"Getting Saved"

[ALAYMAN]

Another FYI, for those who may tend to equivocate on the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel (of the cross)

They also explain why the NT writers can call “the gospel of the cross” the gospel even while retaining the term for the whole complex of good news.
Because the broader blessings of the gospel are attained only by means of forgiveness through the cross, and because those broader blessings are attained infallibly by means of forgiveness through the cross, it’s entirely appropriate and makes perfect sense for the New Testament writers to call forgiveness through the cross—the fountainhead of and gateway to all the rest—”the gospel.”

That’s also why we never see the New Testament calling any other single promise of God to the redeemed “the gospel.” For example, we never see the promise of the new creation called “the gospel.” Nor do we see reconciliation between humans called “the gospel.” But we do see reconciliation between man and God called “the gospel” precisely because it is the one blessing that leads to all the rest.

When Gilbert and DeYoung state the implications of their analysis negatively, here are three of their summaries of what we should avoid:

1.It is wrong to say that the gospel is the declaration that the kingdom of God has come. The gospel of the kingdom is the declaration of the kingdom of God together with the means of entering it.
2.It is wrong to say that the declaration of all the blessings of the kingdom is a dilution of the true gospel.
3.It is wrong to say that the message of forgiveness of sins through the death and resurrection of Jesus is a reduction of the true gospel.

link

 

[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

If you are suggesting that reprove is a synonymn for convict, you don't know English. 

Anishinabe

I'm suggesting that the range of meanings for the word "reprove" includes the concept of "convict"(ion), which is what the contextual application of John 16:8 ought to be.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]Luke 9:6
So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

Interesting...because we know they weren't preaching Christ crucified...

You must really hate Luke 24

Luk 24:25  Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26  Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27  And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Christ called his own disciples "O fools" and "slow of heart"

because they refused to believe ALL THE PROPHETS has spoken of Him.

Read verse 26 rsca.... read it more than twice. How about a dozen times?

Christ then began WHERE? WHERE did Christ begin to remind his disciples of the Truth of the Gospel? Where rsca?[/quote]

Let me make sure I have this straight. The disciples were preaching and teaching (back in chapter 9) something they didn't even know about, something that Jesus had to explain to them (chapter 24)?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I posted a verse from Hebrews 11:19. It details a prophecy or "vision/figure" given to Abraham. Yes, we only read about it in Hebrews 11:19 BUT, it took place with Abraham. I'm sorry you can't recognize this.[/quote]

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

That says nothing about any vision or prophecy...

 

[ALAYMAN]

Even here you are mixing up your terminology. The proclamation of the gospel cannot be the means and then be the ordinary means.

I fail to see anything of signficance in your quibbling here, a true distinction without a difference.  If I had said "only means" then you'd have a point.  As it stands, the only point you have is on the top of your head.

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

Page 1.  Doh.

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?

See my link to the Carson article on the matter of there only being one gospel, from two different foci.

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

You're clearly a bloviating nimrod, but hey, it's a free country.  And again...

See my link to the Carson article on the matter of there only being one gospel, from two different foci.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]I posted a verse from Hebrews 11:19. It details a prophecy or "vision/figure" given to Abraham. Yes, we only read about it in Hebrews 11:19 BUT, it took place with Abraham. I'm sorry you can't recognize this.

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

That says nothing about any vision or prophecy...
[/quote]

Why are you selectively choosing this translation? What translation are you posting?

I hope you do realize that Abraham was a prophet. I bet you didn't even know that did you?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=christundivided]I posted a verse from Hebrews 11:19. It details a prophecy or "vision/figure" given to Abraham. Yes, we only read about it in Hebrews 11:19 BUT, it took place with Abraham. I'm sorry you can't recognize this.

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

That says nothing about any vision or prophecy...
[/quote]

Many commentators disagree.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]Luke 9:6
So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

Interesting...because we know they weren't preaching Christ crucified...
[/quote]

And one last time, see the linked article regarding the two different manners in which the Bible speaks of the gospel.  One in regards to personal individual atonement, and the other to the broader "glad tidings" of how all things will be restored in the kingdom.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]Luke 9:6
So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

Interesting...because we know they weren't preaching Christ crucified...

You must really hate Luke 24

Luk 24:25  Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26  Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27  And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Christ called his own disciples "O fools" and "slow of heart"

because they refused to believe ALL THE PROPHETS has spoken of Him.

Read verse 26 rsca.... read it more than twice. How about a dozen times?

Christ then began WHERE? WHERE did Christ begin to remind his disciples of the Truth of the Gospel? Where rsca?

Let me make sure I have this straight. The disciples were preaching and teaching (back in chapter 9) something they didn't even know about, something that Jesus had to explain to them (chapter 24)?
[/quote]

Do you believe they preached.....

