"Getting Saved"

[rsc2a]

And by doing good, repentance, confession, baptism....

You have the free will to persist in your error(s) about the primary and  instrumental means of salvation, but for crying out loud please quit telling people you are reformed, because your theology is a hodge-podge of gobbled-gook and far from any real reformed position.

Yeah...I seem to have described my faith as "Mildly Orthodox/Charismatic Reformed Baptist-ish" so "hodge-podge of gobbled gook" is fine too.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

(You also added a word. That changed the meaning of what you've been saying.)

I only had to look back at post#66 to see this response of mine to Castor...

God can do whatever He wants that is within his character.  In that respect I agree with part of the sentiments regarding sovereignty in your earlier post.  Could he save apart from the gospel?  I suppose so, but, the picture painted in the NT is clear enough to me that the overwhelmingly ordinary means He has appointed is via the gospel (preached, or read).

Must you resort to lies and misrepresentations?[/quote]

No lies. This is a frequent topic. I think you've used that qualifier all of three times. You consistently fall back to the error you've been espousing and, after much discussion where people are telling you that you are wrong, you sometimes add "ordinary". Then you fall back to your default position for the next go-around.

I'm not arguing against the statement you made at this one point to CM but the erroneous point you've been making in two simultaneous threads. In fact, looking back, I'm arguing against the statement you made in your first post...the one where you didn't include the qualifier you are now adding.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

He seemed to be clearly saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Yes, the gospel, the good news that Christ would die for man's sins.  Don't twist the word of God to your own destruction simply because you don't like what it says.[/quote]

I'm reading through Mark right now with my kids. You've got half a book to go through before Jesus even mentions His death for the first time... (And it's a "new" thing when He does it which is why the disciples respond like they do.)

 

[Castor Muscular]

Yes, the gospel, the good news that Christ would die for man's sins. 

And was raised again.  It's not good news without that part, because without Jesus being raised, dying for our sins could be good for just this life only.  I'd call that mediocre news at best. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

No lies. This is a frequent topic. I think you've used that qualifier all of three times. You consistently fall back to the error you've been espousing and, after much discussion where people are telling you that you are wrong, you sometimes add "ordinary". Then you fall back to your default position for the next go-around.

From the beginning I have said that Christ alone saves, but He does so through "means".  That is not error for which I will accept correction, for it is the same taught by evangelical <Protestant> orthodox Christians for centuries.  It is clear enough that when I defend the exclusivity of Christ, and call for the proclamation of the gospel as the means for salvation that I mean that in the "ordinary" sense, for I've said it enough that a reasonable person would understand that it need not be repeated in every post I make on the subject. 

I'm not arguing against the statement you made at this one point to CM but the erroneous point you've been making in two simultaneous threads. In fact, looking back, I'm arguing against the statement you made in your first post...the one where you didn't include the qualifier you are now adding.

You persist in sophistry and lies.  I am not just "now adding" it.  Your inability to concede such, given blatant evidence to the contrary, can only be taken as subterfuge.  That doesn't help your credibility on this forum.

I'm reading through Mark right now with my kids. You've got half a book to go through before Jesus even mentions His death for the first time... (And it's a "new" thing when He does it which is why the disciples respond like they do.)

The disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24 were rebuked by Jesus for not knowing the Scriptures well enough.  Christ was making it plain that if they were students of the OT Scriptures (which spoke of Him) they would not have had difficulty with the resurrection.  Christ corrected His disciples many times regarding their ignorance, not only of OT Scriptures, but of their inability to grasp what He was teaching them as He walked with them.  He similarly rebuked Nicodemus for being a teacher but not knowing the nature of the new birth.  So it certainly was not a "new thing" , as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah attests, but it was something difficult for them to grasp for a variety of reasons. 

All that to say.....the gospel has always been the basis for salvation, by faith alone in the promise of God (as far back as the protoevangelion).

And was raised again.  It's not good news without that part, because without Jesus being raised, dying for our sins could be good for just this life only.  I'd call that mediocre news at best. 

