What is the gospel?

[H. Richard]

Actually none of them do. But I guess we are going nowhere with this.

I think I have seen you for what you are. There is no way a person can discuse anything with you because if one says the color is blue you will say it is brown.

You tell me that Jesus did not pay for my sins and then refuse to say what you believe gives you the right to be in heaven. NO, you are just here to argue and that is why I no longer listen to what you say as being worth while. If others believe in anything you say that is their problem, not mine.

 

[justaname]

OK, how about Acts 17:26 — God "has made of one blood all men … That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel for Him though He be not far from every one of us." Or Ecc 3:11 — "God has put eternity in their hearts…" .. in their deepest of desires.

Meanwhile, when Paul speaks of it in Ro 3:10-12, he is citing David in Psa 14:1-2 talking about Gen 6:5. In that passage, Moses was talking about the "sons of men." However, there was a whole line of people from Seth to Noah called in Enos "sons of God." (Gen 4:25)

Regarding repentance, no one is going to repent who doesn't believe .. and no one is going to have faith (really trust God) until they repent and receive the promises of God (until they have proven to themselves that He can be trusted for what He promises) — forgiveness of the soul, justification, regeneration, sanctification of the indwelling Spirit, etc. by which we KNOW that we are the "sons of God."

skypair

Well we disagree in regards to total depravity. I did comment previously on the Acts passage. Your explanation of the "sons of men" I do not agree with either, and I don't see the correlation. Perhaps you are stating the Sethic line was the only surviving line? Yet we do know the Nephilim were in the land of Canaan when it was being conquered. This can be accounted for through the wives of the flood survivors, yet it seems the line saught to be extinguished remained. Thus it is difficult for me to believe God was seeking to destroy one line "sons of men" and preserve another line "sons of God" only to fail.

To the rest I think we are in agreenment...which is more consistent with the thread. If you desire to converse more on the topics of total depravity and the sons of God feel free to start a thread I would be happy to join in the discussion!

Shalom.

 

[Mungo]

I think I have seen you for what you are. There is no way a person can discuse anything with you because if one says the color is blue you will say it is brown.

You tell me that Jesus did not pay for my sins and then refuse to say what you believe gives you the right to be in heaven. NO, you are just here to argue and that is why I no longer listen to what you say as being worth while. If others believe in anything you say that is their problem, not mine.

Where did I say that Jesus did not pay for our sins? It's you said he did.

But both you and FHII seem to be missing the point of this discussion.

Let's go back to the beginning.

Back in post #7, you stated
"The gospel is what Jesus did on the cross, on our behalf, to pay for our sins of the flesh."

As you have discovered the phrase " pay for our sins" does not appear in the Bible. So, quite reasonably I thought, I asked in post #10- What do you mean by "pay for our sins"?

And in post #15 - You still haven't explained what you mean by "PAY for our sins".

And in post #21- Illogical questions since you haven't explained what you mean by "pay for our sins".

And in post #23 - But it seems you do not know what you mean by "pay for our sins".

And in post #27 - So again, what do you mean by "pay for our sins"?

I didn't ask for tons of scripture. I just asked what you meant by the unbiblical expression "pay for our sins" But it seems you cannot explain what you meant by it.

 

[lforrest]

Actually none of them do. But I guess we are going nowhere with this.

The first three quoted certainly do refer to Jesus paying the price for our sins. The price is his shed blood.

 

[Mungo]

The first three quoted certainly do refer to Jesus paying the price for our sins. The price is his shed blood.

They say you were bought. They say nothing about paying for sins.

But as I said in my previous post - all I'm looking for is what H. Richard meant buy the phrase HE posted "paid for our sins"

 

[lforrest]

They say you were bought. They say nothing about paying for sins.

But as I said in my previous post - all I'm looking for is what H. Richard meant buy the phrase HE posted "paid for our sins"

I see, Isaiah 53:8 would show that.

 

[Mungo]

I see, Isaiah 53:8 would show that.

Not only does it not use the term "paid for our sins", and therefore not explain it, how do you know that your interpretation of Is 53:8 is what H. Richard had in mind?

I would give up here except that H. Richard will claim that I'm ducking out because I lost the argument.

 

[FHII]

Where did I say that Jesus did not pay for our sins? It's you said he did.

But both you and FHII seem to be missing the point of this discussion.

Let's go back to the beginning.

Back in post #7, you stated
"The gospel is what Jesus did on the cross, on our behalf, to pay for our sins of the flesh."

As you have discovered the phrase " pay for our sins" does not appear in the Bible. So, quite reasonably I thought, I asked in post #10- What do you mean by "pay for our sins"?

And in post #15 - You still haven't explained what you mean by "PAY for our sins".