Joh 11:25  Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Do you see anything about a resurrection there?

What do you think Jesus taught his disciples mentioned Luke 24? We know he reminded them of words they had known for years. We know it came from the writings of Moses.

What should they have known and why did Christ call them "slow to believe" when they were depressed over His death?

 

[Torrent v.2]

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.

Do you know know what "gospel" means either? Let me help you out:

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. (Hebrews 4:1-2, ESV)

It really ruins your point when you are so condescending. And I know exactly what you'll do, you will assk me to show you where you are condescending.  It is your way of asking leading questions.  You assume that your hearer doesn't understand your unflawed logic.  You are not THAT SMART.

 

[Timothy]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]Luke 9:6
So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

Interesting...because we know they weren't preaching Christ crucified...

You must really hate Luke 24

Luk 24:25  Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26  Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27  And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Christ called his own disciples "O fools" and "slow of heart"

because they refused to believe ALL THE PROPHETS has spoken of Him.

Read verse 26 rsca.... read it more than twice. How about a dozen times?

Christ then began WHERE? WHERE did Christ begin to remind his disciples of the Truth of the Gospel? Where rsca?

Let me make sure I have this straight. The disciples were preaching and teaching (back in chapter 9) something they didn't even know about, something that Jesus had to explain to them (chapter 24)?
[/quote]

"he sent them out to tell everyone about the Kingdom of God"

My understanding is that this message about the Kingdom isn't the same as the later message - known as the gospel.

The Lord's Prayer says "Thy Kingdom Come" .... this Kingdom still is in the future.

The Disciples expected a physical kingdom, not death of their king. Jesus had to explain why things didn't go the way they expected.

 

[rsc2a]

Even here you are mixing up your terminology. The proclamation of the gospel cannot be the means and then be the ordinary means.

I fail to see anything of signficance in your quibbling here, a true distinction without a difference.  If I had said "only means" then you'd have a point.  As it stands, the only point you have is on the top of your head.

So...do you believe that the proclamation (via hearing or seeing) of the life, death, and resurrection is the only means or the ordinary means? Do you believe there are other ways in which someone might come to salvation?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

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?

See my link to the Carson article on the matter of there only being one gospel, from two different foci.[/quote]

Yes (in this context). And, it's the same Gospel tells us how Noah, Abraham, Moses, and a host of others received salvation, even though they didn't know the fullness of this Gospel.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You're clearly a bloviating nimrod, but hey, it's a free country.  And again...[/quote]

Are you related to Ruckman or do you happen to be a Ruckmanite? Your method of communication appears to be quite similar at times....



[quote author=ALAYMAN]See my link to the Carson article on the matter of there only being one gospel, from two different foci.
[/quote]

They also explain why the NT writers can call “the gospel of the cross” the gospel even while retaining the term for the whole complex of good news. Because the broader blessings of the gospel are attained only by means of forgiveness through the cross, and because those broader blessings are attained infallibly by means of forgiveness through the cross, it’s entirely appropriate and makes perfect sense for the New Testament writers to call forgiveness through the cross—the fountainhead of and gateway to all the rest—”the gospel.”

Yes.

That’s also why we never see the New Testament calling any other single promise of God to the redeemed “the gospel.” For example, we never see the promise of the new creation called “the gospel.” Nor do we see reconciliation between humans called “the gospel.” But we do see reconciliation between man and God called “the gospel” precisely because it is the one blessing that leads to all the rest.

No...it's all the gospel.

When Gilbert and DeYoung state the implications of their analysis negatively, here are three of their summaries of what we should avoid:

1.It is wrong to say that the gospel is the declaration that the kingdom of God has come. The gospel of the kingdom is the declaration of the kingdom of God together with the means of entering it.

I'll trust the Bible on this one. Seems like Matthew and Mark and Luke and... would disagree with them.

2.It is wrong to say that the declaration of all the blessings of the kingdom is a dilution of the true gospel.

Yes. That would be strange. It's especially strange since the author appears to be doing this very thing.

3.It is wrong to say that the message of forgiveness of sins through the death and resurrection of Jesus is a reduction of the true gospel.

That would also be strange. Incomplete perhaps, but not a reduction.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I posted a verse from Hebrews 11:19. It details a prophecy or "vision/figure" given to Abraham. Yes, we only read about it in Hebrews 11:19 BUT, it took place with Abraham. I'm sorry you can't recognize this.

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

That says nothing about any vision or prophecy...

Why are you selectively choosing this translation? What translation are you posting?[/quote]

It's the same translation I always post: the ESV.

[quote author=christundivided]I hope you do realize that Abraham was a prophet. I bet you didn't even know that did you?
[/quote]

Sure, I knew that. It doesn't change the fact that you are claiming things are in the text that just aren't there.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I posted a verse from Hebrews 11:19. It details a prophecy or "vision/figure" given to Abraham. Yes, we only read about it in Hebrews 11:19 BUT, it took place with Abraham. I'm sorry you can't recognize this.

