Self Examination: Do you understand the Gospel?

[Beloved777]

Dear Gr8grace,

Before throwing stones at me, maybe you should examine yourself. I didn't throw any at you. You accused me of claiming that God throws away his children! You put words in my mouth. I have never claimed that. Yes, I use an original King James Bible, and I get flogged for it because everyone says "the KJV is outdated." That's exactly why I like it. It's outdated! Even you went back to the Greek translating "takes away." Well, you prefer outdated texts like me I guess? But where did you find this translation of the words "takes away?" Do you own a Greek Bible and know how to speak it? If I had a Greek Bible and knew Greek, then I would use that, but I don't happen to own a 2000 year old Greek Bible, and no offence, but please don't tell me to, "just look on the internet."

 

[Beloved777]

How do you know the seed sown among thorns even made it to the ground? It was surrounded by thorns. Jesus said they heard, but he never said weather or not they believed.

 

[ForthAngel]

How do you know the seed sown among thorns even made it to the ground? It was surrounded by thorns. Jesus said they heard, but he never said weather or not they believed.

I think the seed sown among the thorns were never saved. They may or may not have believed the word, but regardless, they reject it anyway for fleshly desires. The seed sown on rocky soil are the ones who seem to have some level of belief, but it never takes root and so they fall away. I think people akin to the rocky soil are the ones who play church and like the idea, but never fully embrace the Gospel and submit to Christ in all faith. Hence, "easy believism" opposed to the "lordship salvation" proposed earlier. I believe it's possible to believe in the finished work of Christ and totally believe the bible, but still be lacking a saving faith in Christ. I think faith is more than simple belief, but belief is required to have that faith.

BTW, I never knew what lordship salvation really was until this thread, but it lined up with everything I believe having faith in Christ is. Complete submission to him in all faith and in all aspects of our being. Complete surrender and reliance on him. I think this is biblical faith. But there are those here who make this out to be justification by works when that is not true at all. Good works follow a true saving faith as evidence. Good works are a result of salvation, not the other way around.

 

[Beloved777]

I think you pretty much nailed it ForthAngel. But I think the people associated with the rocky soil truly do believe (for a while). They're excited about the Gospel (the good news) and receive it, but when the time of testing (affliction persecution tribulation) comes about, they walk away much like the rich young ruler. The Bible says these afflictions arise because of the "Word itself." They're fine, until they read or hear a sermon about hell or something, and then are offended by it falling away. Jesus said: "Blessed is he who is not offended in me." To me, it's just so sad. They are like roman candles that light up the sky with enthusiasm but soon go out in a puff of smoke.

 

[ForthAngel]

I think you pretty much nailed it ForthAngel. But I think the people associated with the rocky soil truly do believe (for a while). They're excited about the Gospel (the good news) and receive it, but when the time of testing (affliction persecution tribulation) comes about, they walk away much like the rich young ruler. The Bible says these afflictions arise because of the "Word itself." They're fine, until they read or hear a sermon about hell or something, and then are offended by it falling away. Jesus said: "Blessed is he who is not offended in me." To me, it's just so sad. They are like roman candles that light up the sky with enthusiasm but soon go out in a puff of smoke.

I think they believed as well, but it never took root. I will probably catch a lot of flack for this, but I don't think there is necessarily a single defining moment of salvation at first. I think we arrive at this point through various obstacles. My personal experience testifies to this (for me personally). I professed and believed at around age 13, even though I always believed in God, but I had no real understanding beyond his existence and Jesus' existence. So I fell away and headed out into the world. I was mired deep in sin for the better part of a decade, my conscience tearing me apart inside. I never fully submitted to Christ, so my sin was literally killing me inside and out and the more I hated it, the more I embraced it.

