The School-Master gospel

[RanRan]

I've given a handle to what I think is a juvenile form of the gospel - namely, one that mixes law and gospel. It's an inferior gospel, but held by many.

The equation is the same quid pro quo requiring action on our parts and a reaction from God.

For example, when the Gospel says that God is not counting men's sins against them - is that because of something we did or because of something He did?

I think most here (from what I have read) hold that God is counting men's sins against them until they believe that He isn't. That seems screwy to me - if the disobedient can control God like that...

I think the real Gospel lies elsewhere.

[Lizard]

:yeahthat: Try Reformed Theology TM

[Cowthulu]

I've given a handle to what I think is a juvenile form of the gospel - namely, one that mixes law and gospel. It's an inferior gospel, but held by many.

Oh goody. :sigh:

The equation is the same quid pro quo requiring action on our parts and a reaction from God.

Almost like a relationship?? :blush:

For example, when the Gospel says that God is not counting men's sins against them - is that because of something we did or because of something He did?

I think most here (from what I have read) hold that God is counting men's sins against them until they believe that He isn't. That seems screwy to me - if the disobedient can control God like that...

Let's take a look see. How about some context just for fun eh? :ahem:


16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21God made him who had no sin to be sin[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28883a)] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Looking at verse 17, why does he say "if anyone is in Christ"? Shouldn't he have written "Since everyone is in Christ" if your position is correct?

Similarly in verse 20, why do we need to implore on Christ's behalf to be reconciled? Isn't is already done? Why implore them to do anything? Why is God making an appeal through us? As you claim is already done.

I think the real Gospel lies elsewhere.

It doesn't lie in little one off cherry picked snippets.

[RanRan]

Similarly in verse 20, why do we need to implore on Christ's behalf to be reconciled? Isn't is already done? Why implore them to do anything? Why is God making an appeal through us? As you claim is already done.

Do you understand reconciliation? :ahem: Do you understand how it differs from atonement? :ahem:

Your first point (as a good Calvinist) is to tell us that God still hates our guts - 'so be let us be reconciled to the fact that God is not reconciled...':bonk:

Your argument goes downhill from there.:teeth: There's not a single point of the Gospel you won't attack - yet you claim to hold the Gospel. How can that be?

[Bill the Cat]

God is not reconciled. We are reconciled to HIM.

2 Corinthians 5:18
Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

2 Corinthians 5:20
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Colossians 1:22
yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach--

[RanRan]

God is not reconciled.

Ahhh, so you think you propitiate God with a faith that believes IT has the ability?

Why not just click your heals and believe REAL hard that YOU can reconcile, propitiate and atone God?

Did it work?

[Bill the Cat]

I quoted scripture to prove my point. Please quote scripture that explicitly says God is reconciled. Until you do that, you are blowing hot air.

[Cowthulu]

Do you understand reconciliation? :ahem: Do you understand how it differs from atonement? :ahem:

I have a pretty decent grasp on it. You seem to be missing it though. Reconciliation takes two. Christ himself gave us examples of how to reconcile to a brother. Confront -> Confess - > Repent -> Forgive. This process leads to a reconciliation of two individuals. Paul is exhorting us to be reconciled to God. This is a relationship.

Your first point (as a good Calvinist) is to tell us that God still hates our guts - 'so be let us be reconciled to the fact that God is not reconciled...':bonk:
First I am not a Calvinist (not that that has anything to do with the price of tea in China). I am just a person who is getting fairly tired of your cherry picked eisegesis of scripture.

If my friend offends me, I still love them, but we are not reconciled at that time. Being un-reconciled is not equivalent of hating. Who is the one here who has trouble understanding what reconciliation means? I'll give you a hint, it isn't me.

Your argument goes downhill from there.:teeth:

Really? Which argument was that? You have yet to answer any of my questions to your opening post. Oh wait, that's right you are being cryptic and dodging any real attempt at debate.

There's not a single point of the Gospel you won't attack - yet you claim to hold the Gospel. How can that be?

Blah blah blah blah. This is completely nonsensical. Stop blowing hot air to distract from your poor argumentation.