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

That says nothing about any vision or prophecy...

Many commentators disagree.[/quote]

I just checked about ten commentaries, and not one interpreted that to mean Abraham saw a vision or prophecy. Is there some commentator out there? Possibly, but it is not the normal position.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]Let me make sure I have this straight. The disciples were preaching and teaching (back in chapter 9) something they didn't even know about, something that Jesus had to explain to them (chapter 24)?

Do you believe they preached.....

Joh 11:25  Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: [/quote]

No...I don't believe that they preached something they themselves were unaware of.

[quote author=christundivided]Do you see anything about a resurrection there?[/quote]

Yes. I also see Jesus talking, not one of the disciples sent out.

[quote author=christundivided]What do you think Jesus taught his disciples mentioned Luke 24? We know he reminded them of words they had known for years. We know it came from the writings of Moses.

What should they have known and why did Christ call them "slow to believe" when they were depressed over His death?
[/quote]

Again...you are talking about two completely different time periods.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Torrent]It really ruins your point when you are so condescending. And I know exactly what you'll do, you will assk me to show you where you are condescending.  It is your way of asking leading questions.  You assume that your hearer doesn't understand your unflawed logic.  You are not THAT SMART.[/quote]

Asking a question and then providing the answer is a common (and accepted) form of communication, particularly in debate and/or teaching settings.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Timothy]"he sent them out to tell everyone about the Kingdom of God"

My understanding is that this message about the Kingdom isn't the same as the later message - known as the gospel.

The Lord's Prayer says "Thy Kingdom Come" .... this Kingdom still is in the future.

The Disciples expected a physical kingdom, not death of their king. Jesus had to explain why things didn't go the way they expected.[/quote]

It's already...and not yet.

 

[ALAYMAN]

So...do you believe that the proclamation (via hearing or seeing) of the life, death, and resurrection is the only means or the ordinary means? Do you believe there are other ways in which someone might come to salvation?

I believe that reading the gospel would be included in "hearing or seeing".  In addition I believe in the concept of "ordinary means" (though not exactly in the strict reformed sense).  I believe God is sovereign and that He is in charge of the salvation department, so He can do whatever He wishes to do that is within His sovereign holy power.  On the old forum we had this discussion, and it was brought up that some tribes of people claimed to have received visions, dreams, and other means of accepting Christ.  A preacher/evangelist who I respect tremendously (Ravi Zacharias) has claimed personally witnessing or hearing reliable witness of such things.  It is hard to discount such anecdotal evidence.  Having said that, I believe the clarity with which the New Testament speaks of the necessity of the proclamation of the gospel and/or the word of God being instrumental in the salvation of God's elect I put an ultra-premium on the Great Commission.  Otherwise I think we send the hyper-Calvinist message of Mr. Ryland that Mr. Carey rejected regarding his desire to reach the lost of India.

I just checked about ten commentaries, and not one interpreted that to mean Abraham saw a vision or prophecy. Is there some commentator out there? Possibly, but it is not the normal position.

I ran across more on the net yesterday, but with just a quick cursory glance into my on-hand commentaries....here are just a few...
JFB
in a figure — Greek, “in a parable.” Alford explains, “Received him back, risen from that death which he had undergone in, under, the figure of the ram.” I prefer with Bishop Pearson, Estius, and Gregory of Nyssa, understanding the figure to be the representation which the whole scene gave to Abraham of Christ in His death (typified by Isaac’s offering in intention, and the ram’s actual substitution answering to Christ’s vicarious death), and in His resurrection (typified by Abraham’s receiving him back alive from the jaws of death, compare 2Co_1:9, 2Co_1:10); just as on the day of atonement the slain goat and the scapegoat together formed one joint rite representing Christ’s death and resurrection. It was then that Abraham saw Christ’s day (Joh_8:56): accounting God was able to raise even from the dead: from which state of the dead he received him back as a type of the resurrection in Christ.

Gill
rom whence also he received him in a figure; or for an "example" of faith and obedience; or for a "parable or proverb", that such a proverbial expression might be made use of, for the comfort and encouragement of saints in distressed and difficult circumstances, as is in Gen_22:14 or as a type of the death and resurrection of Christ, whose type he was in other things, as well as in this; as in his birth, and the circumstances of it; he was long promised and expected, as Christ

Barnes
From whence also he received him in a figure - There has been great difference of opinion as to the sense of this passage, but it seems to me to be plain. The obvious interpretation is that he then received him by his being raised up from the altar as if from the dead. He was to Abraham dead. He had given him up. He had prepared to offer him as a sacrifice. He lay there before him as one who was dead From that altar he was raised up by direct divine interposition, as if he was raised from the grave, and this was to Abraham a “figure” or a representation of the resurrection


The point of citing these commentators is not to say that their opinion in the matter is absolute, but what it establishes is that there is reasonable opinion based on Biblical evidence that the gospel was indeed knowable via the OT or oral tradition.  The most compelling evidence beyond things like the Abrahamic reference (as well as the Hebrews and others) is that Christ told the Emmaus disciples that the OT told of these things (the death and resurrection namely).

