Only One Gospel

[whs1]

Hey, Everyone who thinks you are saved:

Religious toleration is becoming greater and greater in this day. Those who have 'joined up' with the truth of the gospel have (for the majority) have only joined up hypocritically. Those who say you can be saved and reject the truth of the gospel or only believe in less than the whole gospel, or say one who believed a false gospel was saved while believing the false gospel, or say that one who TOLERATES persons who believe error about the gospel... are all lock stock and barrel a bunch of religious hypocrites who hate the truth of the true gospel. Toleration is Satan's tool for delusion that God is sending on this religious world in which we live. Men and women are discussing their "denominations" that are under the wrath of God because they profess to know God and in word and power deny the work of Christ by exhalting their confessions and catechisms above Scripture. Yes, I will say this now, everyone who compromises the doctrine of Christ's gospel in any way... is lost and not regenerate. I am not happy about this at all. I am completely undone before God that he has chosen to open my eyes to this. I will pray for everyone who may read this that God would open your eyes to this.

[grace alone]

My dear WHS1


I know I am saved simple,your are right about this there is only one gospel.By Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone this is how any one is saved who is saved.Regarding who is not well I think it is clearly obvious.Any who do not believe the above.

Yours In Christ

[whs1]

Those who say you can be saved and reject the truth of the gospel or only believe in less than the whole gospel, or say one who believed a false gospel was saved while believing the false gospel, or say that one who TOLERATES persons who believe error about the gospel...

grace alone,

Is the above true?

[grace alone]

Those who say you can be saved and reject the truth of the gospel or only believe in less than the whole gospel, or say one who believed a false gospel was saved while believing the false gospel, or say that one who TOLERATES persons who believe error about the gospel...

grace alone,

Is the above true?

My only problem is you saying "tolerates persons who believe error about the gospel" what do you mean by this as I am unsure about your meaning of Tolerates.I am concerned you are in danger of adding to salvation something that is not there.

[wildboar]

what of someone who believes that someone is saved who believed that someone who believed someone else is saved is saved who held firmly to God's Sovereignty but denied the Limited Atonement?

[Skeuos Eleos]

Those who say you can be saved and reject the truth of the gospel or only believe in less than the whole gospel, or say one who believed a false gospel was saved while believing the false gospel, or say that one who TOLERATES persons who believe error about the gospel... are all lock stock and barrel a bunch of religious hypocrites who hate the truth of the true gospel.

Bill,

I share your concern over the increasing trend towards toleration. In my opinion we are heading towards a world where EVERYTHING will be tolerated EXCEPT the true gospel. Furthermore, I agree that one cannot be saved who believes a false gospel or who thinks that someone else can be saved whilst believing a false gospel.

However, the problem is some things are obviously false and others are not. The difficulty is in where to draw the line.

Without wishing to re-open old, painful discussions consider:
1. We were recently unable to clearly define in this forum what the whole gospel actually consists of. Your statement about believing "less than the whole gospel" sounds fine until you come to try to produce an agreed definition of what the 'whole gospel' is. Remember also that the ability of humans to comprehend truth varies from person to person.

2. Is your understanding of the gospel absolutely 100% accurate and perfect? I contend that no finite human being can have a perfect understanding of the gospel therefore all will hold to some errors to some degree.

3. Is your ability to express the gospel (and not one tiny bit more or less than the gospel) 100% perfect? Since nobody is able to perfectly express what they believe it is even harder to judge whether somebody else actually believes a false gospel or not. Some will express beliefs which are clearly false, others express beliefs which appear sound but upon closer examination turn out to be false, yet others express beliefs which appear sound and yet live lives showing no signs of any change from a godless way of live, yet others still will deceive and be deceived all their lives. We can judge (as in form an opinion) in obvious cases but we should follow the example of the Apostles in cases which are not clear.

Martin
(Glad to be back after vacation!)

[grace alone]

what of someone who believes that someone is saved who believed that someone who believed someone else is saved is saved who held firmly to God's Sovereignty but denied the Limited Atonement?

Interesting wildboar I would like to know where the "line is" for example I could say to you do you believe a person is saved who attends a church where they do not practise Exclusive Psamoldy.You may consider my example a bit extreme but I know of some who would not and could put up a reasonable argument.I however remain with Gods Grace Alone.

