Dr. Allen Davis: The Real Gospel (Follow-up Video)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- Just when you think you’ve made something clear, you realize you have to follow-up to allay any angst or confusion. And so, in this video my aim is to simplify and clarify what I thought was unambiguous in the talk I did about the Gospel. In the simplest of statements, the Gospel is how God provided a solution for sin in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. It was and is a finished work.
___________________________________________
Intro Music: L. v. Beethoven, Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op 67: I. Public Domain
Can’t wait to hear your thoughts on the 3 angels message…I’ve been thinking about that for awhile now…
Amen! This I can totally agree with. Once one is truly saved, they can not help but shine the light. It's not a requirement for salvation, but the evidence of salvation. Thusly it isn't something we try to do to gain salvation, and neither is it something we don't do, but something that comes forth innately due to the transformative work of the spirit in our lives. So simple, yet so many get it mixed up. And I think it might be because of people's starting intentions to be saved. Everyone is trying to escape either an eternal conscious torment, or annihilation (depending on what view they hold) instead of simply seeking a relationship with the one true almighty God.
I remember sitting down one day and came to an epiphany. If Jesus isn't in heaven and the new earth, I don't want to go. I want to be where he is. I want to know my creator. For me, salvation isn't so much about dodging the flames as it is about coming closer to God. THAT is heaven to me, and it starts here. I believe if people quit looking at salvation as fire insurance and more like an opportunity to know their all loving creator, we would have more christians living out the fruits of the spirit. That's my 2 cents anyway. 😊
Great elevator presentation of the Gospel! An Adventist could never present this, let alone in 10 minutes. In my experience it'd take 12 months of Bible studies and they'd still just circle the Target by the end. 😂 So glad you made it out just as I did!
*"If Jesus isn't in heaven and the new earth, I don't want to go. I want to be where he is. I want to know my creator. For me, salvation isn't so much about dodging the flames as it is about coming closer to God. THAT is heaven to me, and it starts here. I believe if people quit looking at salvation as fire insurance and more like an opportunity to know their all loving creator, we would have more christians living out the fruits of the spirit."*
Couldn't have said it better myself! Thx for the comment!
A thought just crossed my mind after listening to your video a second time. And that is this, it seems to me that many who call themselves Christians get the whole concept of good works mixed up with working there way to Heaven. It should and ought to be a natural progression of living a life in Christ. One should not feel obligated by the church or a pastor to do some good work , when we don't feel the same need. We should have the same holy spirit that the pastor has or any other so called holy man. Thank you
To me the Gospel in the simplest terms is Ephesians chapter 2 verse 8-9. That is the Gospel.
Yes, although verse 10 needs to accompany the passage. What I find with many, is this passage gives them a get out of jail free card, not realizing transformation is of necessity. Although you and I understand this passage, for many the isolation of this text requires development. Blessings!
@DrAD767 yes I understand your concern in that regard. However the often equal if not bigger concern is the churches and pastors, priests, bishops, and other holy men who heap burdens on ignorant people who make their life a living hell.
Both concerns are equally valid. Those who use the verse to get out of jail, most would not consider them to be true Christians because they have no change of the heart. And yet they would consider those who are doing everything in the book to be true saints. Who if people knew are living a life of hell. Because they don't understand the freedom the Gospel brings to their lives. Which sadly many people throw in the towel and think incorrectly they must do all the things the church or pastor say or they will lose their salvation. Their must be balance in your Christians walk. And sadly in my opinion there isn't a whole lot of balance in the Christians in our world today. If there was many more people would be attracted to the Christian way of life. Just as a side note 📝 in regard to this conversation. I once had a SDA pastor tell me that I had lost my way, just because my thoughts did not align with his. I asked him if he knew the thoughts of my heart. Then the only thing you could hear was crickets. Thats why we don't put our trust in churches or pastors we must put our trust in Jesus Christ and him alone. As Paul says we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Thank you Dr Davis. Ps I see 👀 a lot more people trying to work their way to Heaven.
Amen!
Dr. Davis, I am a former SDA who became Catholic. I pray that God brings you home to the Catholic Church.
I so very much appreciate your sincerity and commitment. Not to disappoint you, but I will never again be a Roman Catholic. I do believe in the universal (i.e., catholic) faith, but Romanism has as many problems as does SDA-ism. That said, if it's any consolation, I believe the Roman Catholic faith has better ground upon which to stand than does SDA-ism.