Btw, try responding to my whole post, not just cherry picking it the way you do scripture.

Good points on reconciliation btw Bill. :bow:

[RanRan]

I have a pretty decent grasp on it. You seem to be missing it though. Reconciliation takes two.

It can take both parties - but not necessarily so. You argument seems to be that God is not reconciled to us and our sin, until we do something. The Gospel says the opposite: God is reconciled by the Cross and loves us and we are to believe that. That's a fundamental difference leading in different directions and out-comes.

For one, I don't think my faith works some kind of magic in propitiating God. Christ did that, which you deny.

You're mixing law and gospel and so end up saying 'God is not reconciled' IS the Gospel. That horrible theology if it can even be called that.

If you want to mince words - reconciliation and atonement - even on the atonement level, reconciliation is unilateral between God and the God/Man. That reconciliation based on the just punishment and death of the sin-bearer.

But horrible theology will ignore the Cross by all means and extents. I don't think you or Bill know what the Gospel is - you come in making fun of an argument you have no comprehension of because of a Cross where nothing was accomplished in your 'theologies.' It's the clueless patting each other on the back.

So you say GOD IS NOT RECONCILED. I'll leave you with your mess.

[Cowthulu]

It can take both parties - but not necessarily so. You argument seems to be that God is not reconciled to us and our sin, until we do something. The Gospel says the opposite: God is reconciled by the Cross and loves us and we are to believe that. That's a fundamental difference leading in different directions and out-comes.

Here's an idea, try citing scripture in context to argue that. If what you are saying is correct then I ask you AGAIN why is Paul imploring us to be reconciled to God? You know, that verse after the one you cite all the time. If it is already done and accomplished at this time, certainly Paul would know this.

For one, I don't think my faith works some kind of magic in propitiating God. Christ did that, which you deny.

Kindly cite my denial, or show anywhere where I have said anything of the kind? Oh wait, you are building a strawman argument for me because that is all you ever do instead of actually answering a person's posts.

You're mixing law and gospel and so end up saying 'God is not reconciled' IS the Gospel. That horrible theology if it can even be called that.

Again, where have I done that? C'mon RanRan, have the decency to at least actually answer my post. There has got to be a first time for everything.

If you want to mince words - reconciliation and atonement - even on the atonement level, reconciliation is unilateral between God and the God/Man. That reconciliation based on the just punishment and death of the sin-bearer.

Prove it with scripture in context.

But horrible theology will ignore the Cross by all means and extents.

Horrible Theology is also one that ignores scripture as a whole and just picks quotes out of context.

Btw, I don't suppose you are ever going to response to my whole post are you?

[RanRan]

Btw, I don't suppose you are ever going to response to my whole post are you?

Whole post? You break it down to sentences. Next it will be individual words. Write in paragraphs, please.

[Trout]

RanRan has been thoroughly exposed . . . as usual.

[RanRan]

RanRan has been thoroughly exposed . . . as usual.

God is reconciled. That's what I've 'exposed.' Can't stand it? Get a turban.

[Bill the Cat]

God is reconciled. That's what I've 'exposed.' Can't stand it? Get a turban.

Post a verse then. Oh, that's right, you CAN'T!!

[RanRan]

Post a verse then. Oh, that's right, you CAN'T!!

"Behold the Lamb of God!" One of the first verses of the Gospel so hidden from you.

Do you understand how that is such an important verse in understanding the reconciliation, propitiation and atonement of God?

Study question: What did THAT Lamb accomplish by its sacrifice?

Yeah, it's a stumbling block to the ego-centric. Insert thyself in everything - nullify that accomplishment until YOU approve of it, and then call THAT 'faith'. You guys are so boring...and predictable.

[RanRan]

I ask you AGAIN why is Paul imploring us to be reconciled to God?

Because God is reconciled to us disobedient, stupid enemies. That's why Paul is imploring you, you disobedient, stupid enemy of God. What does that do to your ego? Got the warm fuzzies yet?

[Bill the Cat]

"Behold the Lamb of God!" One of the first verses of the Gospel so hidden from you.

