about how sinners who rightly deserve nothing but the eternal condemnation of God nonetheless are redeemed by His decisive act in Jesus Christ to redeemed sinners. It is true that liberal churches have a social cause but no altar call, while many conservative churches have the altar call, but no mission to the world. The issue we face as Christian people is not whether we can have both, because we can. The issue is, what is that mission? Is it to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and the prisoner -- or is it to take the message of salvation to the world? The answer is "Yes." But if we do not accompany the feeding, clothing, visiting with the message, we've failed.

The Gospel is not a set of beliefs.
It is not just a system of thought, a type of mystical experience or way of life. Christ did not simply come to give us a new system of thinking, even though there can be nothing more profound than knowing Him. Christ did not come to give us a new feeling of God, even though there is nothing more life changing than meeting Him. Christ did not come to simply tell us how to live, even though we are told we should be known for the things we do. Christianity is none of these things.

Christianity is ultimately rooted ontologically, in being.

Christianity is rooted in being in its method of revelation. To have seen Christ is to have seen the Father. Jesus did not come to tell us about God. He came as God. It is in His very nature. He is not God because of the things he said or did. These things did not make him the Son of God. Rather He is the Son of God by nature, in His very being. Everything he said and did flowed from that.

Christianity is rooted in being in salvation. It is through Christ’s physical death and bodily resurrection that we are saved. It is because of what He took on in his being that we are saved. All the wrong thoughts, all the harmful experiences, all the wrong things done He took on, in his body, so that we might be saved. That is why we read that he became sin for us.

Christianity is rooted in being in transformation. Jesus said that anyone wanting to enter heaven must be born again. The fundamental problem facing humanity is not one of knowledge, or feeling or even how to live. The fundamental problem is that we are fallen beings. It is only as our very beings are restored that we can truly begin to learn how to think, how to relate to the world around us and how to live.

Every other system, maybe by combining the three different pursuits of thinking, feeling and doing, ultimately want to change us as beings. Yet they are powerless to do so. It is only through Christ that we find our starting point is a transformation of our being, (born again), and that everything else follows on from that.​

So this is the Gospel. It is plainly, simply, truthfully being. In sin, we are being ourselves, in the flesh. In Christ, we are being reborn, renewed, returned to the image -- not how we look, but in how we "be" -- of our Creator, and any message we share with the word that doesn't convey that message is not the Gospel.

Also, I should share with you the fact I did not quote the entire paragraph from Dr. Moore's speech at the beginning of this post. That quotation above ends thusly:

When talking about what the Gospel is, none of the above can be avoided.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

When talking about what the Gospel is, none of the above can be avoided.

A comment borne of not actually reading the post. :BangHead:

It is unavoidable to let the "old man" live when presenting the Gospel?

It is unavoidable to avoid sinners?

It is unavoidable to attempt to restore the nation to the intent of the founding fathers when preaching the Gospel?

It is unavoidable to engage in mysticism in presenting the Gospel?

Please: Next time actually read the post.