Finally, I was at my wit's end. I had had enough of myself and hated my sin to the point where it was unbearable. Suicide was a valid option for me. So I called out to God one last time. Started reading my bible, begging forgiveness, praying as much as I could. Finally, I was like, "Jesus, I give up. I'm yours if you'll have me. I have nothing to offer you but I would gladly serve you. So I give all of me to you, my mind, my body, my spirit, my life, everything." At this point I went through what I would consider a time of trying my faith. I was instantly bombarded by temptation and false religion and false belief systems. I struggled through it, giving in at times, and other times having these major eye-opening epiphanies. Of course this was paired with constant study and searching, much prayer, and much counsel from fellow Christians. I feel that this was a process of "saving me" and once through the mud and grime came that point of understanding that "saved me".

We know the seeds that fell on good ground heard the word and understood. I think this is the dividing line among true faith and simple belief.

 

[Grace777x70]

"Faith" is the noun form of the verb "believe"......they are the same thing in the original greek..........the verb is the action of the noun

We either have faith and believe or we are faithless and have unbelief.....

 

[Beloved777]

"Faith" is the noun form of the verb "believe"......they are the same thing in the original greek..........the verb is the action of the noun

We either have faith and believe or we are faithless and have unbelief.....

Fair enough. Good post! But can you explain this one to me? And I don't say this to be ugly to you nor do I intend to cast doubt on our Bibles. I don't know what version of the Bible you use, but the original KJV in Luke 17:21 Jesus says this: - "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." But, In the New American Standard Bible and in the English Standard Bible, the text "within you" is changed from the original KJV to "in the midst of you." Now, these have quite different meanings, unless somehow you can explain they don't, but be careful if you attempt it!. Now I ask you: Which of these two underlined texts do you choose to define in English from the original Greek? Because even if you define both in English from the original Greek, you still end up with different meanings for each. Now, I'm not trying to confuse or misguide you. I'm trying to show you that somewhere, something went wrong, and I'll give you a hint. I believe it happened not long before 1900. If I'm studying microphysics, I want the most updated version on the market because new things are constantly being found. But this isn't microphysics. This is The Bible, and God's Word cannot change! Thus, when studying these ancient texts, you want the absolute most prehistoric version in existence. It just so happens that I don't have one of these versions, so I use the Original King James. Unlike modern Bibles, The original KJV translation is over 400 years old. And, men were burned at the stake just so I could have one in English. Obviously, they had something they believed to be supremely precious to us. So, where is your 2000 year old Greek Bible to quote to me in English Luke 17:21? It's ok! I know you don't have one, and I'm not making fun or trying to hurt your feelings. I'm only trying to help you to understand the problem that the rest of us are aware of. Now, if you can refute what I've said, please, be my guest! I will gladly be educated by you. But be careful if you attempt it!

 

[Grace777x70]

Hi,

I will be able to look at your question here when I get back later on today. I don't have time to read it slowly as I can't figure out what this has to do with faith and believe yet....but maybe it does.....what is the problem that the rest of you are aware of?.

Have a great rest of the day.

Fair enough. Good post! But can you explain this one to me? And I don't say this to be ugly to you nor do I intend to cast doubt on our Bibles. I don't know what version of the Bible you use, but the original KJV in Luke 17:21 Jesus says this: - "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." But, In the New American Standard Bible and in the English Standard Bible, the text "within you" is changed from the original KJV to "in the midst of you." Now, these have quite different meanings, unless somehow you can explain they don't, but be careful if you attempt it!. Now I ask you: Which of these two underlined texts do you choose to define in English from the original Greek? Because even if you define both in English from the original Greek, you still end up with different meanings for each. Now, I'm not trying to confuse or misguide you. I'm trying to show you that somewhere, something went wrong, and I'll give you a hint. I believe it happened not long before 1900. If I'm studying microphysics, I want the most updated version on the market because new things are constantly being found. But this isn't microphysics. This is The Bible, and God's Word cannot change! Thus, when studying these ancient texts, you want the absolute most prehistoric version in existence. It just so happens that I don't have one of these versions, so I use the Original King James. Unlike modern Bibles, The original KJV translation is over 400 years old. And, men were burned at the stake just so I could have one in English. Obviously, they had something they believed to be supremely precious to us. So, where is your 2000 year old Greek Bible to quote to me in English Luke 17:21? It's ok! I know you don't have one, and I'm not making fun or trying to hurt your feelings. I'm only trying to help you to understand the problem that the rest of us are aware of. Now, if you can refute what I've said, please, be my guest! I will gladly be educated by you. But be careful if you attempt it!