:twitch:

You think THAT proves that God needed to be reconciled to US? :lmbo:

Do you understand how that is such an important verse in understanding the reconciliation, propitiation and atonement of God?

Oh, I understand it clearly. WE were the ones who needed forgiveness. We were the ones who needed reconciliation. He did no wrong to need reconciliation.

Study question: What did THAT Lamb accomplish by its sacrifice?

Provide the sacrifice once for all so that man could be reconciled to God by faith.

Yeah, it's a stumbling block to the ego-centric. Insert thyself in everything - nullify that accomplishment until YOU approve of it, and then call THAT 'faith'. You guys are so boring...and predictable.

And you are still wrong with no biblical support.

[Cowthulu]

Whole post? You break it down to sentences. Next it will be individual words. Write in paragraphs, please.

Man is that a weak dodge.

Not surprising though, since you selectively read the Bible as well. Can't really expect you to deal with an entire post either.

Because God is reconciled to us disobedient, stupid enemies. That's why Paul is imploring you, you disobedient, stupid enemy of God. What does that do to your ego? Got the warm fuzzies yet?

:eh:

God is already reconciled so Paul is imploring us to be reconciled???? :lolo:

Typical RanRan, can't actually explain your position, much less use scripture to back it up.

Tell ya what you stick with that SchoolMaster name and we can call your "theology" Nonsensical Snippet Theology.

[RanRan]

God is already reconciled so Paul is imploring us to be reconciled???? :lolo:

Why is that such a mystery to you? You don't understand the atonement. Don't blame that on me.

[Cowthulu]

Why is that such a mystery to you?

Because Paul was not a dope and would not implore us to do something that is already done.

You don't understand the atonement. Don't blame that on me.

:twitch:

Then by all means, explain it. It is completely reasonable to blame you for you inability to explain your position and use scriptural references to back it up.

[RanRan]

Then by all means, explain it. It is completely reasonable to blame you for you inability to explain your position and use scriptural references to back it up.

You don't believe God's justice needed to be atoned. How is that my fault?

[Cowthulu]

You don't believe God's justice needed to be atoned. How is that my fault?

Really? Care to back that up and prove it, or is it just another one of your weak assertions? My vote is on the latter.

[RanRan]

Really? Care to back that up and prove it, or is it just another one of your weak assertions? My vote is on the latter.

Say something and then stick to it. I can't follow your argument when you're all over the place.

The school master gospel says that God is still angry in spite of the cross, where His anger was propitiated. You want it both ways. All you've done here is proven my point that such a confused gospel exists in people's thinking.

[Trout]

RanRan went down like a cheap lawn chair in this thread.

[RanRan]

RanRan went down like a cheap lawn chair in this thread.

Why do you need to insult me, Trout? You added nothing to the discussion. You are a moderator - why can't you lead by example?

[Trout]

Why do you need to insult me, Trout?

Your non-responses to those in your thread are an insult.


You added nothing to the discussion. You are a moderator - why can't you lead by example?

Why can't you answer questions? I think I know. You don't have a clue about what the Gospel is.

[RanRan]

Your non-responses to those in your thread are an insult.



Why can't you answer questions? I think I know. You don't have a clue about what the Gospel is.

Cool. That's your opinion. Your opinion is not shared by everyone. Relax.

[Trout]

Cool. That's your opinion. Your opinion is not shared by everyone. Relax.

I'm pretty sure most would agree that you don't answer questions thereby insulting those who engage your threads.

[RanRan]

I'm pretty sure most would agree that you don't answer questions thereby insulting those who engage your threads.

I see. If that's the case, they should just leave the thread.

[Trout]

I see. If that's the case, they should just leave the thread.

If you have no intention of answering any questions, you shouldn't create threads. You should blog.

[RanRan]

If you have no intention of answering any questions, you shouldn't create threads. You should blog.

I do answer questions but I don't have time to answer all of them. A thread is place to discuss an opening post - this thread has been hi-jacked from the get-go.

[Trout]

I do answer questions but I don't have time to answer all of them.

No, you don't answer questions.

Your non-answers betray your lack thereof.