 

[rsc2a]

So...do you believe that the proclamation (via hearing or seeing) of the life, death, and resurrection is the only means or the ordinary means? Do you believe there are other ways in which someone might come to salvation?

I believe that reading the gospel would be included in "hearing or seeing".  In addition I believe in the concept of "ordinary means" (though not exactly in the strict reformed sense).  I believe God is sovereign and that He is in charge of the salvation department, so He can do whatever He wishes to do that is within His sovereign holy power.  On the old forum we had this discussion, and it was brought up that some tribes of people claimed to have received visions, dreams, and other means of accepting Christ.  A preacher/evangelist who I respect tremendously (Ravi Zacharias) has claimed personally witnessing or hearing reliable witness of such things.  It is hard to discount such anecdotal evidence.  Having said that, I believe the clarity with which the New Testament speaks of the necessity of the proclamation of the gospel and/or the word of God being instrumental in the salvation of God's elect I put an ultra-premium on the Great Commission.  Otherwise I think we send the hyper-Calvinist message of Mr. Ryland that Mr. Carey rejected regarding his desire to reach the lost of India.

Those people who would have received dreams or visions would haves still heard... So, I ask again, do you believe there are other ways someone might be saved?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I just checked about ten commentaries, and not one interpreted that to mean Abraham saw a vision or prophecy. Is there some commentator out there? Possibly, but it is not the normal position.

I ran across more on the net yesterday, but with just a quick cursory glance into my on-hand commentaries....here are just a few...
JFB
in a figure — Greek, “in a parable.” Alford explains, “Received him back, risen from that death which he had undergone in, under, the figure of the ram.” I prefer with Bishop Pearson, Estius, and Gregory of Nyssa, understanding the figure to be the representation which the whole scene gave to Abraham of Christ in His death (typified by Isaac’s offering in intention, and the ram’s actual substitution answering to Christ’s vicarious death), and in His resurrection (typified by Abraham’s receiving him back alive from the jaws of death, compare 2Co_1:9, 2Co_1:10); just as on the day of atonement the slain goat and the scapegoat together formed one joint rite representing Christ’s death and resurrection. It was then that Abraham saw Christ’s day (Joh_8:56): accounting God was able to raise even from the dead: from which state of the dead he received him back as a type of the resurrection in Christ.

Gill
rom whence also he received him in a figure; or for an "example" of faith and obedience; or for a "parable or proverb", that such a proverbial expression might be made use of, for the comfort and encouragement of saints in distressed and difficult circumstances, as is in Gen_22:14 or as a type of the death and resurrection of Christ, whose type he was in other things, as well as in this; as in his birth, and the circumstances of it; he was long promised and expected, as Christ

Barnes
From whence also he received him in a figure - There has been great difference of opinion as to the sense of this passage, but it seems to me to be plain. The obvious interpretation is that he then received him by his being raised up from the altar as if from the dead. He was to Abraham dead. He had given him up. He had prepared to offer him as a sacrifice. He lay there before him as one who was dead From that altar he was raised up by direct divine interposition, as if he was raised from the grave, and this was to Abraham a “figure” or a representation of the resurrection


The point of citing these commentators is not to say that their opinion in the matter is absolute, but what it establishes is that there is reasonable opinion based on Biblical evidence that the gospel was indeed knowable via the OT or oral tradition.  The most compelling evidence beyond things like the Abrahamic reference (as well as the Hebrews and others) is that Christ told the Emmaus disciples that the OT told of these things (the death and resurrection namely).[/quote]

No one I know would argue that Isaac was a type of Christ. The fact that he was a type doesn't mean Abraham saw a vision or prophecy (unless you are using a very loose definition for prophecy.

 

[Torrent v.2]

[quote author=Torrent]It really ruins your point when you are so condescending. And I know exactly what you'll do, you will assk me to show you where you are condescending.  It is your way of asking leading questions.  You assume that your hearer doesn't understand your unflawed logic.  You are not THAT SMART.

Asking a question and then providing the answer is a common (and accepted) form of communication, particularly in debate and/or teaching settings.
[/quote]

More condescension.  You just have to correct everyone, don't you?

Why can you not just admit it and try to change. You have exactly 3 people who are willing to put up with you, and one of them is Alayman, himself a condescending jerk.