Archive for February 2019

Who Gets to Decide if the Bible Says This is a Gospel Issue?

February 5, 2019

Zechariah 7:11 But they refused to pay attention, turned a stubborn shoulder and closed their EARS so they could not hear.

Luke 2: 22 And when the days of purification according to the law of Moses were finished, they brought the baby Jesus up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (just as it is written in the law of the Lord: Every firstborn male will be dedicated to the Lord 24 and to offer a sacrifice (according to what is stated in the law of the Lord: a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons)

Was the death of Jesus only the part that takes away sins, but this presentation in the temple part of the righteousness that is the “active obedience” which obtains the positive blessngs of salvation?

Luke 2 25 There was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon who was righteous, looking forward to Israel’s consolation, and the Holy Spirit was on Simeon 26 It had been revealed to Simeon by the Holy Spirit that Simeon would not see death before he saw the Messiah.

But isn’t it always better to die, and not delay death, so we can go straight to heaven to see God?

Communication is difficult. Sometimes people listen to us and even understand what we are saying, but then “translate” what we say into something they believe. They erase the difference between what they think and what we think, in the interests of what they call peace and unity. When we notice the difference, we see that what we said has been cancelled—-their “translating” is them turning what everybody says into something they say. We are the dummies—they are speaking through us.

Sometimes it’s mutual. We translate the other incorrectly because we misunderstand each other.   The prison warden tells Paul Newman–in the movie Cool Hand Luke—-“we have here a failure to communicate”. Yes, they don’t “get it”.

The reason they don’t receive it is because God has not yet revealed it to them. Or to say “it” differently, we don’t understand and don’t receive it because God has not yet revealed it to us. God is going to have to teach it to us if we get taught. God is going to use somebody to teach them what they don’t know and understand yet, but perhaps it will not be us who God is going to use to teach it to them.

When “they” cut off discussion, and start making accusations, we become defensive. It doesn’t help the truth for us to be told “well, you are being defensive”.   It does not  really prove anything one way or the other  who is identified as the ones who shut down the conversation . It’s possible that even the truth needs discussion.

I deny that the truths of the gospel are only emotionally therapeutic.  The gospel is not merely the “assurance” we feel  after hearing a preacher sermon which does not bring up questions or “explanations” but  REPEATS the same thing we already KNOW FOR SURE.   I certainly reject the “magical group-think” that only confesses  to  “private” problems , but  which ultimately always tells us that our sins are not that big of a deal.   The context say that OUR main problem right now is THEM (the socialists and the media) and the people asking questions about why “lasting death” is not really death.

To say that something is (or is not) part of the gospel begs the question—WHAT IS THE GOSPEL. I myself already had my  view on immortality as the gift of God BEFORE I learned the gospel. We can be very correct about election and still very wrong on the gospel. Before I learned that Christ’s righteousness is Christ’s death as that which justifies God and sinners, I did not yet know the gospel because I did not yet know the Bible doctrine of justification. But I think I was already correct about God’s permanent punishment for the condemned This is why I don’t worry about others separating themselves from me. It makes sense to avoid me if that allows you to keep thinking and talking about the gospel. Surely none of us should intentionally misrepresent the views of others. And we should attempt to be careful enough not to unintentionally “mistranslate” what others are saying. But at the end of the day, we all need to be taught the gospel by God.

Denying the traditional view of sinners sinning forever and
being tortured forever
that just feels wrong to me.
Therefore it is wrong.

You see, there are different aspects and senses to justification
in a sense, the wall has been built
but in another sense, the wall needs to be built.

You see, “in a sense”, the elect were never condemned and God never saw their sins.  “In a sense”, Christ also was never under the wrath of God, since God the Father always loved God the Son.   So, “in a sense”, the elect never had any sins and no sins were ever imputed to Christ.

That “in a sense” is a false gospel.  The Bible teaches that Christ became legally guilty. Romans 6910 Christ, having been raised from the dead, will not die again. Death no longer rules over Christ 10 For in light of the fact that Christ died, Christ died to sin once for all time.

