Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Preaching the Gospel of God's Grace in Salvation !
In order to show the full extent of what the Gospel is and to show His People that the gospel of the good news of salvation is not limited to the person and work of Christ, but includes also the Father and the Work of the Spirit, who they are and what they have done, hence, this is the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Now Christ is most certain in the Gospel, the very core of the Gospel is His Person and work, and none are saved apart from His work of the Cross, but the Gospel of the Kingdom deals not only with what was done by Grace through Christ, but also what is done through Grace by the Father and the Blessed Spirit too.
Christ work Justifies, the Father's choosing who was to be Justified by the blood of Christ, and the Spirit quickens or gives Life to all whom the Father has chosen, and the Son died for and Justified by His blood. Rom 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
The Plan is complete and should not be restricted to one Person in the Godhead, because it can be only the complete plan of redemption by grace, and hence the Gospel of salvation by grace, when the entire work of the Trinity or Godhead is made known.
The Gospel that Jesus had sent the Apostles to preach was not centered on believing on Christ's person or receiving forgiveness of sins through his sacrifice.
In Luke 9:2, 6, 10, 11... Christ sent out his disciples "to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick…. So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere." When the Apostles returned, Christ took them to a deserted place. "But when the multitudes knew it, they followed him; and he received them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who had need of healing."
According to Jesus' example and instructions, preaching the gospel is preaching about the Kingdom of God!
Then, in verse 18-19, when he was alone with His disciples, Christ asked: "Who do the crowds say that I am?" They answered, "John the Baptist, but some say Elijah; and others say that one of the old prophets has risen again."
Matthew 16:15-17 contains a more complete passage paralleling this account: "He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' And Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven'"
Clearly, Christ had not even told His own disciples this yet. But Jesus had already sent them out preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Notice verse 20: "Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ."
The reason He commanded this is that he did not want to be crucified prematurely. But what is absolutely certain from this verse is that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God cannot be a simple proclamation stating that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. For we have just seen in Luke 9:11 that they had already been preaching the Gospel, but obviously had not told the people that Jesus was the Christ!
Some might say... Yes, but perhaps the Gospel preached by Christ and his Apostles was about the fact that the Messiah had to die for our sins and be resurrected, minus the actual identity of that Messiah. To answer that, look at what happened after Peter recognized that Jesus was the Messiah, as recorded in Mark 8:30-33
"Then he strictly warned them that they should tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when he had turned around and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, 'Get behind me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.'"
It was only after Peter's recognition of Jesus as the Christ that Jesus began to teach his disciples about His coming crucifixion and resurrection. But Peter did not receive this teaching very well at this point. So it ought to be plain as day that a proclamation of Jesus, as Christ crucified, was not a part of the Gospel that Christ had previously sent Peter out preaching!
To further illustrate this, look at the same event as recorded in Luke 9:18–22... Christ instructed the Apostles that he would die and be resurrected. But, evidently much later, they still did not get it! Christ said to His disciples, "Let these words sink down into your ears, for the Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men. But they did not understand this saying, and it was hidden from them so that they did not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask Him about this saying" (verses 44–45).
Yes, Jesus Christ is the most important Person ever to have walked the earth, he was indeed God in the flesh, the Son of God, who came as the Christ to give his life to atone for the sins of mankind, and he has been resurrected to be the Savior of the world. All of this is true, and although it is extremely necessary, none of this is the sole focus of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God!
It was only after Jesus was resurrected that he added this element to the message the Apostles were to preach: "And he the risen Jesus opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then he said to them, 'Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things'" (Luke 24:45–48).
The name of Jesus Christ, that is, his true name, comprises who he is, what he has done for us and everything he has taught, commanded and stood for. This essential information was added, to be taught alongside the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Look at the preserved biblical account of the preaching of the early evangelists and Apostles, years after Christ's death.
Read what Philip preached in Samaria. "But when they believed Philip as he preached 1.) the things concerning the kingdom of God and 2.) the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized" (Acts 8:12).
The true Church is to preach both elements: first, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, andsecond,the true name of Jesus Christ.
Excerpts from "Do you believe the True Gospel?" by RC Meredith
The Gospel that Jesus had sent the Apostles to preach was not centered on believing on Christ's person or receiving forgiveness of sins through his sacrifice.
False !
The Gospel began to be preached in Gen 3:15 regarding the coming seed that was to bruise the head of the serpent. The Gospel was preached to Abraham in Gen 12:1-3 , Paul says that God Preached the Gospel unto Abraham Gal 3:8
8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
The faithful in Christ day believed this Gospel and looked forward to the promise seed, to include John the Baptist Father Zacharias who spake these inspired words:
Lk 1:
67And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: see Rom 1:1-2
1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
This is referring to the seed of the woman prophesied in Gen 3:15
71That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, [Gen 12:3]
74That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
76And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission [forgiveness] of their sins,
Now, Johns Father knew who Jesus was, and the salvation and remission of sins He would provide His Covenant People, and He knew His Son John role, and I am sure He taught John and encouraged him in the things of the Lord. So John the Baptist Preached the same Gospel that was preached to Abraham Gen 12:3, that was preached in the garden.
