In Matt 16:24 Jesus tells His disciples to pick up their crosses and follow Him. How would the apostles have understood what He was saying? He spoke these words before He was crucified, so the mention of a cross is a bit strange to me. The Greek word is "stauros" or "stauron" which means an upright stake. Jesus does tell the apostles in verse 16:21 what would shortly come to pass (His crucifixion) but the verse doesn't make any mention of crucifixion. We could surmise that Jesus told them that He would be crucified and the text just doesn't explicitly mention it, that could be a reasonable explanation, but what if He didn't give them those details? It creates a dilemma of sorts. I'd be interested in hearing how other people understand this passage.

Scriptures have clear evidence that God has already chosen some individuals for salvation. Here are some references... "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and **as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.**" (Acts 13:48) "And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, **for I have many people in this city**.” (Acts 18:9-10) "For those whom He foreknew, **He also predestined** to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30) The above verses provide us ample evidence that God in His sovereignty chooses some individuals for salvation. Them He justifies and glorifies. Then we also see in the Scriptures... "And He said to them, “Go into all the world and **preach the gospel to all creation.** The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16) “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that **everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.**" (John 3:16) According to the reformed theology how can the above both sets of verses be reconciled?

Jesus said the gospel needs to be preached to the whole world (ends of the earth) first before the end of this age, however during the time (70-100AD) when preterists believe most of the end time prophecies were fulfilled, the gospel was not preached to the ends of the earth i.e. South America, South East Asia, Africa, North America. Our age is the age when the gospel has been preached to all corners of the world. >And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.(Mathew 24:14) How do preterists respond to this?

A disciple asked Jesus why he used parables and in response he told him. >He replied, "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand. Luke 8:10 Why reveal it to the disciples directly but reveal it in parables to others?

>Thus speaks the LORD of hosts, Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassions every man toward his brother; and oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. (Zechariah 7:9-10) Although this is an Old Testament quotation, these admonitions seem to be repeated throughout the New Testament as well. (Matthew 25:31-46) >Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, "To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27) Is the modern emphasis by Evangelical and Reformed churches on "Salvation by faith alone through grace alone"---and just saying a "sinner's prayer" for salvation---giving a wrong impression as to what the Christian faith is all about? Should the "discipleship decision" include acceptance of the "social gospel" ,as well as, acceptance of the Apostles Creed (or denomination's creed)? And is Zechariah's verses an accurate presentation of what has historically been called "the Social Gospel". ***Is it non-essential in today's presentation of the Gospel of Grace. (A different gospel? Galatians 1:6-7), or is it an essential part of the evangelical Gospel?*** Is what is called "the Social Gospel" legitimate today, if it doesn't surplant the "Gospel of Grace" for salvation? We are basically seeking a critique of the present status of "the Social Gospel idea" in modern Protestantism denominations---and in actual preaching.

Since God revealed the gospel to all nations through his Son for free, is any church justified to withhold certain sermons from some of its members citing *membership requirements* reasons, should any pre-recorded sermon sit behind *password protection*? Is this what Jesus urged the church to do?

Paul wrote a letter and said that the Gentiles do some things which are godly because they have the law of Christ written on their hearts through their conscience and thoughts. *Romans 2:15* >They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. If the law of Christ is already written in their hearts, why then spread the gospel and not just wait to judge them at the end of the age since they have the knowledge of God in their conscience and thoughts?

In a recent interview (January 17, 2025), an oxford scholar and theologian, N.T. Wright, having written 90 books, concluded that the emphasis both in the O.T. and N.T. was NOT on getting people to Heaven, but rather, ***bringing Heaven to earth***! He alleged that there was too much emphasis in hymnals, as well as preaching, on leaving earth for their heavenly home. He did not deny the existence of Heaven nor deny it as our final destination. But noted that God wanted believers to ***seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness*** here in this life-time on earth. >He (Jesus) said to them, "When you pray, say, 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your Name;
***Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven***' " (Luke 11:2; Matthew 6:9-10) He recognized that the presentation of the Gospel transforms not only a person, but societies, and even nations. And that this is what is primary in the intention of God. There is no advocacy of extreme Post-millennialism here; just a need for the awareness of God's purpose for leaving the Church on earth, among the nations. Is this a proper interpretation of the New Testament Gospel message, according to Protestant (and/or Catholic) creeds? And is this a proper interpretation of the phrase in the Lord's Prayer, *on earth as it is in heaven*?

After the Fall, was the protoevangelium transmitted to all men so much so that all men have knowledge of the protoevangelium even if that knowledge was distorted? Every mythology has something analogous to the protoevangelium. Also, everyone descends from Adam and Eve, so Adam would have told his offspring about the protoevangelium.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul states the Gospel that saves: that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day. I have heard multiple versions of this when people teach people how to be saved, often in these two ways: 1. believe Jesus died for your sins, was buried, and rose again so you could be saved (no mention of the third day, just that he rose again) 2. believe Jesus died for your sins and rose again so you could be saved. Notice how the third day was not mentioned, nor the burial in the second one. Why are they omitted? If one believes in either of those two for salvation, are they still unsaved? Romans 6 seems to claim that Jesus was buried so we could be saved, too. Why would Jesus wanna make us believe in a timeframe to be saved? Yes, we should believe it, but do we have to believe the 3rd day part to BE saved?