But Christ said that Abraham received it and rejoiced, despite the possibility/probability that he didn't fully comprehend the complete scope of the atonement.

 

[Castor Muscular]

But Christ said that Abraham received it and rejoiced, despite the possibility/probability that he didn't fully comprehend the complete scope of the atonement.

You're really reaching.  You have no idea what Abraham comprehended, and neither do I.

Also, Abraham saw it and was glad.  Now, either Abraham saw a preview when he was alive on earth (in which case we don't know what he saw, or whether it included the resurrection), or he saw it after he "died", in which case he needed no evidence and had no doubt of an afterlife. 

In any case, the good news isn't very good without the resurrection. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

You're really reaching.  You have no idea what Abraham comprehended, and neither do I.

Also, Abraham saw it and was glad.  Now, either Abraham saw a preview when he was alive on earth (in which case we don't know what he saw, or whether it included the resurrection), or he saw it after he "died", in which case he needed no evidence and had no doubt of an afterlife. 

In any case, the good news isn't very good without the resurrection.

I'm not reaching at all that the gospel was preached to Abraham.  And the NT is clear that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.  Further, Paul contrasts the work of the law vs the benefit of faith, and does so hearkening to Abraham.  Lastly, the fact that Abraham called the place of Isaac's sacrifice Jehovah Jireh (God WILL provide) speaks to the knowledge of the substitutionary nature of sacrifice, and that it would be provided by God through Abe's seed in the messianic future.

 

[Timothy]

Am I the only one slighty frightened to see disputings regarding salvation, the gospel, and the like?

Reminds me of ...

Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity ...

 

[Castor Muscular]

I'm not reaching at all that the gospel was preached to Abraham.  And the NT is clear that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.  Further, Paul contrasts the work of the law vs the benefit of faith, and does so hearkening to Abraham.  Lastly, the fact that Abraham called the place of Isaac's sacrifice Jehovah Jireh (God WILL provide) speaks to the knowledge of the substitutionary nature of sacrifice, and that it would be provided by God through Abe's seed in the messianic future.

Whatever, dude.  Without the resurrection, the good news is pretty crappy. 

1 Corinthians 15:19 "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."

 

[ALAYMAN]

Whatever, dude.  Without the resurrection, the good news is pretty crappy. 

1 Corinthians 15:19 "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."

Abraham not only heard the gospel (along with all the other pieces of evidence you said "whatever" to) but most certainly had some concept of the resurrection.

Hebrews 11:19  Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

 

[rsc2a]

But Christ said that Abraham received it and rejoiced, despite the possibility/probability that he didn't fully comprehend the complete scope of the atonement.

You're really reaching.  You have no idea what Abraham comprehended, and neither do I.

When your soteriology requires one to know and believe that...

...Jesus was born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried, descended into Hell, was raised again on the third day where He now sits at the right hand of the Father....

....you have to really reach or else you'll throw the entire grouping of OT saints under the salvation bus and watch them get run over. Which is why you have people making idiotic statements like "Abraham not only heard the gospel..." In fact, David "only only heard", Lot "only only heard", Noah "only only heard", Daniel "only only heard", Joseph "only only heard", Ruth "only only heard"....

 

[prophet]

Show me 'Conviction' by the Holy Spirit, please.  Nonsense.  Our own conscience convicts us.  Therefore we are without excuse.

Anishinabe

Joh 16:8  And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Like I said.  Conviction isn't  mentioned.  Reproval is.  Learn English.

Anishinabe

 

[ALAYMAN]

When your soteriology requires one to know and believe that...

...Jesus was born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried, descended into Hell, was raised again on the third day where He now sits at the right hand of the Father....

....you have to really reach or else you'll throw the entire grouping of OT saints under the salvation bus and watch them get run over. Which is why you have people making idiotic statements like "Abraham not only heard the gospel..." In fact, David "only only heard", Lot "only only heard", Noah "only only heard", Daniel "only only heard", Joseph "only only heard", Ruth "only only heard"....