Adam not only had a predisposition to sin.
Adam became GUILTY the very day Adam sinned
“in the day you sin you die”
Ephesians 2:3 –the ruler who exercises authority over the earth is
the spirit now working in the disobedient.
Satan rules not only with corruption, but accuses with guilt
Ephesians 2: 5 God made us alive with Christ even though we WERE dead
in guilt…. 6 Together with Christ Jesus God raised us up
Christ was never dead in corruption, and Christ was never raised up
from corruption.
Christ was not made alive from “the desires of the flesh” but from guilt
When the guilty are justified, they are imputed with Christ’s death,
which is death because of corruption not because of guilt.
Christ’s inside never needed saving.

An “in a sense” preacher: Whatever “gospel” you believed when you were “saved” is the gospel you believe saves.
Mark McCulley asks—-What if you believe that the elect were always
saved and never needed to be saved? If you believe now that the elect
were always justified, what does it matter what gospel you think you
believed? If you were already justified before you believed (whatever
gospel), then your gospel is not the power of salvation? (Also
you are being deceptive when you use the word “saved”. )

Tianqi Wu–The “delay” of imputation of Christ’s death as  satisfaction of Law does not indicate any insufficiency in that satisfaction. Nor does the
delay mean that God reserves the right not to impute Christ’s death to
those for whom Christ died (or adds some conditions to its
imputation). The delay shows the significance of the Gift of Christ’s
one act of righteousness. The delay shows the greatness of Christ’s
death for the sins of the elect under the law. The delay locks the
elect under the Law of sin and death from the time they are born until
when they are justified.

I Timothy 1: 16 I received mercy for this reason, in order that Christ
Jesus would demonstrate His extraordinary patience as an example to
those also who would believe in Him for lasting life.

If the wall is in the purpose of God, in one sense the wall has been built
but in another sense, the money has not yet been appropriated.
The wall was not built yet.

You can go either way with eternal justification
because there are two justifications
one before God, and in that sense you were never justified but already always justified.
But  “in another sense” justification number two is not before God but before your conscience, and in that sense you  trump-talk.

We could answer with a question, but is it a gospel issue?
But do we have a pope to answer the question?

Never justified, always justified  is not a gospel issue
because there are different senses to justification?
But progressive sanctification is a gospel issue?
Shall we take a vote on the gospel?

Are those who feel that the nature of permanent death is “no big gospel deal” calling God a liar?

Is Sonny H taking sides with “tradition”? Does Sonny H have more scruples than others? Is Sonny H less “benighted” than those who have written in detail about the various Bible texts in question?

Since Sonny H sees no difference between “unitarians” and “univeralists” and those who teach that God can and does destroy the non-elect who perish, does this mean that Sonny H cannot tell the difference between a person who still teaches  that Christ died for all without saving any) and those who don’t teach that (but still say that people are justified before and without the gospel)?

“In a sense”, they are professing that Christ died for everybody. But since I think they are regenerate, “in a sense”, when they profess that Christ died for everybody,  they are not really what they profess?

Sonny H–“Many of those who say very Arminian things don’t really believe those things and even though they don’t know yet know the truth, they are saved by the power of the gospel.—“If a professing Arminian is saved, it is despite their Arminianism. There are professing Arminians who are in the rudimentary stages of their faith that may be unlettered or ill advised about what they really know. However, if they are regenerate, they are not Arminian.”

What is the righteousness revealed in the gospel?
Is the righteousness revealed God’s sovereignty in regeneration alone or also by  the righteousness revealed in the gospel Christ’s death only for the sins of the elect?

Is the righteousness revealed in the gospel the infinite torture of Christ or is it Christ’s death?

Sonny Hernandez, High Calvinism, p 91—The problem of the new Calvinists lies especially in conduct…You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification….p 45 The sure promise of God which God realizes IN US makes it impossible that we not bring forth fruits.

if you want to think about IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HEAD about the topic of immortality given and the permanent punishment of the non-elect