Trying to come up with a list of essentials to center a gospel message on. I've seen the "Roman road of salvation" used before, but I am wondering if there are any specific summaries in the Bible I can use to create my own approach. **Edit\}** _(in response to input given thus far)_ **Thank you** for **all** your answers, suggestions, and comments. I **wish** there was the possibility to favorite more than one answer as i found a number of them extremely helpful and instructive. I will check back occasionally to see what other information might be shared in answering my question.

1 Timothy 2:4 states that God wants everyone to be saved: > This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and > to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator > between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for > all people. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles. Furthermore Timothy possibly implies that Jesus also saves those who don't believe: > That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the > living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those > who believe. In Ezekiel 18:23 we read: > Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the > Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their > ways and live? Ezekiel 18:32 > For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign > LORD. Repent and live! Ezekiel 33:11 > Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take > no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from > their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, > people of Israel?' Here is my question: it is obvious that lots of people in the world have never heard the gospel. This includes pretty much everyone living in East Asia, Australia and the Americas in the year 50 AD. These people had NO CHANCE to hear the gospel. Yet the above verses all show that God desires all to be saved. Doesn't that logically imply that people can be saved without coming to believe in the Gospel? After all, you can't have all three statements being true: 1. God desires all people to be saved 2. The only way to get saved is hearing the gospel and accepting Jesus 3. Many people never heard the gospel. One of these must not be correct and I think it's #2.

> **18** For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in > unrighteousness; > **19** Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. > **20** For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even > his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: I had this discussion in small group about how everyone undoubtedly knows who God is through creation (verse 20). But when "they are without excuse" does that imply that those who have not heard the gospel, but know that there is God, through creation, can be saved? The questions arose amongst the group on whether or not people in this situation can be saved without hearing the gospel? Or are they presented with the gospel in a different way (not ways of spreading the word)? Or is there something wrong/missing? A friend of mine did quote a passage from the book "Radical" by David Platt that when we ask the question about how people in 3rd world countries can be saved if they were never given the chance to hear about the gospel. Platt tells us that the problems lies within the question itself, that by asking it assumes that these 3rd world country people who have never heard of the gospel are innocent, when we are all sinful in nature. But going back to my original question, referencing verse 20, are we all "without excuse" even if we have not heard about the gospel? **Is there another way the gospel can be presented?**

For those that believe some are predestined to reject Christ, is the gospel still offered to them?

We hear Jesus saying in Lk 4:18: > The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. We see a number of chosen persons in OT getting anointed for specific purposes, for instance, Aaron in Exodus and David in 1 Samuel. There was a prescribed procedure for the anointment. Now, the name Christ or Messiah literally means 'anointed'. But we do not see the Gospels mentioning his physical anointment, though his Baptism is narrated. **Was Jesus physically anointed by someone?** Are there any apocryphal writings or scholarly views available on the topic?

Does "gospel-preaching church" have a shared meaning among Christians? What is it supposed to mean, and what are the signs of this "gospel-preaching church"? Is the term a tautology? Or is the negation of the term a way to criticize and slight other types of Christians or denominations that one group of Christians may disapprove of or dislike? If possible, where did this phrase come from, and by whom is this phrase typically used?

I have seen testimonies of converts from America describing they raised their hands when the preacher asked "who wants to accept Jesus as their Lord?" or something like that. Which churches have this practice on a regular Sunday service? If so, do these churches always have new visitors, or some of the regular members themselves raise hands in these altar calls?

It is a polemical rabbinic translation of the entire New Testament, allegedly in an uneven and faulty Hebrew, and with a strong anti-Christian bias.

As far as I know [there are 4 Gospels](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18703/what-is-a-gospel-and-how-many-gospels-are-there-in-the-catholic-bible) : Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I am an ex-Christian (currently atheist) who had a debate with a Muslim about a few discrepancies between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Muslims believe that 1. Haman worked for Pharaoh and is building babel tower 2. Mary was a sibling of Aaron 3. Jesus is given "gospel". As a non-Muslim and atheist, I of course think that Muhammad simply made a mistake. Perhaps he didn't get the story right or wasn't consistent with his sources. But of course Muslim apologists will claim that it's a misunderstanding anyway: different Haman, different meaning of sibling, and different gospel. The 3rd point is more interesting though. My Muslim friend pointed out that gospels *already* EXISTED before the Bible was written: - [Mark 1:14](https://biblehub.com/mark/1-14.htm) - [Matthew 4:23](https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-23.htm) - [Luke 8:1](https://biblehub.com/luke/8-1.htm) So it's a bit tricky. In Indonesia the word for "gospel" is "injil". I wonder where that word came from. Muslims seem to think that Jesus got the "gospel" like Muhammad got the Qur'an. But I think that's just not the case. The Gospels we have now, I understand them to be Jesus' late biographies, a bit like Hadith in Islam. However, the fact that the word "gospel" DOES show up in the Gospels themselves is intriguing. **What "gospel" was Jesus preaching because the Gospels as books weren't even written when he was living?** It looks to me that he was a Rabbi who preached typical Judaism stuff that might or might not be reinterpreted by his followers to be something much more than that.

Concerning the end of the world and when this will happen Mark 13:10 says: > And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. (NIV) Has the gospel been preached to all nations?