I'll take that as you'd rather get somebody who agrees with you to slap you on your back rather than discussing Scriptures, as I've cited several that prove my point and you've addressed none of them.  I haven't even brought any faithful and reliable commentators opinions on the matter, yet.  Of course if you won't listen to the word of God I'm sure that you won't listen to reasonable explanations of it from evangelical Christians and scholars.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Like I said.  Conviction isn't  mentioned.  Reproval is.  Learn English.

Anishinabe

lol, maybe it's demon possession that causes you to open your mouth and insert your foot?

Heb Strong: H819 H2713 H3198 H5060 H7561

1) to convict, refute, confute
1a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted
1b) by conviction to bring to the light, to expose
2) to find fault with, correct
2a) by word
2a1) to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove
2a2) to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation
2b) by deed
2b1) to chasten, to punish

 

[christundivided]

But Christ said that Abraham received it and rejoiced, despite the possibility/probability that he didn't fully comprehend the complete scope of the atonement.

You're really reaching.  You have no idea what Abraham comprehended, and neither do I.

Also, Abraham saw it and was glad.  Now, either Abraham saw a preview when he was alive on earth (in which case we don't know what he saw, or whether it included the resurrection), or he saw it after he "died", in which case he needed no evidence and had no doubt of an afterlife. 

In any case, the good news isn't very good without the resurrection.

I challenge you to listen to this sermon and say the same thing.

http://oldpathsermons.com/player/?audioid=18&file=GospelPreachedToAbraham.mp3

 

[christundivided]

But Christ said that Abraham received it and rejoiced, despite the possibility/probability that he didn't fully comprehend the complete scope of the atonement.

You're really reaching.  You have no idea what Abraham comprehended, and neither do I.

When your soteriology requires one to know and believe that...

...Jesus was born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried, descended into Hell, was raised again on the third day where He now sits at the right hand of the Father....

....you have to really reach or else you'll throw the entire grouping of OT saints under the salvation bus and watch them get run over. Which is why you have people making idiotic statements like "Abraham not only heard the gospel..." In fact, David "only only heard", Lot "only only heard", Noah "only only heard", Daniel "only only heard", Joseph "only only heard", Ruth "only only heard"....

You really are naive. Surely you've read Hebrew's Chapter 4.

Heb 4:2  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.

Maybe you should consider the source of Hebrew 4:2

Deu 32:20  And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I challenge you to listen to this sermon and say the same thing.

http://oldpathsermons.com/player/?audioid=18&file=GospelPreachedToAbraham.mp3

You're missing the point.  I don't care what Abraham knew or understood. 

The point is that the gospel isn't good news without the resurrection. 

1 Corinthians 15:19 "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."

 

[ALAYMAN]

You really are naive. Surely you've read Hebrew's Chapter 4.

Heb 4:2  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.

Maybe you should consider the source of Hebrew 4:2

Deu 32:20  And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.

Hey now, don't go stealin' aces right out of my pocket like that!

They don't want to deal with Scriptures like those, makes 'em real uncomfortable when confronted with the word of God as it speaks plainly.

You're missing the point.  I don't care what Abraham knew or understood. 

The point is that the gospel isn't good news without the resurrection. 

1 Corinthians 15:19 "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."

But Scriptures are clear that the OT saints in part did understand that there would be a resurrection, as Mary and Martha attest to.  That's why the saducees doctrine was scoffed at.

 

[Castor Muscular]

But Scriptures are clear that the OT saints in part did understand that there would be a resurrection, as Mary and Martha attest to.  That's why the saducees doctrine was scoffed at.

So what? 

This all started when you said the gospel is that Jesus died for our sins.  I merely pointed out that this is not good news without the resurrection.  Then for some strange reason you dragged Abraham into it, and I shouldn't have bothered to respond. 

The fact is, the gospel is not good news without the resurrection.  If there is no afterlife or resurrection, then what do I care if Jesus died for my sins?  Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.  Scripture says exactly that, so I don't know why it's even up for discussion.

 

[ALAYMAN]

So what? 

This all started when you said the gospel is that Jesus died for our sins.  I merely pointed out that this is not good news without the resurrection.  Then for some strange reason you dragged Abraham into it, and I shouldn't have bothered to respond. 