[whs1]

grace alone said:

My only problem is you saying "tolerates persons who believe error about the gospel" what do you mean by this as I am unsure about your meaning of Tolerates.I am concerned you are in danger of adding to salvation something that is not there.

Webster's 7th New Collegiate Dictionary defines "tolerate"...

"Tolerate: to endure or resist the action of (as a drug) without grave or lasting injury. 2. to suffer to be or be done without prohibition or hindrance, or contradiction.

Adding a person's error that you tolerate to the gospel is "adding to salvation".


Wildboar said:

what of someone who believes that someone is saved who believed that someone who believed someone else is saved is saved who held firmly to God's Sovereignty but denied the Limited Atonement?

That would mean that (If they knew that the last person denied limited atonement) the first someone was never saved along with the rest of the someones.


Skeous Eleous said:


1. We were recently unable to clearly define in this forum what the whole gospel actually consists of. [That does not mean that OBJECTIVELY there is no gospel to say we can declare.] Your statement about believing "less than the whole gospel" sounds fine until you come to try to produce an agreed definition of what the 'whole gospel' is. Remember also that the ability of humans to comprehend truth varies from person to person. [This has no effect on the fact that there is a gospel and God has defined it and has declared it. Since when is man's ability to comprehend something the measure of something God has revealed???]

2. Is your understanding of the gospel absolutely 100% accurate and perfect? Yes. I contend that no finite human being can have a perfect understanding of the gospel therefore all will hold to some errors to some degree. [I contend that it is just the opposite, all of God's elect will not be in error on the gospel.]

3. Is your ability to express the gospel (and not one tiny bit more or less than the gospel) 100% perfect? Since nobody is able to perfectly express what they believe it is even harder to judge whether somebody else actually believes a false gospel or not. Some will express beliefs which are clearly false, others express beliefs which appear sound but upon closer examination turn out to be false, yet others express beliefs which appear sound and yet live lives showing no signs of any change from a godless way of live, yet others still will deceive and be deceived all their lives. We can judge (as in form an opinion) in obvious cases but we should follow the example of the Apostles in cases which are not clear.

This is wrong. You are subordinating God's revelation of the gospel unto man's ability in his judgment and scrutiny to be able to define the gospel when it is already defined by God. What kind of reasoning twists the order around and says that there is NO gospel because no one in a consensus can agree on a definition of it??? No, God said what it is in His word. The gospel is there.




I will say that without the Scriptures [Because I believe that there are too many Scriptures and too many ways God could reaveal the gospel] that I will present what are the bare essentials of the gospel that are reavealed in the Holy Scriptures that if someone denies...they are not saved no matter what they say...


Total Depravity of Man (contrasted with the holiness of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) (Original Sin with the imputation of Adam's sin unto all men).
Unconditional Election of God the Father
Limited Atonement of Jesus Christ for his people {which includes:...

a. The Substitution of Jesus Christ for his people (Death, Burial, Resurrection)(Who Christ is)
b. The Double Imputation of 1. Christ's Peoples' sin unto Christ 2. Christ's Righteousness ALONE unto his people.
c. Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (What Christ has done).

Irresistable Grace
Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints.


This is the gospel, which if someone tolerates error in this and says someone is saved eventhough they believe the error; they are lost.





Bill

[whs1]

I am not saying that this is works. I do not believe in works. The Scriptures come in power unto God's elect...but not so that God's elect deny any of the gospel. It is after*** the gospel comes that God's elect will not deny any point of the gospel.

[tomas1]

Whs1
one of your points was;

Limited Atonement of Jesus Christ for his people {which includes:...

a. The Substitution of Jesus Christ for his people (Death, Burial, Resurrection)(Who Christ is)
b. The Double Imputation of 1. Christ's Peoples' sin unto Christ 2. Christ's Righteousness ALONE unto his people.
c. Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (What Christ has done).

It this all that limited atonement includes? If so I have never met a 4 pointer who does not believe in limited atonement

[grace alone]

Hi again WHS1

This will have to be quick please excuse work to go to.I very firmly believe in the 5 points no debate there.Unlike yourself however I am unable to read mens hearts,I believe respectfully you are in serious danger of adding to salvation not me.

[Mickey]

1 Cor 2:6-16, (ASV)
6 We speak wisdom, however, among them that are fullgrown: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nought: 7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: 8 which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory: 9 but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him. 10 But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. 12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words. 14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.