@@DrAD767 I admire your commitment to find the truth. I am not sure how much of the Catholic faith you have studied deeply before you came to that conclusion, but I found the ancient churches to be the only options for me, if I were to remain a Christian after I left the Adventist Church. Do you have the same sentiments towards the Orthodox Church (either Oriental or Eastern)? If you are willing, I would like to share some of the videos that explain better than I could why the Catholic faith is true and you can tell me where they went wrong. I became a Catholic less than a year ago.
@@Hanna_W I appreciate your willingness to share your faith. I'm guessing, you weren't aware I was born and raised Roman Catholic: baptism, first communion/reconciliation, confirmation, holy matrimony are the sacraments I received while in the church. I separated from Romanism when I became SDA.
Over the years, I have carefully studied the Roman Catholic faith, along with the Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches. I understand their theology, Christology, soteriology, and eschatology, and I've found too many human voices are permitted to form and establish doctrine. I believe in *solo scriptura* such that only the Bible can be used to explain itself re: these aforementioned subjects. In short, I prefer not to embrace any particular denomination.
Blessings to you!
@@DrAD767 Okay, I understand. I found out that I couldn't accept Sola Scriptura because this assertion itself has to be established using the Bible. The Cannon can not be established by the Bible itself, and therefore, all the Protestant denominations were out of the question for me. The other thing that drew me to Catholic/Orthodox Churches was the Eucharist. I wish you all the best, may the Lord God grant you peace!
Amen 🙏
1 Minute into the video it is all said . John 3:16
Yes, He has not come but for the lost sheep of Israel. He never called us anything other
So I’ve been thinking about this for a while now, if Catholics are under the law do they still not have the seal of god from baptism. Basically if one believes his salvation is based on the law will they be judged by the law thus refuting their salvation. This is kinda what is making me question becoming a catholic even though almost all of my family is catholic. People online say that Catholics are going to hell if they believe in the law (which would mean 2000 years of Christian’s have been going to hell because they have been taught to keep the law to be saved)
The rite of baptism (i.e., infant dedication) within Roman Catholicism is in line with the Jewish practice of consecrating a child (cf. Luke 2:27) to God. It is the act of confirmation -- as an early teen -- where Romanism performs the act of what is better called baptism: the oil used during the ceremonial act symbolizes the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Earlier in the catholic believer's journey, he experienced communion. I don't agree with the extra-biblical methods and symbols they use, but at the same time, there's nothing necessarily incorrect about the basic teaching and commitment. Sadly, it's often ritualistic and the true meaning is lost to those receiving these sacraments.
Anyway....back to your thoughts and concern....like SDA-ism, Romanism teaches a righteousness by faith message that incorporates infused righteousness, that is, one is made holy over time to the point of sinless perfection. If unattained in life, but the person is a "good" person, then in death the person is purged (i.e., purgatory) so to gain admittance to Heaven. In SDA-ism, the individual walks a living purgatory (i.e., like pruning a tree for good fruit) of sanctification that will earn him the right to stand before God without a mediator, that is, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Both of these doctrines are 180-degrees out from the true Gospel. I would encourage you to earnestly pray before walking the path of Romanism. And, if you're stuck in SDA-ism, I would also encourage you to step away for a season and truly learn what the good news of the kingdom of God truly is.
I saq you use the name Yeho’vah in your recent interview with Peter Dixon. Are you familiar with Nehemiah Gordon? I've known Nehemia for nearly over 20 years when I did research into the October 22 date
Yes, I've been studying his work for the last month....amazing!
@@DrAD767 He and his wife safely made it out of Israel and are back in Texas where he's been living. We had him and his sidekick Keith Johnson at our church back in 2009 here in Phoenix, and Nehemiah by himself several years later speaking on the Tetragramaton.
I intend to share a video on the subject re: the name of God, as I see it as THE most important issue one can understand. I realize there's much to unpack in such a statement and position, but suffice it to say, if we don't have the right God, then we don't have the right Jesus.
"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?" (Pro 30:4 KJV)
Winner, winner... chicken dinner! -king, of the first comment
EXCELENTE EXPOSIÇÃO
The Arminian gospel is not the everlasting gospel. Notice that it cannot account for Romans 2.14-16. It is the gospel taught by SDA, and every other denomination; and it is a false gospel. If your gospel can't account for the fact that some will be glorified who never had knowledge of Jehovah and His Law, then you are not holding the one and only everlasting gospel. The Arminian gospel is a gospel of salvation by work. It's subtle, but that's what it is.
So very true. And, to use the word Gospel would be a paradox, for the law isn’t good news.