 

[PeterJens]

the original KJV in Luke 17:21 Jesus says this: - "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." But, In the New American Standard Bible and in the English Standard Bible, the text "within you" is changed from the original KJV to "in the midst of you."

Thank you for this insight. Looking at the greek "entos" talks about the inside of the cup, which cannot mean among the cups, but is specific to cleaning the heart of a person not just the surface.

The Kingdom of God is within you, makes sense in this context. It also makes sense about what Jesus is actually saying.
The Kingdom of God has arrived, in the hearts of believers. This is a strange theology, when you first look at it.
Jesus says some here will not taste death before they see me coming in my Kingdom. Then follows the transfiguration.
The writers are saying Jesus and His kingdom are here today. Why this is profound is because it is saying we can walk in righteousness, in a way acceptable to the Father.

The writers of the KJV believed this. They understood the idea of the Kingdom of God is within you. Today peoples experience of holiness or righteousness, is often superficial and not serious enough. The hyper-grace group are gnostics, and do not believe walking in righteousness is possible, and invent stricter and stricter interpretations of failure, while denying their consciences are saying anything of value. Worse still they would condemn such thoughts as of satan and evil.

What is illuminating is not peoples general opinions but what they hold up as their greatest aspirations. Is it health, wealth and worldly success, or walking with Jesus in communion with the living God.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The writers of the KJV believed this. They understood the idea of the Kingdom of God is within you. Today peoples experience of holiness or righteousness, is often superficial and not serious enough. The hyper-grace group are gnostics, and do not believe walking in righteousness is possible, and invent stricter and stricter interpretations of failure, while denying their consciences are saying anything of value. Worse still they would condemn such thoughts as of satan and evil.

I'm certain that they believe that they are walking uprightly. But they don't believe that it's possible to walk in righteousness with a consciousness of their sin nature, and the concomitant imperative to overcome it. Thus their need for methods to dissociate from what they call sin-consciousness, which essentially means ignoring the voice of their conscience.

This they do by considering the flesh and the body to be separate and distinct. In other words, mental separation is made between the flesh and the body, which allows for the belief that the body is sinless. The sinful flesh, then, simply becomes an idea that is compartmentalized in the mind and discarded (ignored, denied) because it is the old man that was crucified and no longer exists. This process of denying the existence of sinful flesh and identifying only with the incorruptible spirit and sinless body is what 'grace' believers call the renewing of the mind.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament has a good description of this mental dissociation process in which a person only identifies with what they want to be (their identity as the righteousness of GOD), and blots out any consciousness or idea contrary to it (their sin nature).

f. Gnosticism offers a radical solution to the conflict of conscience. It is true that instances are very sparse. But the basic dualistic solution involves a full separation between the two egos. The true I of the Gnostic is identical with the divine world of light, while the other I belongs to the chaotic world and is thus to be abandoned. In the final analysis, then, there is no bad conscience for the Gnostic. Naturally this opens the door not merely to asceticism but also to libertinism.​

Paul talks about the two 'I's mentioned above in Romans 7-8, in which victory is found, not through denial of the sinful flesh's existence, but through not obeying it in grace through faith.

 

[Grace777x70]

Well..I'm not sure what you want here...but "in the midst" just means in the middle of you....so it's like "within you"....to me it means the kingdom of God is inside of us in our spirit now as new creations in Christ.

1.
the middle point or part.
[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"][/TD]
[TD]middle, center, heart, core, midpoint, kernel, nub;


the kingdom of God is within you," meaning it is located in your heart and affections, not external).
Complete Word Study Dictionary, The - The Complete Word Study Dictionary – New Testament.

