# the man-centered gospel



## reformedman (Jun 5, 2007)

I have a question concerning one small part of the man-centered gospel. I am against all parts of it, everyone of it. I am totally for the God-centered gospel. I want you to know this firstly so that this post doesn't get sidetracked into trying to persuade me to see the truth in the God-centered gospel, I'm already there. lol. 

I was surfing the net and found this.
http://www.christianclips.com/videos/children/The_Gospel_For_Kids

And this concept of, "God died for you" and for us and for everyone and for the world etc etc etc... as you all know is wrong to do. It is a lie being told by the evangelist. This relates to my question.

I began to think about it, and the evangelist does indeed lie albeit he may not know he is lying (hopefully) but nevertheless, scripture is clear as in eph 2:5 and a couple of others that I can't think of right now, that Christ died only for his elect.

Now, we are almost there:
I have been teaching my fundamental baptist friends at work and inlaws, the problem with this gospel and the wrongness of it in such away as to imply that there is a terrible danger. I once told my wife my opinion of it as being an insult to God to say that Christ died for those in hell, and so then some men have some merit over others because they did something that resulted in their salvation, therefore, works-salvation.

Then reflecting on all of this, I calmly think to myself, is it so very dangerous? YES! it is wrong, I know! but......is it dangerous. I might have gone too far. Did I forget that God is sovereign, and nothing happens without his ordaining and permitting it. That what some people mean for evil, God means it for good, and that these people don't even mean it for evil, they do it in their sinful innoncence.

Yes, it is wrong, but is it something that I might have gone too far with, concentrating so much of my efforts in their misinterpretation, and trying to sway them to see how simple God's work of salvation is, that he gives faith, that whoever believes is the person whom God has given faith. That whoever believes should excercise God's gift of repentance, and follow. etc.

No one here will probably be able to give an answer for my concern because they don't know to what extremes or lack thereof of work I've dedicated to debate this concept with people. Even with fundamentals over the net, now that I think of it.

Well, anyway, I wonder if anyone can offer some thoughts about this.
But, i will at any open door, from anyone asking me, give my view of what I believe the bible says about this, but what I mean is that I don't think I should bend backwards so far as I have gone before, and just friendly deal with them, teaching them in patience.

what do you guys think?


----------



## reformedman (Jun 5, 2007)

I posted a comment on a method by which I have spoken to others about the true evangel message. I also posted a mistake that I believe I was making in the attacks. My request is for people to read the post and then post their thoughts about perhaps the same mistakes that others have made with the same topic, the excessive defense against a man-centered gospel's error.

After all is said and done, if a person is told that Christ died for them, it will still not impart faith to the fellow, unless God gives it. No one can come unless the Father call. Therefore, if a person 'comes' under that given gospel, it is still nevertheless, only by faith (if it ofcourse is genuine). Therefore, it doesn't seem so terribly bad as I originally thought it was.

How many former fundamental bapists or man-centered gospel proponents were led to salvation during the times which they were demonstrated a gospel under those pretenses?

I was in a man-centered gospel church which told me that Christ died for all people, and although I was not led to Christ through them, many were. I think there is more danger in the other things they teach, for example, assuring the young kids, "don't worry, those doubts is satan tempting you, you are saved and don't let anyone else tell you different."

I truly find that to be disgusting.


----------



## Davidius (Jun 6, 2007)

Paul did not try to keep men from preaching the Gospel who did so for the wrong reasons. However, that is a different than preaching a false Gospel. Saying that Jesus died for everyone is a false Gospel. If it were true, then the person with whom you're sharing doesn't really need to believe because Christ has already died for them and their sins are atoned for; they'll have eternal life whether or not they believe. The only way to get around this is by adding qualifications that turn the message into works-based salvation. 

God may work through our sinfulness sometimes but that doesn't excuse it. The ends don't justify the means. Wouldn't it be better to preach the real Gospel than to acclimate ourselves to a false one because it "works" sometimes?


----------



## sotzo (Jun 6, 2007)

Not minimizing the concerns of the thread, but I've never understood why the issue of who Christ died for gets people so off-track. 

Christ died for sinners. The Gospel is freely offered from the pulpit, on a plane, to a child, to the man at the half-way house. We spread it generously out of joyful hearts. Some will accept that free offer and some will not.

While I have never understood how one comes away from Scripture adhereing to unlimited atonement, I also don't understand why the issue occupies so much of our time when the clear calling is for us to simply share the good news of Christ's life and death for sinners. We can't know who are elect and those who deny election cannot know either...and if we could know, it would not change the means by which God justifies...the call would still need to go out.


----------



## reformedman (Jun 6, 2007)

Thanks guys for the responses. 


> The only way to get around this is by adding qualifications that turn the message into works-based salvation.


That's the thing I had been doing, and that's pretty much what I am thinking about. If I keep knocking their method, and they don't agree with me but instead, they keep giving a Christ-died-for-all gospel, will that change the elect's eternal condition? ofcourse not, so why argue. This is what has been bothering me, in order to maintain a Christ died for some truth in my peers, it has come down to divisiveness and disagreement. They can't lead anymore to salvation than someone with the right gospel as opposed to their wrong gospel.

Sotzo, the gospel is given freely in all those places by both unlimited and limited atonement adherents, that is not the issue. The issue is not the work done by either side, the issue is, shall we be disagreeable with these people for giving out the gospel incorrectly. I hope you didn't misunderstand me, I never meant to say that some people are working more than others, apologies.


----------



## sotzo (Jun 6, 2007)

> Sotzo, the gospel is given freely in all those places by both unlimited and limited atonement adherents, that is not the issue. The issue is not the work done by either side, the issue is, shall we be disagreeable with these people for giving out the gospel incorrectly. I hope you didn't misunderstand me, I never meant to say that some people are working more than others, apologies.



Got it...I understand what you mean. Having been reared southern baptist, when I heard "Jesus died for everyone" what I took that to mean was "if you trust Jesus, he took the punishment in your place and you are forgiven". I honestly believe this is what most brothers of an unlimited atonement persuasion are intending to communicate. I really think they see I John 2:2("He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world") as meaning that Christ's death is sufficient to cover all sin, but that some will reject it therefore the verdict of "not guilty" is not applied.

At least that has been my experience coming from an Arminian upbringing. 

Do I think we should be disagreeable with such ministers / evangelists? No. The bottom line is that such a view, while wrong, does not compromise the Gospel message. The only time it could be compromised is if the unlimited atonement message is delivered with a "now Jesus has done his part, now do yours and ask Jesus to come into your heart, walk the aisle, etc.". In that scenario you then have people linking their salvation to their "decision for Christ"...however, if "Christ died for you" is linked with "repent and trust Jesus as Lord and Savior", I can't see the need for arguing about it.


----------

