What is the Gospel?

[Overaged]

I should have asked the question on a separate post because I didn't mean to imply that there was a direct relationship between the first part of the post and that question about Ellen White.

Why did you ask me that question?

[John317]

Why not just stick with the plain language of the Bible for the time being?

I find that reading the NT through in a different translation as often as possible really helps to focus our mind on the main messages of the New Testament.

[John317]

I generally only quote Ellen White's writings to people who believe in her or who are interested in her.

[John317]

Quote:

Overaged: The gospel has to be something that is indisputably recognized as same; and I don't think many of us really know what that is. Is it "the last message of obedience" "the last message of character development," or "the last message of agape?" No. It is "the last message of mercy."

What does this mean when we try to define the gospel?

It seems obvious that you're not one of those who doesn't know what the gospel is.

What, then, is the content of this "last message of mercy"?

Have you presented this content to people on the street, in a bus, on a park bench, or maybe in a jail cell before? If so, what kind of response did you get?

[Overaged]

Why not just stick with the plain language of the Bible for the time being?

I find that reading the NT through in a different translation as often as possible really helps to focus our mind on the main messages of the New Testament.

Of course! One person quotes one verse. The next person quotes another verse; and all say that their verse is better, and somehow supersedes the one someone else uses. "plain words?" Maybe, but not to many. And what is wrong with the Old Testament? I hope you are not saying it does not have the gospel in it.

I think I asked a fair question in the second last post I made.

[Overaged]

Quote:

Overaged: The gospel has to be something that is indisputably recognized as same; and I don't think many of us really know what that is. Is it "the last message of obedience" "the last message of character development," or "the last message of agape?" No. It is "the last message of mercy."

What does this mean when we try to define the gospel?

It seems obvious that you're not one of those who doesn't know what the gospel is.

What, then, is the content of this "last message of mercy"?

Have you presented this content to people on the street, in a bus, on a park bench, or maybe in a jail cell before? If so, what kind of response did you get?

I tried to talk about this earlier, and gave a story about it. Guess you missed that. If you are really interested; I am sure you will find it soon, and then have something more positive to offer on my question about what is the gospel.

[Overaged]

I generally only quote Ellen White's writings to people who believe in her or who are interested in her.

I will quote her to anyone if there is an opportunity, because I find many non-Adventists to actually be more receptive to her writings and what they actually mean; not just what they say.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

This looks like you're thinking strictly in terms of a legal problem. But our problem isn't legal, it's real.

"In Christ" I have everything. My experience doesn't add to it. In Christ I have a new, glorified humanity that I will receive at the 2nd coming. I stand perfect in Him by faith!

Your experience should add to it:

Jesus Christ came to save us by healing us, as the children of Israel, stung with fiery serpents, were cured and lived by looking up to the brazen serpent, Num_21:6-9. In this observe the deadly and destructive nature of sin. Ask awakened consciences, ask damned sinners, they will tell you, that how charming soever the allurements of sin may be, at the last it bites like a serpent. See the powerful remedy against this fatal malady. Christ is plainly set forth to us in the gospel.

If this is not your experience; you don't know the gospel.

[Robert]

Your experience should add to it...

If my experience "adds" to His work then His work is incomplete and incompetent.

Read 1 Cor 1:30 But of Him [God] you [our humanity] are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God--that is, our justification, sanctification and glorification 31 that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord."

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

Why not just stick with the plain language of the Bible for the time being?

I find that reading the NT through in a different translation as often as possible really helps to focus our mind on the main messages of the New Testament.

Quote:

Overaged: And what is wrong with the Old Testament? I hope you are not saying it does not have the gospel in it.

Sure, the OT certainly has the gospel in it, foreshadowed in the sanctuary services and foretold in its prophecies of the coming Messiah. But the NT has the clearest expressions of it, and of course it has the Gospels and Christ, who is Himself the good news incarnate.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Your experience should add to it...

If my experience "adds" to His work then His work is incomplete and incompetent.

Read 1 Cor 1:30 But of Him [God] you [our humanity] are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God--that is, our justification, sanctification and glorification 31 that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord."

[Overaged]

Quote:

John317:

Why not just stick with the plain language of the Bible for the time being?