A thread is place to discuss an opening post - this thread has been hi-jacked from the get-go.

Your OP wasn't sound thinking, it has been exposed, not hijacked.

[RanRan]

No, you don't answer questions.

Your non-answers betray your lack thereof.



Your OP wasn't sound thinking, it has been exposed, not hijacked.

LOL Whatever. Have a nice day.

[Trout]

LOL Whatever. Have a nice day.

Yet another non-answer. In the time you've spent replying to my posts, you could have answered Bill's questions.

[Cowthulu]

Bah, just more dodging. It is quite a coherent question. Here let me remind you.

You said:


Originally posted by RanRan (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1997475#post1997475)
You don't believe God's justice needed to be atoned. How is that my fault?


See, you made a claim.

Really? Care to back that up and prove it, or is it just another one of your weak assertions? My vote is on the latter.

Then I asked you to back up said claim.

To which you reply:

Say something and then stick to it. I can't follow your argument when you're all over the place.

I am obviously not all over the place. I am well within the subject of your original pathetic assertion. You are the one who changes the subject in order to avoid questions you obviously are unable to answer.

The school master gospel says that God is still angry in spite of the cross, where His anger was propitiated. You want it both ways.

Point one place where I have said any of that. I'm not going to hold my breath.

All you've done here is proven my point that such a confused gospel exists in people's thinking.

No, what has really happened is your pathetic nonsensical snippet theology is exposed. You are clearly the one who does not understand. You can't even back up your own assertions.

Trout is quite correct, if you just want to read your own writing and not respond to people questions on your threads then you should just blog.

Whatever, I'm done here unless you can actually post something that isn't your usual cryptic snipe and run tactic.

[RanRan]

Bah, just more dodging. It is quite a coherent question. Here let me remind you.

You said:


[/indent]See, you made a claim.



Then I asked you to back up said claim.

To which you reply:



I am obviously not all over the place. I am well within the subject of your original pathetic assertion. You are the one who changes the subject in order to avoid questions you obviously are unable to answer.



Point one place where I have said any of that. I'm not going to hold my breath.



No, what has really happened is your pathetic nonsensical snippet theology is exposed. You are clearly the one who does not understand. You can't even back up your own assertions.

Trout is quite correct, if you just want to read your own writing and not respond to people questions on your threads then you should just blog.

Whatever, I'm done here unless you can actually post something that isn't your usual cryptic snipe and run tactic.

What was your question? You know if you can't be civil then find another thread, please.

[Trout]

What was your question? You know if you can't be civil then find another thread, please.

Let me interpret that for those who don't speak, "RanRan":


RanRan says:
"Please don't comment anymore, you've already demonstrated my ignorance"

[Kelp]

Mstorrie's question, as near as I can tell, was "what evidence does RanRan have that Mstorrie does not believe that "God's justice has been atoned"?"

She has also challenged RanRan to show how it is that she really thinks that "God is still angry in spite of the cross", in spite of Christ's propitiation.

[RanRan]

Mstorrie's question, as near as I can tell, was "what evidence does RanRan have that Mstorrie does not believe that "God's justice has been atoned"?"

She has also challenged RanRan to show how it is that she really thinks that "God is still angry in spite of the cross", in spite of Christ's propitiation.

The answer to both is her assertion that 'God is not reconciled.' To assert that God is not reconciled to universally disobedient mankind is to completely miss the heart of the Gospel and its good news to man.

Now, she did get this right: reconciliation can go both ways. Men are to reconcile themselves to the fact that God loves them AS THEY ARE. And to love their fellow man AS THEY ARE.

[Littlejoe9763]

Ran, I hope you know what GREAT material your giving me with all your posts!

[RanRan]

Ran, I hope you know what GREAT material your giving me with all your posts!

LittleJoe, God love ya - I'll do my best.

[Cowthulu]

Mstorrie's question, as near as I can tell, was "what evidence does RanRan have that Mstorrie does not believe that "God's justice has been atoned"?"

She has also challenged RanRan to show how it is that she really thinks that "God is still angry in spite of the cross", in spite of Christ's propitiation.