Your reasoning is false , The Apostles preached the same Gospel, only with more up to date understanding, Illumination and clarity.
The Gospel is the fullfillment of the promise of God thru Jesus Christ...ie...The Power of God for the Salvation of Mankind thru the atoning sacrifice of calvary and ressurection of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin.....It is the free gift of God given out of love for all who will humbly "repent", "accept" and "believe". We can choose to accept the Gospel or reject Christ....But our decision will have eternal consequences.
I don't reject christ, I just don't know him. I didn’t choose to be an atheist, because I am without belief by default. I don't "choose" my beliefs. My beliefs evolve from a combination of experiences and/or evidence which convince me that something is logical or reasonable to believe in. Just because your (theists’) claims have not convinced me to leave this default state does not mean I have made any kind of "choice" to be what I already am. I would have to have convincing evidence for me to leave the state of unbelief.
If I could “choose†my beliefs based on my desires, then my “choice†is to believe in god. After all, my parents believe, my friends believe, I have always wanted to believe. Why wouldn't one want to believe? Who would purposely send themselves to hell? Don't you know how crazy that sounds? However, there is only one problem......my choice does not match up to my actual beliefs. I can't make myself actually believe in god. My beliefs are arrived at based on something convincing me of its truth. I cannot just choose to believe out of the blue. Nothing has convinced me yet of god's existence, so I do not currently believe. It doesn’t matter if I “want†to believe in god (which I do), because my beliefs aren’t arrived at based on what I “want†to believe in. Heck, there are some things that I believe in that I would rather not believe, but have no choice based on the overwhelming evidence.
Even if someone were to offer me 10 million dollars to believe that I was a porcupine, for example, I couldn't make myself actually believe. Would I want to believe it? Heck yeah! Could I “try†to believe? Yes! Could I pretend to believe it? Sure! But would I actually believe it? No. Like I said before, wanting to believe something does not change the fact that I do not actually believe it.
I don't reject christ, I just don't know him. I didn’t choose to be an atheist, because I am without belief by default. I don't "choose" my beliefs. My beliefs evolve from a combination of experiences and/or evidence which convince me that something is logical or reasonable to believe in. Just because your (theists’) claims have not convinced me to leave this default state does not mean I have made any kind of "choice" to be what I already am. I would have to have convincing evidence for me to leave the state of unbelief.
If I could “choose” my beliefs based on my desires, then my “choice” is to believe in god. After all, my parents believe, my friends believe, I have always wanted to believe. Why wouldn't one want to believe? Who would purposely send themselves to hell? Don't you know how crazy that sounds? However, there is only one problem......my choice does not match up to my actual beliefs. I can't make myself actually believe in god. My beliefs are arrived at based on something convincing me of its truth. I cannot just choose to believe out of the blue. Nothing has convinced me yet of god's existence, so I do not currently believe. It doesn’t matter if I “want” to believe in god (which I do), because my beliefs aren’t arrived at based on what I “want” to believe in. Heck, there are some things that I believe in that I would rather not believe, but have no choice based on the overwhelming evidence.
Even if someone were to offer me 10 million dollars to believe that I was a porcupine, for example, I couldn't make myself actually believe. Would I want to believe it? Heck yeah! Could I “try” to believe? Yes! Could I pretend to believe it? Sure! But would I actually believe it? No. Like I said before, wanting to believe something does not change the fact that I do not actually believe it.
I realized after many, many torturous years that I believed only out of fear. My logical side kept arguing and arguing with me until it finally won out. I only have hope that there is a being who loves, who is trying to teach the human race higher ways, and all will be righted in the end. I don't know what kind of believer that makes me, exactly.
No, one can't truly believe in something just because they're threatened (even with eternal damnation. Lol).
I realized after many, many torturous years that I believed only out of fear. My logical side kept arguing and arguing with me until it finally won out.
See? I don't get that. I don't see what people's wants/desires/fears have to do with actually being convinced by evidence of something's existence. None of that should matter as to whether or not something actually exists. I could think of god as the meanest SOB in the world, unworthy of praise, but if I were convinced of his existence, what I felt about him wouldn't matter because I would be convinced to believe that he existed. Likewise, there are some things that I believe in that I would rather not believe, but have no choice based on the overwhelming evidence. Take for example, O.J Simpson. I always liked OJ, thought he was a great football player, and felt he was quite personable and funny in the airplane movies. I didn't want to believe that he was guilty of murder! Even though the criminal courts found him not guilty of murdering his wife, I couldn't help but believe that he was guilty based on the evidence that I was exposed to. Still another example was concerning my favorite uncle. He was a great guy, so much fun, and always there to help. I found out years later that he molested the little girl across the street. I didn't want to believe that my uncle was a molester, but after hearing the evidence against him, I had no other choice.