And in post #21- Illogical questions since you haven't explained what you mean by "pay for our sins".

And in post #23 - But it seems you do not know what you mean by "pay for our sins".

And in post #27 - So again, what do you mean by "pay for our sins"?

I didn't ask for tons of scripture. I just asked what you meant by the unbiblical expression "pay for our sins" But it seems you cannot explain what you meant by it.

Mungo,

Who ever said Richard was quoting tje Bible? As was demonstrated, his paraphrase was right. He gave you scriptire. I gave you scripture. End of story.

No one stated it was a direct quote from the Bible. You simply made that point a big deal. Thus.... You appear just to br arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Mungo]

Mungo,

Who ever said Richard was quoting tje Bible? As was demonstrated, his paraphrase was right. He gave you scriptire. I gave you scripture. End of story.

No one stated it was a direct quote from the Bible. You simply made that point a big deal. Thus.... You appear just to br arguing for the sake of arguing.

I don't know who said he was quoting from the Bible.
It wasn't me. I didn't say he was quoting from the Bible.
That's obvious since the phrase is not in the Bible. So giving scripture was a waste of time.

You can call it a paraphrase. I call it unbiblical.

Whatever we call it all I asked him was what he meant by it.

It seems he doesn't know what he meant by it.

 

[lforrest]

I don't know who said he was quoting from the Bible.
It wasn't me. I didn't say he was quoting from the Bible.
That's obvious since the phrase is not in the Bible. So giving scripture was a waste of time.

You can call it a paraphrase. I call it unbiblical.

Whatever we call it all I asked him was what he meant by it.

It seems he doesn't know what he meant by it.

Unbiblical implies the concept isn't in scripture. It is there if you do a bit of hermeneutics.

 

[FHII]

I don't know who said he was quoting from the Bible.
It wasn't me. I didn't say he was quoting from the Bible.
That's obvious since the phrase is not in the Bible. So giving scripture was a waste of time.

You can call it a paraphrase. I call it unbiblical.

Whatever we call it all I asked him was what he meant by it.

It seems he doesn't know what he meant by it.

You got a lot of nerve.... Very little Catholic doctrine is Biblical.

 

[kerwin]

You got a lot of nerve.... Very little Catholic doctrine is Biblical.

Actually, a fair amount of their moral code is but they do not teach the gospel correctly. It is almost like a new Law of Moses.

 

[skypair]

Well we disagree in regards to total depravity.

Well, think about this: Did it really matter that you were guilty of Adam's sin or were depraved to the core when you heard the gospel, believed it, repented, and were saved? i'm suspecting that you were guilty of your own sins by that time and the Spirit didn't convict you of Adam's sin, right? It was your sin that had to be dealt with, right? had to be "reconciled to God" and His righteousness (2Cor 5:20). So how did you deal with it?

skypair

 

[H. Richard]

Since the word ""RAPTURE"" is not in the Bible Mungo will say the the concept is not in the Bible. But the word is short for ""CAUGHT UP."" -- The concept is the same.

The simple fact, as I understand them, is that the RCC has usurped the power of Jesus' work on the cross and placed their church as a step to get into heaven and in doing so place their church between man and God. That means that mankind has to worship the RCC church and all it's rituals and theology and plce their faith in the hands of men that are just like the Pharisees in the time of Jesus.

Just as the Pharisees plotted murder to kill Jesus the RCC plotted the murder of those that did not conform to the RCC doctrine and killed them during the Inquisition.

No religious entity that plots murder is of God.

 

[Dcopymope]

Since the word ""RAPTURE"" is not in the Bible Mungo will say the the concept is not in the Bible. But the word is short for ""CAUGHT UP."" -- The concept is the same.

The simple fact, as I understand them, is that the RCC has usurped the power of Jesus' work on the cross and placed their church as a step to get into heaven and in doing so place their church between man and God. That means that mankind has to worship the RCC church and all it's rituals and theology and plce their faith in the hands of men that are just like the Pharisees in the time of Jesus.

Just as the Pharisees plotted murder to kill Jesus the RCC plotted the murder of those that did not conform to the RCC doctrine and killed them during the Inquisition.

No religious entity that plots murder is of God.

I guess God isn't against homosexual behavior since the word isn't in the Bible going by that logic, or lack thereof.

(Matthew 24:30-31) "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. {31} And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

(Matthew 24:40-41) "Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. {41} Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

I wonder where the anti rapture folk believe they will be "gathered together" and "taken" before God pours out his wrath on earth? Will we be taken to Foreman Mills? The White house? How about North Korea? Will it be a cave? Israel? Just wondering, because it compares the day of the Lord to Noah gathering his family to seek refuge in the ark while God waterboarded the earth. So it makes it clear that while God is curb stomping the earth, we are going to be taken somewhere out of the way.