The fact is, the gospel is not good news without the resurrection.  If there is no afterlife or resurrection, then what do I care if Jesus died for my sins?  Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.  Scripture says exactly that, so I don't know why it's even up for discussion.

The OT Jews had a concept of resurrection.  Their revelation was incomplete, but Jesus clearly told the boys at Emmaus that the OT spoke of him.  He called them dimwits for not believing all that the Scriptures teach.  The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is one passage that speaks of a dying servant.  The Bible says that the gospel was preached in the OT, Abraham in particular.  It is clear from Hebrews that Abraham looked at the episode on Moriah as a type, a foreshadowing of Christ, where substitutionary atonement and God's provision would make a way through the Messiah for the resurrection.  That is good news.  Not only were their sins forgiven, but they could know that they would also see their redeemer.  That is extremely relevant to the discussion.  Salvation is through faith in all dispensations.

 

[ALAYMAN]

So what? 

This all started when you said the gospel is that Jesus died for our sins.  I merely pointed out that this is not good news without the resurrection.  Then for some strange reason you dragged Abraham into it, and I shouldn't have bothered to respond. 

The fact is, the gospel is not good news without the resurrection.  If there is no afterlife or resurrection, then what do I care if Jesus died for my sins?  Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.  Scripture says exactly that, so I don't know why it's even up for discussion.

A thought just occurred to me, that we may be talking past each other, so for clarification...

Are you saying that the OT Jews could not benefit from the gospel because Christ had not yet died and resurrected?

 

[rsc2a]

No lies. This is a frequent topic. I think you've used that qualifier all of three times. You consistently fall back to the error you've been espousing and, after much discussion where people are telling you that you are wrong, you sometimes add "ordinary". Then you fall back to your default position for the next go-around.

From the beginning I have said that Christ alone saves, but He does so through "means".  That is not error for which I will accept correction, for it is the same taught by evangelical <Protestant> orthodox Christians for centuries.  It is clear enough that when I defend the exclusivity of Christ, and call for the proclamation of the gospel as the means for salvation that I mean that in the "ordinary" sense, for I've said it enough that a reasonable person would understand that it need not be repeated in every post I make on the subject. 

Even here you are mixing up your terminology. The proclamation of the gospel cannot be the means and then be the ordinary means. Do I need to post that link on proper usage of articles in a sentence again?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I'm not arguing against the statement you made at this one point to CM but the erroneous point you've been making in two simultaneous threads. In fact, looking back, I'm arguing against the statement you made in your first post...the one where you didn't include the qualifier you are now adding.

You persist in sophistry and lies.  I am not just "now adding" it.  Your inability to concede such, given blatant evidence to the contrary, can only be taken as subterfuge.  That doesn't help your credibility on this forum.[/quote]

Tell me...which page did you start talking about "ordinary means"?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I'm reading through Mark right now with my kids. You've got half a book to go through before Jesus even mentions His death for the first time... (And it's a "new" thing when He does it which is why the disciples respond like they do.)

The disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24 were rebuked by Jesus for not knowing the Scriptures well enough.  Christ was making it plain that if they were students of the OT Scriptures (which spoke of Him) they would not have had difficulty with the resurrection.  Christ corrected His disciples many times regarding their ignorance, not only of OT Scriptures, but of their inability to grasp what He was teaching them as He walked with them.  He similarly rebuked Nicodemus for being a teacher but not knowing the nature of the new birth.  So it certainly was not a "new thing" , as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah attests, but it was something difficult for them to grasp for a variety of reasons.  [/quote]

What's your point? Jesus doesn't mention His death till halfway through the book of Mark. He's been doing a lot of preaching. In fact, the text explicitly states He's been teaching the gospel of God...yet strangely, Mark's definition of what that is doesn't match yours. I wonder which one I should go with?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]All that to say.....the gospel has always been the basis for salvation, by faith alone in the promise of God (as far back as the protoevangelion).[/quote]

You clearly don't know what the word "gospel" actually means, do you?