It seems to me that there is room for growth and maturity in Doctrine and the deeper things of God. However, as the scripture clearly states, if we have the mind of Christ we judge all things (v.16) that we may know the things freely given to us of God (v.12). The carnal or natural mind REJECTS the free grace of God (v. 14), which is different than just not knowing. The spiritual man can be taught and will judge all things in so coming to a knowelge of the truth. Were as those at emnity with God will continue in their rebellion and set themselves up against the knowledge of God. We see this in the persistent attempts to try to bring down and suppress the truth of Free Grace.

[whs1]

grace alone said:

"I believe respectfully you are in serious danger of adding to salvation not me."


Now, show me how and where I said that I am "adding to salvation"?

I never said that any work that we can do adds to the finished work and accomplished redemption of Jesus Christ for his people.

Bill

[whs1]

Come, but you can’t




Greg Elmquist




Is it contradictory to tell someone to come and drink from the River of Life freely, but then tell them they are unable? Should we just tell men to come to Christ and leave out the part about God’s sovereign election and man’s total inability? Many would say we are just confusing the message and restricting the free offer of salvation by telling men they can’t come unless the Father makes them willing by His irresistible grace which is according to His will and good pleasure. Why is it necessary when commanding men to come to Christ to tell them they can’t? Why are total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace essential elements of the gospel? One simple reason. Without these truths, men will make a work out of coming. Without these truths men will be led to believe that God has done His part, now it is up to you to come. No, men must trust Christ for their coming also. If you bring anything to the table of salvation, even your coming, then grace is no longer grace and you are left in your sins. The Lord will do it all ... or He won’t do it at all.





This is the truth of what I believe, not "works". It is you, if you think that the gospel has to OMIT one of these points that is ADDING to salvation.

Bill

[Mickey]

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Puritan...dTheSeeker.htm

I believe you are refering to the Seeker Doctrine. Take a look at this link, some of you may be familiar with it--this was a shock to me at first but it makes sense.

Semper Reformanda

Mike

[whs1]

No, I do not agree with the theological doctrines of this "Matthew McMahon" nor the story of the seeker and the preacher. There is much theology that is in error there. [some is right] No one seeks after God. (Romans 3). The whole thing is built on human ability. Man cannot seek after God rightly. There are some concepts in the man's theology that I see why you said it is the doctrine that I was referring to. It is not. I do not agree with that whole story about the seeker.




He opposes age of accountability and altar calls, but makes room for man to 'seek God'. This is wrong. The Doctrine of the gospel is designed to show man he cannot come and this is designed to drive man to utter despair of looking to any thing within one's self to be saved. Outside of the total sovereignty of God, Holiness of God in His complete perfection doing only righteously everything according to His own will and purpose without beholding to any. This is designed to humble the pride of the "seeker" who is to put his face in the dust and realize that God does not have to do anything for the 'seeker' and will not in his case because of the great distance between him and God [Between perfect holiness and total wickedness]!!!



The doctrine of election and total inability of man has to be preached to humble the pride of the man who thinks God is a bellhop to cater to man's every whim. The atonement is likewise ridding man of 'free-will' in the truth that no one's sins are atoned for except those sinners whom God the Father gave unto Jesus Christ. None but these will have their sins imputed unto Christ and Christ's righteousness imputed unto them. None will be justified by God's holy grace alone without any work or effort on the part of the sinner; except those whom God choses to save. Grace that is given unto the elect will not be frustrated nor will the elect perish eternally. These all show no room left for man's puny works nor his self-efforts to get himself saved from God's wrath.

The truth of the gospel will only show forth God's utter accomplished perfect redemption for certain persons of God's choice alone, by grace alone...

while the lie shows Satan's false gospel of man's ability [No matter how tiny the work or effort is] just as long as MAN gets some of the credit. Oh, how unregenerate man hates this these truths that *expose* the lies of the devil.


But, just let man get .00000001% of the credit and watch Satan secure his goods. This is what Toleration has to do with all this. When a "Reformed, Calvinist" "Sovereign Grace" believer holds on to the lie that a tolerater of a false gospel is a brother in Christ...this says in effect that the false gospel is just as true as the true gospel this "Reformed, Calvinist" "Sovereign Grace believer holds to. A lie, this is turning the true gospel into ACCUSED. To say and tolerate an Armininan {with his doctrines of devils} is to O.K. the doctrines of devils.

