A different gospel?

[fastfredy0]

I am truly interested in understanding what people here consider the boundaries and contours of the "true" gospel vs "a different gospel." How technically accurate does one's theology need to be? How does the heart and faith belief, loyalty, allegiance factor in?

Fascinating question... given the hypothetical consequences of going to HELL for eternity if you GET IT WRONG ... probably something one should look into.

Premise 1: God chooses those that He will save, not one of them will be lost (Reformed view point)
Conclusion: The answer to your question is intellectually interesting but of not practical application in regards to whether or not one goes to heaven or hell

Premise 1: We determine of free will where 'free will' is defines as deciding to believe salvificly independent of God) (Arminians and RCs view point)
Conclusion: Holy hell (pun intended), you better get this answer to this question right. (I'll take "life in heaven or hell" for $2000 Alex)

Back to your question ... I go along with the opinions of the following 2 quotes. Part of my reasoning is that the understanding of a child is sufficient for salvation.

• John Calvin’s in the Institutes of the Christian Religion writes: We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ. Knowledge of faith consists more of certainty than discernment.”
• Herman Bavinck in Reformed Dogmatics writes: There is a danger in reducing the faith to quantitative measurement. Such an arithmetic of belief obscures the qualitative, gracious, person, organic relation to Christ. Faith is trust in the grace of God and not calculable. The content of faith is not reducible to an arithmetic addition of articles.

Given faith requires something to believe is must by definition include knowledge of something ...
So, what must be believed factually to be saved and yet is a qualitative answer? My answer:
The belief and acceptance that Jesus is Savior and Lord. By “Savior” one means Christ will save his people from hell and usher them into the eternal Kingdom. By “Lord” one means Christ rules over us; the Lord Messiah, the Christ, where ‘Christ’ means the Savior-King sent by God. Making Christ Lord is the result of trust which as a component of Faith. Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31

Addendum:

• I also believe one must believe Christ is God John 20:31 and 1 John 5:13 (some say this is not necessary)
• and I believe one is severed from God if they believe they are saved in part by works (Galatians) ... possibly even the belief of the work of faith if one thinks part of saving faith is their work (Faith alone) ..I'm on small minority on this point (I think Eleanor might agree with me

• So "faith alone as necessary for salvation" needs to be added.

Rick Brown's Opinion​

It could be said that the Gospel’s message concerning getting saved is very simple and does not require one to have a great depth of theological understanding. That may come afterwards, but it is not a prerequisite for salvation. What is required is simply to put one’s faith personally in Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, meaning one’s Lord and Savior. That Christ is GOD and loved above all. Saving faith, in both its propositional and relational aspects, is simply saying "Yes" to Jesus. After that there can be growth in the Christian life and understanding. https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/17_4_PDFs/02_Brown_Beliefs_hw.pdf

 

[fastfredy0]

I'm thinking of writing a book ... The New "New Perspective" - the Sequel

 

[Eleanor]

Fascinating question... given the hypothetical consequences of going to HELL for eternity if you GET IT WRONG ... probably something one should look into.

Premise 1: God chooses those that He will save, not one of them will be lost (Reformed view point)
Conclusion: The answer to your question is intellectually interesting but of not practical application in regards to whether or not one goes to heaven or hell

Premise 1: We determine of free will where 'free will' is defines as deciding to believe salvificly independent of God) (Arminians and RCs view point)
Conclusion: Holy hell (pun intended), you better get this answer to this question right. (I'll take "life in heaven or hell" for $2000 Alex)

Back to your question ... I go along with the opinions of the following 2 quotes. Part of my reasoning is that the understanding of a child is sufficient for salvation.

• John Calvin’s in the Institutes of the Christian Religion writes: We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ. Knowledge of faith consists more of certainty than discernment.”
• Herman Bavinck in Reformed Dogmatics writes: There is a danger in reducing the faith to quantitative measurement. Such an arithmetic of belief obscures the qualitative, gracious, person, organic relation to Christ. Faith is trust in the grace of God and not calculable. The content of faith is not reducible to an arithmetic addition of articles.

Given faith requires something to believe is must by definition include knowledge of something ...
So, what must be believed factually to be saved and yet is a qualitative answer? My answer:
The belief and acceptance that Jesus is Savior and Lord. By “Savior” one means Christ will save his people from hell and usher them into the eternal Kingdom. By “Lord” one means Christ rules over us; the Lord Messiah, the Christ, where ‘Christ’ means the Savior-King sent by God. Making Christ Lord is the result of trust which as a component of Faith. Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31

Addendum:

• I also believe one must believe Christ is God John 20:31 and 1 John 5:13 (some say this is not necessary)
• and I believe one is severed from God if they believe they are saved in part by works (Galatians) ... possibly even the belief of the work of faith if one thinks part of saving faith is their work (Faith alone) ..I'm on small minority on this point

• (I think Eleanor might agree with me

Yep, she sees Paul as teaching such.

Rick Brown's Opinion​

It could be said that the Gospel’s message concerning getting saved is very simple and does not require one to have a great depth of theological understanding. That may come afterwards, but it is not a prerequisite for salvation. What is required is simply to put one’s faith personally in Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, meaning one’s Lord and Savior. That Christ is GOD and loved above all. Saving faith, in both its propositional and relational aspects, is simply saying "Yes" to Jesus. After that there can be growth in the Christian life and understanding. https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/17_4_PDFs/02_Brown_Beliefs_hw.pdf

 

[fastfredy0]

There are a few of us here, who used to know a person who at one time claimed to be a Calvinist. For years we posted with him. Throughout these years I noticed a couple of things that just didn't mix well with the Reformed faith, but, everyone is different.