I am afraid you have missed my point. With all due respect, you are not teaching the everlasting gospel. You are teaching the Arminian gospel; the gospel made popular by Jacobus Arminius. It's what all of Christendom teaches, and it's not the true/or everlasting gospel. You say that it's wrong to try to him make our light shine, and it's wrong to think that our light doesn't have to shine, and that the truth is that when we join ourselves to Christ he, and not we, makes our light shine. The true gospel teaches that the light of Jehovah, and of his human son Jesus, shines in the world regardless of what man consciously chooses to do with Him and his son. To put it another way, and to illustrate this point, you say that once we join ourselves to Christ, we "by nature, without even thinking about it, we will produce good fruit." While I will certainly admit that such a thought is indeed good news, it is not The Good News, it is not the everlasting gospel. The definitive proof of this is the fact that the Bible in numerous places, most notably in Romans chapter 2 verses 14 through 16, makes it clear that even people who do not know Jehovah, and do not have knowledge of his law, do "by nature" produce good fruit. The Arminian gospel cannot account for this, but the everlasting gospel most certainly does! Notice that the Gentiles spoken of by Paul in Romans chapter 2 are not "in Christ," and yet they produce good fruit. This is a result of the truth of the everlasting gospel, namely the fact that while they themselves are not consciously "in Christ," Christ is indeed in them. This is the mystery Paul speaks of, and it is the one and only true and everlasting gospel, namely, that what Christ has done has redeemed all of Adam's children. The Arminian gospel is a gospel of salvation by work, as it requires man to make a good decision in order to be counted among the redeemed. The true gospel points out that man has done nothing and can do nothing that will result in him being counted among the redeemed, as Christ has already done that for all. The only choice mankind has in the matter is whether or not they will remain in the salvation that they have received. That's the everlasting gospel! It's so much broader, higher, deeper, than the Arminian gospel, that it may offend you. I pray it doesn't offend, but instead thrills. The everlasting gospel is the only gospel that truly, thoroughly, completely, gives all the glory to God, and to his Christ, regarding the salvation of persons, whereas the Arminian gospel contends that man plays a role in obtaining his redemption. Again, please carefully consider the implications of Romans chapter 2 verses 14 to 16, noticing that what Paul is saying here is highlighting what Ezekiel says in chapter 36 verses 25 through 27. The Arminian gospel cannot account for Romans chapter 2.14-16. The everlasting gospel can, because the everlasting gospel doesn't depend on man for help in making God's light shine. He makes his light shine through men even when they are not aware of it! For a more thorough explanation of this people can find my blog and read about it there.
I appreciate your comment and the additional clarification you've added to your understanding of the Gospel. I'll delineate my thoughts below:
- I understand your point. One thing I want to point out is, there is no "Arminian Gospel" because to infer such a thing is to believe the law saves a person, and it clearly does not. I believe you realize this fact, and are simply teeing up the term so to differentiate it from the true -- and yes, everlasting -- Gospel
- Re: Romans 2:14-16, of course, I agree with you. At the same time, this passage cannot be taken in isolation. The tapestry of its beauty refers to how no one has an excuse to deny a loving and merciful God, whom Paul magnifies in the prior discourse (cf. Rom 1:19, 20). This revelation was an affront to the Jews and an undeniable hope for the Greeks and Barbarians. In this light, one must be unequivocal in this position, not permitting postmodern ideas of humanism and moralism to have a foothold. There are many who reject God, His existence, and His influence, and yet, they are what many might deem to be moral and upstanding people. Granted, the idea of Rom 2:14-16 might obviate the postmodern thinking I've highlighted; nevertheless, one cannot allow any room for moralism or humanism to fit into said passage.
- Just to ensure I'm clear, a person might not realize he or she is "in Christ", and still be so (as you've shared), but I submit to you, *ONLY* if there does not exist an explicit rejection.
- I believe, as do you, Christ's life, death, resurrection, and ascension were indeed the sole series of acts that redeemed all of Adam's race writ large. Yet again, I believe there are two caveats: 1) no overt rejection; 2) when presented with the inexcusable truth, it must be accepted. I cannot and do not accept the notion of everyone will be "saved".
- Yet again, Ezekiel 36, especially the passages you've cited, are about regeneration based upon an understanding of who God truly is: as Jesus revealed Him to be. In your understanding, are you making a claim for purist Calvinism? I'm not entirely certain; hence, the question. As I read Ezekiel, it doesn't harmonize with Romans 2:14-16, because the former group of people knows of the true God; the latter doesn't. Further, Isaiah claimed, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it]." (Isa 1:18-20 KJV) Believers must be willing and obedient to God's solution, and not the law, statutes, or judgments. In so doing, they join themselves to the God of Heaven via the Everlasting Gospel. I don't believe either agreement or willingness denotes work or role, as one might contend via Arminianism.