[FONT="Galatia Sil" !important]εντος[/FONT][/COLOR] [URL="http://www.crossbooks.com/book.asp?strongs=G1787"]<G1787>[/URL], adverb ((from [FONT="Galatia Sil" !important]εν[/FONT][/COLOR]), [COLOR=blue][FONT="Galatia Sil" !important]οπποσεδ το εκτος[/FONT][/COLOR]), “within, inside”: with the genitive [COLOR=blue][FONT="Galatia Sil" !important]εντος ὑμων[/FONT][/COLOR], “within you,” [I]i.e.[/I] “in the midst of you,” [URL="http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Lk+17%3A21"]Luke 17:21[/URL] (
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.



[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Fair enough. Good post! But can you explain this one to me? And I don't say this to be ugly to you nor do I intend to cast doubt on our Bibles. I don't know what version of the Bible you use, but the original KJV in Luke 17:21 Jesus says this: - "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." But, In the New American Standard Bible and in the English Standard Bible, the text "within you" is changed from the original KJV to "in the midst of you." Now, these have quite different meanings, unless somehow you can explain they don't, but be careful if you attempt it!. Now I ask you: Which of these two underlined texts do you choose to define in English from the original Greek? Because even if you define both in English from the original Greek, you still end up with different meanings for each. Now, I'm not trying to confuse or misguide you. I'm trying to show you that somewhere, something went wrong, and I'll give you a hint. I believe it happened not long before 1900. If I'm studying microphysics, I want the most updated version on the market because new things are constantly being found. But this isn't microphysics. This is The Bible, and God's Word cannot change! Thus, when studying these ancient texts, you want the absolute most prehistoric version in existence. It just so happens that I don't have one of these versions, so I use the Original King James. Unlike modern Bibles, The original KJV translation is over 400 years old. And, men were burned at the stake just so I could have one in English. Obviously, they had something they believed to be supremely precious to us. So, where is your 2000 year old Greek Bible to quote to me in English Luke 17:21? It's ok! I know you don't have one, and I'm not making fun or trying to hurt your feelings. I'm only trying to help you to understand the problem that the rest of us are aware of. Now, if you can refute what I've said, please, be my guest! I will gladly be educated by you. But be careful if you attempt it!

 

[PoetMary]

I think my question suits this board since it involves understanding what grace is.

Do you think that preaching hellfire results in people who convert for the sake of fire insurance?

Some have mentioned in here that they had rocky journey to God. Maybe they converted at a young age and then fell away for a time until their life fell apart and they came back to God.

I'm curious about these kinds of stories. I find that many of them stem from a conversion based on fear. People say "yes" to God because they fear hellfire. It takes an enormous amount of energy to sustain fear. Over time, people forget to be afraid of hellfire, so they move onto sinning. When they eventually return to God, it's usually with enough wisdom and experience to appreciate the LOVE of Jesus and to love Him in return.

So, back to my original question. Do you think the "hellfire" angle is really the best angle for seed-sowing? I obviously have my own opinions. I think it's much more useful to show people Jesus and have them fall in love with who Jesus is. However, I know my experience is limited, so I'm curious about the stories of others and how this fits in with our understanding of grace.

I guess what I mean is, should we focus on what grace saves us from, or more on what grace saves us FOR (and for whom)?

 

[Grace777x70]

No..the "hell-fire" approach is not the gospel of the grace of Christ. Now, in saying that..some people do get saved for the "fire insurance'...

John 3:16 (NASB)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

We have the ministry of reconciliation now..

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 (NASB)
[SUP]18 [/SUP] Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
[SUP]19 [/SUP] namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

I think my question suits this board since it involves understanding what grace is.

Do you think that preaching hellfire results in people who convert for the sake of fire insurance?

Some have mentioned in here that they had rocky journey to God. Maybe they converted at a young age and then fell away for a time until their life fell apart and they came back to God.

I'm curious about these kinds of stories. I find that many of them stem from a conversion based on fear. People say "yes" to God because they fear hellfire. It takes an enormous amount of energy to sustain fear. Over time, people forget to be afraid of hellfire, so they move onto sinning. When they eventually return to God, it's usually with enough wisdom and experience to appreciate the LOVE of Jesus and to love Him in return.