 

[Mungo]

Since the word ""RAPTURE"" is not in the Bible Mungo will say the the concept is not in the Bible. But the word is short for ""CAUGHT UP."" -- The concept is the same.

The simple fact, as I understand them, is that the RCC has usurped the power of Jesus' work on the cross and placed their church as a step to get into heaven and in doing so place their church between man and God. That means that mankind has to worship the RCC church and all it's rituals and theology and plce their faith in the hands of men that are just like the Pharisees in the time of Jesus.

Just as the Pharisees plotted murder to kill Jesus the RCC plotted the murder of those that did not conform to the RCC doctrine and killed them during the Inquisition.

No religious entity that plots murder is of God.

 

[H. Richard]

***
Mungo, I my book you are an [removed]. You do nothing to proclaim the work of Jesus on the cross. You build your ego by trying to deride me for saying Jesus paid for our sins on the cross leaving the idea that He didn't. That is [removed] you take away the glory that belongs to Jesus who gave His life to pay for our sins. In my opinion you insult the Spirit of grace.

Heb 10:29
29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
NKJV

I have yet to hear you say how your sins are paid for but I can guess that your RCC priest is supposed to do that. If so then you are placing your faith in your RCC, not Jesus.

 

[Mungo]

***
Mungo, I my book [removed]. You do nothing to proclaim the work of Jesus on the cross. You build your ego by trying to deride me for saying Jesus paid for our sins on the cross leaving the idea that He didn't. That is [removed] you take away the glory that belongs to Jesus who gave His life to pay for our sins. In my opinion you insult the Spirit of grace.

Heb 10:29
29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
NKJV

I have yet to hear you say how your sins are paid for but I can guess that your RCC priest is supposed to do that. If so then you are placing your faith in your RCC, not Jesus.

H. Richard,

I have not derided you for saying that Jesus paid for our sins. All I have done is ask you to explain what you mean by that (see post #48). I have had to do so repeatedly because you just will not reply to that.

In post #33 I offered to leave it at that but you chose not to - accusing me of doing so because I had lost the argument.

Now you choose to make personal attacks, calling me the anti-christ and saying I have no faith in Jesus. Making ad hominem attacks does not help your arguments.

 

[Angelina]

I asked in post #10- What do you mean by "pay for our sins"?

And in post #15 - You still haven't explained what you mean by "PAY for our sins".

And in post #21- Illogical questions since you haven't explained what you mean by "pay for our sins".

And in post #23 - But it seems you do not know what you mean by "pay for our sins".

And in post #27 - So again, what do you mean by "pay for our sins"?

I didn't ask for tons of scripture. I just asked what you meant by the unbiblical expression "pay for our sins" But it seems you cannot explain what you meant by it.

The NKJV, HCSB, NASB, ESV uses the term ~ Propitiation in Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 1 John4:10 http://www.theopedia.com/propitiation

The NIV, NRSV, uses the term ~ Atonement
http://www.theopedia.com/atonement

The KJV uses the term ~ To make Reconciliation
http://www.theopedia.com/reconciliation

The AMP says:
7 Therefore, it was essential that He had to be made like His brothers (mankind) in every respect, so that He might [by experience] become a merciful and faithful High Priest in things related to God, to make atonement (propitiation) for the people’s sins [thereby wiping away the sin, satisfying divine justice, and providing a way of reconciliation between God and mankind].

 

[H. Richard]

H. Richard,

I have not derided you for saying that Jesus paid for our sins. All I have done is ask you to explain what you mean by that (see post #48). I have had to do so repeatedly because you just will not reply to that.

In post #33 I offered to leave it at that but you chose not to - accusing me of doing so because I had lost the argument.

Now you choose to make personal attacks, calling me the anti-christ and saying I have no faith in Jesus. Making ad hominem attacks does not help your arguments.

***
Don't forget that it was your trying to put me on the spot that has caused the responces I have given. If you hadn't tried to elevate yourself my replies would have been different. You could have just explained that the word paid/pay is not used but that other words that meant the same thing are used. But you just wanted to argue and you got one.

The children of God have placed their faith in the fact that Jesus paid (attoned) for their sins on the cross. Don't you think that to allude, in any way, that He didn't is being anti-christ? That is what your silly arguement has produced.

In the RCC a person goes to a Preist and confesses his/her sins and the Preist tells them what they can do to pay (attone) for those sins. Sins that were already paid for by Jesus on the cross. This is indicating that Jesus did not pay for those sins which, in my book, is denying that that Jesus paid (attoned) for the sins of the whole world. That is what I think.