Btw, I'm male. Just look next to my name. :smile:

Those questions are among many I have asked in this thread to RanRan. The problem is he continually dodges them. He either misrepresents the question in some or replies in some nonsensical fashion. He continually attacks these strawmen when responding to people instead of actually dealing with other posters real issues. His other favorite distraction tactic is to accuse someone of something with absolutely nothing to back it up. Case in point would be his post previous implying that I am somehow not being civil by challenging his interpretation. If he believes questioning someone ideas is somehow un-civil then he has definitely chosen the wrong venue to express them. I have challenged him continually to back up said accusations against me, but he can't because I have never taken those positions in this thread. They are just more of his hand waving trying to distract from his inability address the subject directly.

What made me decide to participate in this thread was I tire of his terrible misuse of scripture by only quoting bits and pieces of it. In the beginning of this thread I asked questions at first about 2 Corinthians 5 which he continues to try to use out of context. He still can't explain why if God is reconciled why Paul would implore to be reconciled. The second time I asked all I got was this:



Originally posted by mstorrie
I ask you AGAIN why is Paul imploring us to be reconciled to God?

Because God is reconciled to us disobedient, stupid enemies. That's why Paul is imploring you, you disobedient, stupid enemy of God. What does that do to your ego? Got the warm fuzzies yet?



It is a nonsensical reply. The best I can figure is I am somehow a "stupid enemy of God" for questioning his terrible interpretation of scripture. What it has to do with warm fuzzies or my ego I can't even begin to understand. :shrug: Its too hard to tell based on his little snippet replies.

We also continually ask him to back up his assertions with scripture, but he doesn't. It seems like a fair assumption that he doesn't because he can't. Either that or actually quoting whole passages instead of snippets will expose his poor interpretation, so he has to avoid that. He really needs to build a coherent post that is backed up with scripture at some point, otherwise as Bill has aptly said, he is just full of hot air.

[RanRan]

We also continually ask him to back up his assertions with scripture, but he doesn't.

Throwing scripture at you is not the solution. You've done nothing but attack me in post after post. Scripture is not a plaything.

So I said it before, you don't understand the atonement of God and Christ's accomplishment on the Cross. God was reconciled to disobedient man there and no where else. The question remains, are YOU reconciled to THAT God?

There is no condemnation in God - He was propitiated there, as well. Frankly, I don't think you're reconciled to that either.

Christ took away the sins of the world and, as such, God is not counting men's sins against them. But you don't believe it. The Gospel remains hidden from you.

[Bill the Cat]

I'll say it again, Ran Ran. God did NOTHING to need reconciling to US, as if He were to blame for something and needed OUR forgiveness to be reconciled to US! What nonsense!

[RanRan]

I'll say it again, Ran Ran. God did NOTHING to need reconciling to US, as if He were to blame for something and needed OUR forgiveness to be reconciled to US! What nonsense!

His demand for perfect obedience to the Law was not carried out by us, but by one of us. His justice was reconciled, the disobedient were justified by the act of one.

Whatever it is you're talking about above is nonsense. Was God sinning when He imposed the fulfillment of the Law on mankind? Is that what you think? Or think that I think?

Could He reconcile His justice by the wave of a magic wand? Or did it demand blood...and death?

[Bill the Cat]

I think you are using the wrong term.

[RainPete]

I think what Ran Ran is trying to say is that God has reconciled to us - not because we needed to forgive him - but because he needed to forgive us. He has reconciled himself to us - forgiven us even when we have not asked for forgiveness.

I fail to see why this would be an issue in anyone's theology?

[Kelp]

Sorry about the gender thing, mstorrie :blush::lol:

[Kelp]

I think what Ran Ran is trying to say is that God has reconciled to us - not because we needed to forgive him - but because he needed to forgive us. He has reconciled himself to us - forgiven us even when we have not asked for forgiveness.

I fail to see why this would be an issue in anyone's theology?
God has reconciled man to Himself by the cross. God did not need to forgive us, He could have just killed us and been perfectly within His rights as Creator.