So, back to my original question. Do you think the "hellfire" angle is really the best angle for seed-sowing? I obviously have my own opinions. I think it's much more useful to show people Jesus and have them fall in love with who Jesus is. However, I know my experience is limited, so I'm curious about the stories of others and how this fits in with our understanding of grace.

I guess what I mean is, should we focus on what grace saves us from, or more on what grace saves us FOR (and for whom)?

 

[Txroads]

I know I'm probably gonna get flogged for this but with all this talkin I finally had to go look up what "hyper-grace" is and means.... And after reading all I could find about it... Ummmmmm.......... No

 

[Beloved777]

No, the word "midst" has only two definitions that matter here. Midst: The interior or central part or point. this one pretty much matches what you're saying, except for the fact that the text actually says "in the midst of you." This assumes "among you." the other definition for "midst" means: The position of proximity to the members of a group - (among a group). Therefore, the text ("the kingdom of God is in your midst") really just means there are people standing around, and The Kingdom is in the middle of them. "Within," however, means basically this: in; inside. See the difference?

 

[Grace777x70]

I see the difference if you take "midst" to mean among but when I read it..I take it as being in the middle of me..you..us...etc...it's all in the mindset......it's like saying.."within you" and "inside of you"...are you talking about my body...my mind..my spirit?......so we need the Holy Spirit to illuminate all scripture...when I first saw " in the midst" of you...I thought inside the middle of me....anyway to me it's a mute thing...have a great night!

No, the word "midst" has only two definitions that matter here. Midst: The interior or central part or point. this one pretty much matches what you're saying, except for the fact that the text actually says "in the midst of you." This assumes "among you." the other definition for "midst" means: The position of proximity to the members of a group - (among a group). Therefore, the text ("the kingdom of God is in your midst") really just means there are people standing around, and The Kingdom is in the middle of them. "Within," however, means basically this: in; inside. See the difference?

 

[Txroads]

((whispers... I won't midst that bed time........
I don't care where your from that was funny... Sshhh))

 

[Txroads]

(( bed time?... That was supposed to be next time....)))

 

[Beloved777]

No..the "hell-fire" approach is not the gospel of the grace of Christ. Now, in saying that..some people do get saved for the "fire insurance'...


John 3:16 (NASB)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

We have the ministry of reconciliation now..


2 Corinthians 5:18-19 (NASB)
[SUP]18 [/SUP] Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
[SUP]19 [/SUP] namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

I agree that just walking up to people telling them they're going to all burn in hell is no kind of approach. But how can you explain to someone the Gospel of the grace of Christ without informing them of why they need his grace? The simple answer is: You can't! If you tell them it's to save you from your sin, then another "why" comes along. Then you have to explain to them that the wages of sin is death. But, now that's not enough because you have to explain what kind of death and how it isn't the physical kind. So you could be light on them, at that point, and say he died to save you from spiritual death, but then they put 2 and 2 together and realize you mean hell! Furthermore I think it's dangerous to present The Gospel without mentioning the consequences of sin. That could harm them, I feel. Also, think of this scenario. A man walks up to his friend and says "this nice Christian person just told be about how Christ died to save me and I just need to have faith in him, so I believed and got saved!" His friend then asks him, "What did you get saved from?" "I dunno? No! can't do that.

 

[Txroads]

I agree that just walking up to people telling them they're going to all burn in hell is no kind of approach. But how can you explain to someone the Gospel of the grace of Christ without informing them of why they need his grace? The simple answer is: You can't! If you tell them it's to save you from your sin, then another "why" comes along. Then you have to explain to them that the wages of sin is death. But, now that's not enough because you have to explain what kind of death and how it isn't the physical kind. So you could be light on them, at that point, and say he died to save you from spiritual death, but then they put 2 and 2 together and realize you mean hell! Furthermore I think it's dangerous to present The Gospel without mentioning the consequences of sin. That could harm them, I feel. Also, think of this scenario. A man walks up to his friend and says "this nice Christian person just told be about how Christ died to save me and I just need to have faith in him, so I believed and got saved!" His friend then asks him, "What did you get saved from?" "I dunno? No! can't do that.

((whispers...... I like the Kirk Cameron in public show))