What Is-and Is Not-the Gospel? | Theocast
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 01. 2021
- There are a number of things discussed in the church as though they are part of the gospel--things like faith, repentance, obedience, and surrendering all to Jesus. But are these things the gospel? The guys have that conversation.
Members' Podcast: The guys have a pastoral conversation about how the gospel isn't about us at all.
Recommended Resources:
"Faith vs Faithfulness: A Primer on Rest" theocast.org/primer
"Safe in Christ: A Primer on Assurance" theocast.org/product-category...
Episode: Law/Gospel theocast.org/law-gospel-disti...
Episode: Assurancetheocast.org/assurance-podcast/
"The Whole Christ" by Sinclair Fergusonamzn.to/2wCGRwM
FOLLOW Theocast:
theocast.org
/ theocast_org
/ theocast.org
/ theocast_org
Gospel is being reconciled back to God so we can have a relationship which is the most precious gift and why we were created.
Go 'head Jimmy! Beat that drum of the objectivity of our faith! I use that now when preaching the gospel to ppl. "Not the sincerity, amount, quality or strength of faith.....but the OBJECT! Faith alone in Christ Alone by God's grace alone!"
Amen!
You're confusing the BASIS with the OBJECT. The object of faith is ALWAYS a declarative statement We believe TRUTH, which is always in the form of a statement. The basis, in contrast, is the REALITY of the event.
29:06 honestly it sounds a lot like my own testimony i was a sinner who knew he needed Jesus
Ray Comfort are you listening to this podcast? These truth speaking gentleman have some good truth for you to hear!
There was a recovery ministry I was in where this one guy was always pointed to as "the example" showed up with a ziploc bag full of everything he owned, became a Christian and in 9 months started his own business, bought a truck and all this and it was glorifying his changed life and not the life of Christ. So thank you guys for this episode.
I'm grateful I discovered channel. Learning truth
Love it! Thank you brothers.
Thanks, guys. Gospel Blessings.
When you fall in love with Christ you hate sin
Thankfully we aren't saved by loving God but rather because He first loved us and gave Himself for us.
You guys have some fabulous videos on what the gospel is *not.* But what about what it *is*? Do you guys do street evangelism or ever present the Gospel in such a way that it prompts a response/immediate response? I don't always have the ability to develop *rapport* or present the silent witness. If so, then how could you ever present it while remaining scriptural in such a way that it doesn't seem to indicate that the person has to *do* something? Even believing is a verb. Faith is something that God gives. So, ultimately, it's the finished work of Christ and God has to *faith* that person by the power of the Holy Spirit and then repentance and all the other stuff follows. No matter how it's presented, if it posits a decision at all on the hearers part, it will imply a work that only God does. We know how the gears work behind the scenes. So how would *you* present the Gospel in a way that's scriptural? On the street, on a bus, to a waitress, to a dying man? I've searched your channel and everyone dances around that. Ok, so you've outlined counterfeit/error laden approaches - so what's a correct way(s)? You've heard the illustration that the best way to spot counterfeit money is to know the real thing intimately - not to study the infinite counterfeit possibilities. So give us some good gospel presentations.
4:00 good house example.
I do disagree with the statement that a Christian is the same thing as a disciple. I do believe they are separate. Luke 14:27 and 33 both state that, “this” person can not be my disciple. However, that doesn’t mean that person isn’t saved. We are saved by grace apart from works. Salvation is free. Discipleship is costly. Christian’s are told to count the cost in order to be a disciple.
The thief on the cross was not a disciple. He believed & repented. He also literally picked up his cross & followed Jesus. But I do believe we're supposed to serve Jesus. After all, Lord in Hebrew means Master, Owner, Ruler & Husband. If you look of Strong's Concordance for Baal (the antithesis of Christ), it's very telling.
We don't give PERMISSION, nor CONSENT for the Gospel to be true anymore than we give permission for the Sun to rise.
"Faith" has a subjective meaning: the mental act of believing. But "faith" can also have an objective meaning: the declarative statement or creed believed. So, I agree that the Gospel isn't subjective believing. But it is an objective belief.
Are you guys hypothetical universalist (within the Reformed Tradition)?