Saying that God was reconciled is a really clunky and confusing way to put it imo, but I think it's saying the same thing.

I think basically what RanRan is getting at is the Calvinistic idea that redemption is a unilateral act of God from start to finish, Irresistable Grace, etc. Only where a Calvinist like Nang would say that God only saves those that he chooses to, RanRan insists that God saves all without exception.

RanRan and the Calvinists are united in claiming that Arminianism, etc. render man in control of God's plan through his free will and create a pseudo-Gospel of grace-plus-human-effort. And that's what this OP is more or less getting at perhaps.

[Cowthulu]

Sorry about the gender thing, mstorrie :blush::lol:

No worries. :smile:

[Cowthulu]

I think basically what RanRan is getting at is the Calvinistic idea that redemption is a unilateral act of God from start to finish, Irresistable Grace, etc. Only where a Calvinist like Nang would say that God only saves those that he chooses to, RanRan insists that God saves all without exception.

Nang is a good example. Agree or disagree with her at least she is willing to cite scripture and discuss it. It is at least a position worthy of respect IMO. RanRan either can't or won't discuss scripture. If your theology is un-scriptural it's worthless.

RanRan and the Calvinists are united in claiming that Arminianism, etc. render man in control of God's plan through his free will and create a pseudo-Gospel of grace-plus-human-effort. And that's what this OP is more or less getting at perhaps.

Possibly. Although that is a misreprensentation of opposing position.

[Kelp]

Possibly. Although that is a misreprensentation of opposing position.A misrepresentation by me or by RanRan?

[RanRan]

Nang is a good example. Agree or disagree with her at least she is willing to cite scripture and discuss it. It is at least a position worthy of respect IMO. RanRan either can't or won't discuss scripture. If your theology is un-scriptural it's worthless..

There you go. Your assertion that 'God is not reconciled' is worthless and unscriptural - an old wive's tale. I showed that. I've quoted scripture to you - you called it 'cherry picking.' So what is the point of me quoting more to you? You'll spit on whatever scripture I cite. Beginning with this: 'We trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe."

If you can get 3 or 4 people to spit with you - do you feel empowered enough to call it heresy?

[Cowthulu]

A misrepresentation by me or by RanRan?

Rendering man in control of God's plan is a misreprensentation of the Arminian and similar positions. I don't know of anyone who argues man is in control.

I can understand your question though. RanRan likes misrepresenting people so I could have easily been referring to him. His signature is a huge misrepresentation for example. No one claims God hates your guts until you say he doesn't. Its much easier for him to attack a position that no one actually holds than it is to deal with their actual argument. :teeth:

Similarly you'll notice RanRan has just accused me of asserting "God is not reconciled." I have never anywhere in this thread asserted anything like that. I have not argued for or against that position. However RanRan in his typical fashion pretends that I do.

Disagreeing with his interpretation of scripture is to "spit" on it is another one. :shrug: Just another emotive distraction tactic because his argument lacks any real substance and depends on scriptural snippets without any context.

[Kelp]

I've noticed though that many Monergists assert that is what Arminianism logically boils down to. That's all I ment in my post. And judging from the OP it seems RanRan would agree with characterising Arminianism that way.

In addition, I don't think RanRan would say that anybody actively claims that God hates until we believe differantly. He would say that is ultimately what is implied by what they are saying whether they realize it or not

[RanRan]

Similarly you'll notice RanRan has just accused me of asserting "God is not reconciled." I have never anywhere in this thread asserted anything like that. I have not argued for or against that position. However RanRan in his typical fashion pretends that I do.

In your post #8 here, you agreed and complemented Bill the Cat when he claimed 'God is not reconciled.'

You said that was a 'good point.' I can only go by what you say.

Disagreeing with his interpretation of scripture is to "spit" on it is another one.

Natural theology produces a certain cynicism toward the Gospel while calling it 'faith.' For example, 'God is Love' is spit upon as being a naive and stupid claim by those holding it - while 'God hates' is viewed as the more profound view. It's simply faith in the senses: "Look at this mess, God must hate mankind!' Natural Theology produces a universal f aux faith.