But, now watch how I am accused of believing in things I do not say nor believe.




Bill

[Mickey]

This is a quotation from Matthew McMahon's article:

"Men are able to seek, and they are commanded to seek, but that is all they can do. They can seek, but they cannot believe. Believing is something that must be wrought in them through the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit. The reader will see then, that the ability to seek does not necessarily render God obligated to save the seeker, since what he does in seeking is not a converting act nor does it place God under any obligation to convert him based on any promise. Nor does it imply that what he is doing is good. Seeking is required by sinful men, but that does not mean it is a good act since “sinful men” are the seekers."

I can see by this statement why you would disagree with his theology. I didn't catch this part of his article before. I don't think I dissagree with you on this point, however I do need some help sorting this out in my mind.

If someone (a non-believer) asks you what he/she must do to go to heaven (I'm trying to use the language they might use) what would you lable that person as? or rather what would you say they are doing?

Given the statement by the apostle Paul in Rom 3 what they are doing is not seeking, because "there is none who seeks." But I can see at this point why Matt is calling them seekers in the sense that they are asking questions and appear to be conserned about eternal life. Its just that Matt says that their "seeking" is sinful and is for selfish reasons. He then shows the individual what they are doing is sinning but it better than going I'm sure you know that though.

Where Matt says, "Men are able to seek, and they are commanded to seek, but that is all they can do..." I can see how that would make you balk. I see there is more than just semantics in the doctrinal position you are comming from and he is coming from.

Do you mind explaining a little what you might say instead of what he said to explain this particular situation where someone is asking about eternal life? Thanks for you patients.

Mike

[whs1]

Mark 10:17 And when he (Jesus) was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!



Reformed SSgt: Look what Jesus did. He turned him around and told him he did not understand the nature of God when this man called him "Good master".

He was in effect saying that this man did not know who Jesus was because he did not understand total depravity. Then Jesus asked this man if he knew the law. This is where everyone learns of his total depravity. The difference between what Jesus said and what I would say is based upon the fact that Jesus knew that this man was rich and covetous about money. Therefore Jesus proceeded to put an impossible task in front of this greedy rich man.


If someone asked me "What must I do to be saved"? I would reply: NOTHING.

I would then ask this person why they are asking this? Depending upon their answer I would proceed to point out their total Depravity (This is where I agree with Matthew McMahon). No one can just be a "curious seeker" without having "total depravity" in it's extent shown to them...but even more...God the Holy Spirit has to bring them to their knees in total despair about their hopeless and wicked condition before a thrice holy God who will not even look upon sin. How this could happen with out the law of God I have no idea. Next I would set before them...the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation....meaning I would tell them that God does not need to save anyone and is totally self -sufficient in Himself...solitary in perfect undisturbed quiet needing nothing from any of His creatures. [No, Jesus is not trying to save as many as he can] God would be perfectly just if every human were cast into the furnace of flames for all eternity. I would then tell them that what ever God pleased that he does in heaven and in earth and in all that God does is for His own glory. If the person doesn't agree that God could damn them and be perfectly just and doesn't need "their working help" or decision to save them; then they will not humble themselves before God to agree with God. (Psalm 39:5)

That is a start of what I would say to begin with.


Bill.

[grace alone]

Hi again WHS1

Sorry for the delay but I do have to earn a crust.I believe the danger is you seem to be adding conditions to my salvation, is what I think of others seems to effect my standing before the Lord.As I have already pointed out to you I DO NOT have the ability to see into mens hearts.I believe in Gods Grace Alone with NO ADDITIONS .When I tell others about the gospel it is the gospel of Free Grace.What you are clearly saying however is if I think someone is a christian but does not fully comprehend all the doctrines of Grace then I am not just in error but LOST.Forgive me I am new to this site and its ways when I saw 5 solas I presumed those here believed in free grace.You however speak more like an arminian adding bits here and there i e what do I believe about my neighbour.I answer to God Alone who Alone reads mens hearts.

[whs1]

So, Grace alone, let me get this straight; If I am saying that one you meet says: "I am a Christian" and you see them telling lies continually and not repenting...1 John 2:4 "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."


Are you telling me that I cannot read this person's heart? Are you also saying that I am ADDING a requirement to salvation???


I believe that Scriptures dispell the myth that we "as Christians" cannot read person's professing to be Christians hearts.


Bill