- For those who don't know God, from all I've read in the sacred texts, He will deal with them as only He can: with mercy and compassion. Those thru whom His light shines are indeed in His favor, but we must be careful not to believe their personal actions are what gains such favor. It is indeed a mystery how this works, and I don't pretend to understand it. Whether or not they ever become acquainted with the name of Jesus or of Jehovah has no bearing on their redemption, provided they're the vessel as you've explained. Yet, when faced with who it is that works in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure, there can be no other alternative than to bow the knee and confess Jesus Christ, to the glory of God, the Father.
At the end of the day, I'm hopeful you and I are in the same ballpark, and perhaps continued sharing of thoughts will bring us to home plate.
@@DrAD767 I do believe we are "in the same ballpark."
Let me clarify what I mean by the "Arminian gospel". When I say the "Arminian gospel," I suppose I should say Arminianism, that is, the gospel as first prominently promoted by Jacobus Arminius. This is the gospel that you are presenting, essentially, leaving aside issues related to the nature of Christ. The central point of Arminianism is that human beings are not justified/saved/redeemed until and unless they accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. This is not correct, and I am exercising restraint in simply saying that it is not correct. This is the gospel you are presenting here. In other words, notwithstanding the differences that I believe exists between yourself and Arminius, with regard to the nature of Christ, you are putting forward essentially the same gospel message; that is that one is not justified/redeemed/saved until and unless they accept Jesus Christ. Put another way, that one cannot bear good fruit or shine a light without accepting Christ. This is clearly not true, and not consistent with the everlasting gospel. Arminianism is not the everlasting gospel. Notice that, logically, Arminianism makes man into his own Savior. This is unavoidable no matter how hard you want to try, as the only difference between one man and another, within the Arminian viewpoint, has to do with choices and actions taken by the man. This means that man saves himself by agreeing with the good advice and taking action on. He can then boast about himself as compared to those who have not heard, understood, and acted on the good advice. Arminianism is what the SDA church currently teaches, and it is what pretty much all of Christendom teaches. And it is not the truth. The Arminian gospel is not good news, it’s good advice. While if one takes a very gracious view of Arminianism, one can indeed say that it is very very good advice, nevertheless, it is not good news. The everlasting gospel is without question good news! The good news is that all of humanity has been redeemed! This is what Romans 5.18 is speaking of very clearly. This is given to all men, the light that lighted all men. Redemption is not different for those who don’t know Christ as compared to those who eventually do come to know Christ. All human beings have redemption as a birthright delivered to them without their knowledge or consent and before they even have use of reason. I agree with you that there cannot be “explicit rejection.” But I would also say that we have to be careful here. Does God abandon a person upon the first explicit rejection? Doubtful! Accepting Christ when one comes to know about him is a step in the process of sanctification. Our God and his son lead us on gently in this process. Many individuals have justifiably rejected a message about Christ due to glaring flaws in the person who presented Christ to them, as well as glaring flaws in the message as it was delivered. This is what Paul refers to when he says that the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of hypocrites among those who know God and his law. So the issue of explicit rejection is not an entirely simple one, but one that needs to be explained carefully and thoroughly. One does not lose their birthright in Christ haphazardly, nor without a fight on the part of Jehovah and His son!
Finally, I will point out that my emphasis in everything I have said previously in this post and others under this video and the first one about the gospel, is on elucidating the everlasting gospel, and is not on elucidating the process of sanctification which involves ever-increasing compliance with the law of God. The startling liberality of the true everlasting gospel should not lead anyone to fears regarding increased sinning so that grace might abound, as such ideas are diametrically opposed to the very core of the gospel, which is that redemption is given for the purpose of eventual entire restoration. The everlasting gospel is a doctrine distinct from the doctrine of the law and sanctification. Of course these are all inextricably and beautifully intertwined. But they should not be spoken of as if they were one and the same thing. The good news is the good news, not the good advice. Keeping the law is good advice. Indeed keeping the law is very good advice. But when we are attempting to clarify the one and only true everlasting gospel, which has never before been taught in modern times, we should be very careful to distinguish it from the fulfillment of the law in us. The fulfillment of the law in us is a beautiful and necessary thing, but it is not the gospel. In fact, without the understanding of the true everlasting gospel, the fulfillment of the law in us becomes a very questionable affair.
You're teaching the gospel of wide is the road that leads to destruction..
Oh really? Please explain how you came to such a conclusion.
Your failure to respond to my genuine inquiry demonstrates a lack of consecration and lack of desire for all to come to God in faith. I have found this behavior to be typical amongst the "peculiar" people of the little red books.
Amen!
AMEN!