I find that reading the NT through in a different translation as often as possible really helps to focus our mind on the main messages of the New Testament.

Quote:

Overaged: And what is wrong with the Old Testament? I hope you are not saying it does not have the gospel in it.

Sure, the OT certainly has the gospel in it, foreshadowed in the sanctuary services and foretold in its prophecies of the coming Messiah. But the NT has the clearest expressions of it, and of course it has the Gospels and Christ, who is Himself the good news incarnate.

I don't agree that the Old Testament is not as clear as the New Testament on the gospel. I like your idea about reading "different translations" though. That can be very enlightening. One easy way to do this is at E Sword Live I would like to explore a few verses in different versions with you here; but that will have to wait for next time. I just got home from Church and have miles to go before I post. (again)

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

p:When we are converted, we have the principle of agape written in our hearts and mind.

R:The man of Romans 7 has the law written in his heart.

It doesn't matter to the point that without the Spirit of God we cannot overcome the flesh, as Jack pointed out.

Is what you're trying to do is argue from Romans 7 that being defeated by sin is the normal/expected/only alternative for the Christian? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

[pnattmbtc]

p:This looks like you're thinking strictly in terms of a legal problem. But our problem isn't legal, it's real.

R:"In Christ" I have everything. My experience doesn't add to it. In Christ I have a new, glorified humanity that I will receive at the 2nd coming. I stand perfect in Him by faith!

Again, this looks like you're looking at the problem as simply a legal thing.

What about the question I've been asking you so in regards to being happy in heaven. Do you think a person whose character is such that he doesn't love God or His principles would be happy in heaven? If not, then how does a person obtain a character which is in harmony with God and His principles?

What makes this question so important is the fact that the character does not change at death or the resurrection.

[pnattmbtc]

You have no proof of this character perfectionism you preach...neither of you.

I've simply said that in order to be heaven, one's character must be such that one is in harmony with God and His principles. It appears that you understand this to be "character perfectionism." That seems like an odd conclusion to me. On what basis to you make such a conclusion?

[pnattmbtc]

Sure, the OT certainly has the gospel in it, foreshadowed in the sanctuary services and foretold in its prophecies of the coming Messiah. But the NT has the clearest expressions of it, and of course it has the Gospels and Christ, who is Himself the good news incarnate.

I agree with this. Christ is the clearest expression of the Gospel. "Good News incarnate" is a nice way of putting it.

[Robert]

Quote:

p:When we are converted, we have the principle of agape written in our hearts and mind.

R:The man of Romans 7 has the law written in his heart.

It doesn't matter to the point that without the Spirit of God we cannot overcome the flesh, as Jack pointed out.

There's a world of difference between the man without God and the man with God, but who hasn't learned to walk in the Spirit. There are many Christians who try to say "no" to their nature and fail....Is there any condemnation to those who have accepted their position "in Christ"? No! That's good news....It's bad news to the self-righteous because they think they are deserving of heaven and the folks with Romans 7's experience aren't.

[Robert]

Is what you're trying to do is argue from Romans 7 that being defeated by sin is the normal/expected/only alternative for the Christian? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

My point is that Christians who are failing are saved anyway because they are fully qualified "in Christ". Those who have problems with this are really experiencing the same thing only it's called "self-righteousness" (which is the worst sin in the NT).

You see if the man of Roman's 7 isn't saved then only those who think not, plan not, live not, for themselves are the only ones who will make it.

Funny, I never met anyone who is totally selfless like Christ. Christ never lived for himself to the point of homelessness. He never invested money to receive interest...he never tried to gain his own wealth...build his own portfolio...go to college to make more money....We do that because we are self-centered. Christ never lived the way we live. The best of us are still sinners when compared to Christ. Who are we kidding?

[Robert]

Again, this looks like you're looking at the problem as simply a legal thing.

What about the question I've been asking you so in regards to being happy in heaven.

If you are born again your mind is in harmony with God's agape, while your experience might be opposite.....Why? Because the flesh is stronger than your converted will power. As you begin to learn this and let go of your self-righteous acts then you begin to experience Romans 8....

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

You have no proof of this character perfectionism you preach...neither of you.