I know you guys do not like Joseph Prince because of his association brushing shoulders with easy believing and prosperity gospel preachers. I believe this little clip he produced was an outstanding portrayal of what was happening at Calvary. In all the Jesus Christ passion movies such as Mel Gibson's the Passion of the Christ and King of Kings The Greatest Story Ever Told, Jesus of Nazareth etc. I think not one of these or any other I have seen has EVER portrayed this most important aspect of Jesus' passion. Though I might criticize it slightly for its lack of intensity and of course it is missing the sinless life the resurrection and ascension and session it is by far THE GOSPEL in terms of what was happening at the passion. I know it is only a 5 minute animation of Calvary but I believe it is very clear what took place at Calvary per se. All the other movies I have ever seen only shows Jesus being put to death at the hands of men with all the cruelty mankind could deliver. If that were all Jesus did, I believe He would have not merely failed at being our Savior but actually becoming a reason for more wrath being poured out on us all. The world delivering its maximum wrath on the Sinless One would only become all the more cause for condemnation of the world and even if Jesus said Father forgive them 9in context of those immediately responsible for crucifying Him) this would only forgive the crime against Jesus and could not by itself spill over to us sinners nor even be sufficient to atone for those immediately crucifying Him. What then did Jesus tell us about fearing God and mankind? Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." COmpared to that second blow delivered by God, what men would do to Jesus was pale in comparison to that suffering. What then was there to deliver us and atone for the one who's wrath we are supposed to fear above all else? I mean here is Jesus on the cross telling God to forgive those particular people from their sin of illegally trying in a kangaroo court condemning slandering persecuting mistreating beating to a pulp crowning with thorns stripping naked and nailing Him to a cross but then exactly how does that atone for you and me and even them and our sins against God that we all have been accumulating as well as Adam's federal and imputed sin to us and his transmitted sin in our genetics and his original sin as well as our lack of righteousness and our spiritual death and our enslavement in sin and our lack of reconciliation . Without this simple but brilliant animation of Joseph Prince's that NAILED IT I believe there could be no eternal salvation for any of mankind nor any provision for us nor them. Somehow just looking at this short video makes me feel better every time I watch it. I do not understand in the least why none of even the best of the Jesus movies made ever GOT IT. czcams.com/video/EFcBBXEVr5I/video.html Now this makes much more sense does it not? Yup. Though I do not despise Jesus' suffering at the hands of wicked evil lost stupid mankind and their governments and laws and believe that has a function for us today (and I would not want to despise it) I would not want to face God without the implications of the Animation of Joseph Prince. I mean the real bite of our sins are those that were offenses we committed against God not those that mankind may do to us or we do to each other or those done to Jesus Christ by lost men. What then were the greatest sufferings that Christ bore? Those stripes delivered to Him at the hands of men which God told us is not to be dreaded or those committed against God that Jesus told us to DREAD. And in taking our place it is those in particular that if not dealt with would have taken us to Hell it is also those in particular that were BORN by Him as if He were us. It was not that which was coming up from earth that was any where near as dreadful as THOSE STRIPES coming down from Heaven that if He had not born them would have damned us eternally. Do you guys see what i am getting at and why in all the Jesus movies I ever seen was not this aspect mentioned? Well it was sort of hit on during the filming of The Passion of Christ by Mel Gibson by an act of God. You see Jim Caviezal was struck by lightning during the filming of that scene. I mean if you are going to portray the wrath of the atonement in an Jesus Passion video you better not leave out what Joseph Prince got right. czcams.com/video/lNoWaSHV9Zs/video.html To me this was almost like God was making a statement that I have poorly attempted to portray in my comment here.
About 21 minutes in you guys drove off a MODERNIST cliff. The OBJECT of faith is ALWAYS A DECLARATIVE STATEMENT. The object of believing is NOT A PERSON. Jesus is NOT the object of faith.
I can believe "the cat is black." I can't believe "cat."
How about, Jesus saved me? Can you believe that?
@melodysledgister2468 Yes, you can believe a statement. I can believe "cat is black." I can't believe "cat."
Stay on point much of what is said is extraneous to the gospel! Too much levity!
I'm sorry to contradict you, but Ferguson's The Whole Christ was a mess, and probably the least helpful book or article I've ever read on the Marrow Men, and I've read a lot about it. It was a confused presentation, filled with repetition (suggestive of a book pulled together with chapters written over many years), with an absolute boatload of typos, esp in the footnotes, which led me down many dead ends, that drove me to nearly demanding a refund plus damages for the pain and suffering. I don't know why so many have lept on the Fergie bandwagon. He's great with homilies, not so much with treatises, IMESHO. I'm now reading Muller's, "Calvin and the Reformed Tradition," which is pure torture, and I AM a seminary graduate (Fuller, MAT) 2008. (And why can't they make books anymore that don't fall apart if you actually study them, i.e., which are filled with markups, marginalia and various others sources of abuse?)
I am glad I am not the only one who struggled with SF's book. He assumes that his readers understand the historical situation. But, what is wrong with Muller's book? I found it very helpful.
@@davidacharles1962 Short version: Lack of continuity, which is one of Fergie problems. Also has many errors, esp in FNs. More later...