Quote:
I only have hope that there is a being who loves, who is trying to teach the human race higher ways, and all will be righted in the end. I don't know what kind of believer that makes me, exactly.
Hoping that a god exists does not make you a believer. As an atheist, I too hope that there is a god out there. That does not mean that I currently believe that a god does in fact exist. How would I know? I have not had any experience of such a god and have not (yet) been provided with any convincing evidence of one, so how could I believe? However, I am always open to the possibility!
Quote:
No, one can't truly believe in something just because they're threatened (even with eternal damnation. Lol).
Agreed. That is not belief.
Last edited by mythunderstood; 06-04-2011 at 06:25 PM..
The Plan is complete and should not be restricted to one Person in the Godhead, because it can be only the complete plan of redemption by grace, and hence the Gospel of salvation by grace, when the entire work of the Trinity or Godhead is made known.
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Election as in the election of grace Rom 11:5-6, was due to God's purpose and grace, as well as every other aspect of salvation. Christ's work, his redeeming death, imputation of righteousness was due to the purpose and grace of God, and so was the regenerating work of the Spirit Titus 3:5-7; hence no part of salvation could have occurred without the Grace of God, James states in James 1:18, so whatever part of salvation is due to God's will, purpose and grace, should be in the Gospel, the word of Truth.
For when the Gospel of the Grace of God is rightly taught in the whole counsel of God, from election to glorification, it gives no room for man to boast.
For man to have been saved by Grace through Faith, man had to be elected by God the Father solely according to Grace Eph 1:4-6; Rom 11:5-7; he had to have a Mediator Saviour to obey the law for him and die for his sins, establishing and imputing to him righteousness, then man had to have a new birth from the Spirit, No salvation could have taken place without these Three facets, and so no true Gospel is preached without these being made known !
For us to fully, properly and biblically believe in Salvation by Grace, one must know of all the doctrines of Grace, for these Grace doctrines are essential to saving Faith [the evidence of it] because each doctrine is mandatory to a proper understanding, that one may see how, and believe why Salvation is all of grace, so thats why they ought be preached as gospel, and why paul says Acts 20:
27For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
God's Salvation plan is a counsel Eph 1:4-13 and the Gospel reveals it.
One must see through Gospel preaching how that Salvation from election to glorification is all by the Sovereign Grace of God. For Salvation is wholly dependent upon the Sovereign Grace of God, and not one iota of it depends on what man must do.
The gospel reveals to us the spiritual condition or state of man by nature, even the elect prior to salvation or conversion Eph 2:1-3 & Rom 1:18-3:20. Therefore the doctrine that teaches the total depravity or inability of men by nature, mans inability to come to God or to even desire the True God or Christ Jn 6:44; Rom 3:11, for this doctrine is essential to teaching the Gospel of God's Grace, it gives criteria in understanding why Salvation must be by Sovereign Grace. Even though we have scripture in Rom 1:
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Yet we cannot overlook 1 Cor 1:
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
The world does not know God experimentally through its wisdom and natural reasoning, no matter how superior, so there is a knowing God theoretically without Knowing Him experimentally.
See? I don't get that. I don't see what people's wants/desires/fears have to do with actually being convinced by evidence of something's existence. None of that should matter as to whether or not something actually exists. I could think of god as the meanest SOB in the world, unworthy of praise, but if I were convinced of his existence, what I felt about him wouldn't matter because I would be convinced to believe that he existed. Likewise, there are some things that I believe in that I would rather not believe, but have no choice based on the overwhelming evidence. Take for example, O.J Simpson. I always liked OJ, thought he was a great football player, and felt he was quite personable and funny in the airplane movies. I didn't want to believe that he was guilty of murder! Even though the criminal courts found him not guilty of murdering his wife, I couldn't help but believe that he was guilty based on the evidence that I was exposed to. Still another example was concerning my favorite uncle. He was a great guy, so much fun, and always there to help. I found out years later that he molested the little girl across the street. I didn't want to believe that my uncle was a molester, but after hearing the evidence against him, I had no other choice.
Hoping that a god exists does not make you a believer. As an atheist, I too hope that there is a god out there. That does not mean that I currently believe that a god does in fact exist. How would I know? I have not had any experience of such a god and have not (yet) been provided with any convincing evidence of one, so how could I believe? However, I am always open to the possibility!
Agreed. That is not belief.
Love your honesty and much of what you have stated is so true.....
And having a heart that is open to the possibility that God exist.... as with my experience of Him, He is always willing to draw and provide that faith to believe that He does..... yet, it is His timing and when it comes it will be a beautiful experience, one that no individual ever regrets !!
Blessings
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Love your honesty and much of what you have stated is so true..... 