I've simply said that in order to be heaven, one's character must be such that one is in harmony with God and His principles. It appears that you understand this to be "character perfectionism." That seems like an odd conclusion to me. On what basis to you make such a conclusion?

Your past posts.....

[Guest]

If you are born again your mind is in harmony with God's agape, while your experience might be opposite.....Why? Because the flesh is stronger than your converted will power.

More babylonian drivel. That would mean that Satan is more powerful than God. You are not to depend on your own will power. The only thing your will is good for, is to choose to get out of the way, and let God make the necessary changes in you.

Php 2:13 For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Jud 1:24 Now unto him who is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

2Ti 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Heb 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[pnattmbtc]

There's a world of difference between the man without God and the man with God, but who hasn't learned to walk in the Spirit. There are many Christians who try to say "no" to their nature and fail....Is there any condemnation to those who have accepted their position "in Christ"?

Do these people have characters such that they would be happy in heaven?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

My point is that Christians who are failing are saved anyway because they are fully qualified "in Christ".

I'm not sure what you mean by "failing." I haven't spoken of this, but have spoken of having a character such that you would be happy in heaven. This involves being in harmony with God and His principles. I'm not saying a person can't fail (Moses failed at the very end of his life, and he was a great man of God; he certainly loved God and His principles).

Quote:

Those who have problems with this are really experiencing the same thing only it's called "self-righteousness" (which is the worst sin in the NT).

I'm not sure what "this" is. What I would have a problem with is the idea that your character doesn't matter, that you can hate God, hate His principles, and still go to heaven.

Quote:

You see if the man of Roman's 7 isn't saved then only those who think not, plan not, live not, for themselves are the only ones who will make it.

Well, of course, these are the only ones who will be in heaven. You can't live for self and go to heaven. You wouldn't be happy there.

Quote:

Funny, I never met anyone who is totally selfless like Christ. Christ never lived for himself to the point of homelessness. He never invested money to receive interest...he never tried to gain his own wealth...build his own portfolio...go to college to make more money....We do that because we are self-centered. Christ never lived the way we live. The best of us are still sinners when compared to Christ. Who are we kidding?

You're not reasoning soundly here.

Quote:

It is God who gives men power to get wealth, and he has ordained that this ability shall be regarded, not a means of gratifying self, but as a means of returning to God his own. With this object, it is no sin to use our capabilities in acquiring means. Money is to be earned by labor. Every youth should be educated in habits of industry. The Bible condemns no man for being rich, if he has acquired his riches honestly. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil. Wealth will prove a great blessing to its possessor if he realizes that it is not his own, but the Lord’s ... (An Appeal to Missions, p. 9)

You take one little snipped from Ellen White, and pay no attention to context, and spin a theory which has no basis in logic, nor in what she actually said. Notice the part which is underlined above: "The Bible condemns no man for being rich."

Regarding being a sinner compared to Christ, of course, this isn't the point. The point is that if we have characters which are out of harmony with God and His principles, we wouldn't be happy in heaven.

[pnattmbtc]

If you are born again your mind is in harmony with God's agape, while your experience might be opposite.....Why? Because the flesh is stronger than your converted will power. As you begin to learn this and let go of your self-righteous acts then you begin to experience Romans 8.

If by "opposite" you mean an occasional fall, I agree. As the SOP puts it, it is not the occasional good deed or misdeed that determines the character, but character is demonstrated by the trend of one's life. A person can be struggling with some sin, be fighting to overcome it, and not be lost; I agree with this. However, a person cannot give himself over to some known sin, developing a character which is selfish, and be happy in heaven. How could this be the case? A person whose character is defined by putting self first wouldn't be happy in heaven. How could that be the case? The principle of heaven is agape.

[pnattmbtc]

I've simply said that in order to be heaven, one's character must be such that one is in harmony with God and His principles. It appears that you understand this to be "character perfectionism." That seems like an odd conclusion to me. On what basis to you make such a conclusion?

R:Your past posts.....

No, I don't think so. I doubt you can quote a single thing from any of my posts to support your conclusion. It's simply a wrong conclusion with no basis of support. If you wish to dispute this, quote something I've written.