U can't imagine how glad I am to read that some1 else found SF's book a "struggle," to put it mildly. I should have stuck with reading Boston's 1726 treatise on the Marrow Men, which is EASIER to read! AND, The Whole X was a de facto fraud b/c it was promoted as the final word on the Marrow Men but only 20% of the book was devoted to that topic, and the rest of the book was all over the place. Re Muller, I'm only ⅓ my way thru his Calvin's Reformed Theology, (2012) but it is very slow going for 2 reasons. First, I feel compelled to track down every FN, and after I find it, which sometimes takes hours, and I HAVE been searching online with an institutional account since my early seminary days back in 2002, so I'm pretty good at it, in theory anyway. And second, after putting so much effort into tracking down just the right edition that corresponds to the citations, I feel compelled to read the cited sections pretty carefully to satisfy myself that Muller isn't doing fancy footwork with his quotes. So reading a page, plus the corresponding FNs, might take me literally 2 or 3 afternoons. And, after 128 pgs, I'm still having trouble figuring out where Muller stands on the Synod of Dort, and whether he's a 4 pointer or 5 pointer or Amyraldian or Arrminian or God knows what. I figure I should have a good grip on Muller's POV by now, but no?! It's driving me nuts. And then he throws the supra and infra stuff in to boot, just when you think your starting to understand him. He was suggested to me by my history prof at Fuller, Dr Jim Bradley, so I'm giving Muller the benefit of the doubt, and will trudge on, hoping for that moment of clarity that will pull everything suddenly into focus?! : /
@@edfranks It has been a while since I read that particular book by Muller. The thing about RM he will not tip his hand on what he personally believes (BTW I have met him and he is Reformed) but only wants to explain the history. At this, he has no living equal. If you don't yet have his dictionary on Greek and Latin theological terms, you need to be sure that you get that volume! Also, his 4 volumes on Reformed Orthodoxy is a must-have resource if you are going to do any theological (dogmatic really) research. Press on brother!
@@davidacharles1962 Yes, I DO have the dictionary, and I've kinda figured out the Muller is gonna be coy about what he thinks per se, tho I have my own impression given his treatment of various personalities in the story of the development of Reformed theology. And, yes, I do WANT the 4 vol tome of Reformed Orthodoxy but can't afford it and my research days are over. I'm simply trying to learn how we went from Calvin to the current state of Reformed Orthodoxy, and at the same time trying to wade thru the debates over what Calvin "really" thought and what the "correct" definition of Reformed Ortho is today.
As I learned to my consternation in seminary, understanding Luther depends on whose interpretation of Luther you rely upon, and this applies even when reading Luther's own work, as the translation, whether from German or Latin, can vary much depending on who's doing the translating. So, per my standard joke, I entered seminary with about 300 questions on Luther and his theology, and I left seminary with about 3000 new questions!? : )
You sound like you must be a post seminarian? You certainly know your Muller & presumably Calvin to boot. I wanted to push thru to yet another PhD (already PhD, Econ) but I had to settle for MA, Theology, due to chronic disability aggravated by my dotage. So my studies now are self-inflicted, as if I were still pursuing a dissertation?! Sometimes it's torture, but more often it serves a devotional function for me. : )
Paganism has nothing to do with the Bible!
The Gospel is a DECLARATIVE STATEMENT about a PAST EVENT. It's NOT A COMMAND to be obeyed. It's NOT AN OFFER to be accepted (aka decisional).
GRAMMATICALLY, the Gospel is in the indicative mood, not in the imperative mood, and not in an inquiring mood.
The COMMAND to believe is a command. Gosh you guys, get a grammatical clue about IMPERATIVE/INDICATIVE distinction!
Sorry for being a rude, loud mouth. You guys are great. You're right on, but making the grammar point is so important.
We don't RECEIVE the Gospel. It's not an OFFER that we give consent to. Rather, we accept that the declarative statement is true.
Receiving a gift is a legal transaction. It REQUIRES the recipient's legal acceptance in order for the formation of the legal transfer. In contrast, if someone says that the Sun rose this morning, it's a fact whether I "receive" it or not.
For example, I can believe bad news: "Your car just got a dent." I'm not making a deal or receiving a gift when I believe that statement is true.
It’s true, the Bible says “believe.”
Jesus is Lord God Almighty clothed in unsinful humanity and He is the author of *eternal life* to all who trust Him alone for salvation.
Jesus paid for all the sins of all the world at the cross (past, present, and future). That payment is put to your account when you have believed on Christ alone for salvation.
*This means that saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn repent from whatever you trusted in before if indeed you trusted in anything to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.*
Reformed Theology is just another cleverly repackaged version of Calvinism.
Your wrong guys. You do need a Jesus to do AA a get of drinking. It's a spiritual program. You shouldn't say these thing and put people off.
Who cares about a coffee mug joke or Bama or anything else that us not on point!