Sounds like civic (I wrote the name backwards to hide his identity.)

 

[TB2]

Fascinating question... given the hypothetical consequences of going to HELL for eternity if you GET IT WRONG ... probably something one should look into.

Premise 1: God chooses those that He will save, not one of them will be lost (Reformed view point)
Conclusion: The answer to your question is intellectually interesting but of not practical application in regards to whether or not one goes to heaven or hell

Premise 1: We determine of free will where 'free will' is defines as deciding to believe salvificly independent of God) (Arminians and RCs view point)
Conclusion: Holy hell (pun intended), you better get this answer to this question right. (I'll take "life in heaven or hell" for $2000 Alex)

Back to your question ... I go along with the opinions of the following 2 quotes. Part of my reasoning is that the understanding of a child is sufficient for salvation.

• John Calvin’s in the Institutes of the Christian Religion writes: We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ. Knowledge of faith consists more of certainty than discernment.”
• Herman Bavinck in Reformed Dogmatics writes: There is a danger in reducing the faith to quantitative measurement. Such an arithmetic of belief obscures the qualitative, gracious, person, organic relation to Christ. Faith is trust in the grace of God and not calculable. The content of faith is not reducible to an arithmetic addition of articles.

Given faith requires something to believe is must by definition include knowledge of something ...
So, what must be believed factually to be saved and yet is a qualitative answer? My answer:
The belief and acceptance that Jesus is Savior and Lord. By “Savior” one means Christ will save his people from hell and usher them into the eternal Kingdom. By “Lord” one means Christ rules over us; the Lord Messiah, the Christ, where ‘Christ’ means the Savior-King sent by God. Making Christ Lord is the result of trust which as a component of Faith. Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31

Addendum:

• I also believe one must believe Christ is God John 20:31 and 1 John 5:13 (some say this is not necessary)
• and I believe one is severed from God if they believe they are saved in part by works (Galatians) ... possibly even the belief of the work of faith if one thinks part of saving faith is their work (Faith alone) ..I'm on small minority on this point (I think Eleanor might agree with me

Rick Brown's Opinion​

It could be said that the Gospel’s message concerning getting saved is very simple and does not require one to have a great depth of theological understanding. That may come afterwards, but it is not a prerequisite for salvation. What is required is simply to put one’s faith personally in Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, meaning one’s Lord and Savior. That Christ is GOD and loved above all. Saving faith, in both its propositional and relational aspects, is simply saying "Yes" to Jesus. After that there can be growth in the Christian life and understanding. https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/17_4_PDFs/02_Brown_Beliefs_hw.pdf

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

"Herman Bavinck in Reformed Dogmatics writes: There is a danger in reducing the faith to quantitative measurement. Such an arithmetic of belief obscures the qualitative, gracious, person, organic relation to Christ. Faith is trust in the grace of God and not calculable. The content of faith is not reducible to an arithmetic addition of articles.
So, what must be believed factually to be saved and yet is a qualitative answer? My answer:
The belief and acceptance that Jesus is Savior and Lord. By “Savior” one means Christ will save his people from hell and usher them into the eternal Kingdom. By “Lord” one means Christ rules over us; the Lord Messiah, the Christ, where ‘Christ’ means the Savior-King sent by God. Making Christ Lord is the result of trust which as a component of Faith. Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31

What is required is simply to put one’s faith personally in Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, meaning one’s Lord and Savior. That Christ is GOD and loved above all."

------------

We will no doubt be accused by some of being minimalists, but you've captured the same sense of what I lean to, too. And that's what we see when we look at references to the gospel message (apostolic kerygma) in the NT

•Jesus is Lord
•The gospel message/apostolic kerygma that was proclaimed
•Historically speaking, the origin of Christianity was founded on the essential, non-negotiable 'good news' proclamation of Christ's atoning death & bodily resurrection, which to the earliest Christians evidenced Christ's vindication and exaltation as Lord by God the Father

E.g., Pre-Pauline Creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 ("For I delivered to you of first importance...)

•Importantly, the most essential Christian tenet is not so much a tenet or doctrinal statement, as it is an event (i.e., the bodily resurrection). Theologically, everything else (e.g., the Torah, salvation, kingdom of God, eschatology, final judgment, corporate membership in the Body of Christ, ethics/morality, Jewish monotheism/the Shema expansion to include Christ alongside Yawheh, while denying all other gods, etc., etc.) is reframed in light of this one, single history-altering event of the resurrection.

*In different periods of history, the church has overemphasized certain theological aspects at the expense of others as well as added doctrines that have detracted from the centrality of the gospel message/apostolic kerygma. Any discussion of essentials, would necessitate having to weed through those traditions and imbalances that have developed in Catholicism, Protestantism, and East Orthodox traditions.

*The classic academic work on the subject that is credited with first bringing scholarly attention to the historical centrality of the crucifixion-resurrection event in origins of Christianity studies was:

CH Dodd's The Apostolic Preaching And Its Developments

 

[TB2]

@fastfredy0

To expound a bit further, yes, I think you've captured the essence, particularly with the crucifixion-resurrection as Christ's vindication, exaltation as "Messiah, Lord and Savior. That Christ is God."

That was certainly what separated Christianity from Judaism. A major "innovation/mutation" in Judaism as Larry Hurtado calls it that modified the most sacred declaration of monotheism in Judaism: the Shema "Hear O Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is one..."

Which in 1 Corinthians 8.6 Paul expands the sacred Shema to include Jesus (utter blasphemy to Judaism!), while still rejecting all other false gods of paganism:

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

This major 'innovation' in Judaism by the earliest Christians is instructive for another reason. We are trained to approach the "essentials of Christianity" question from the angle of systematic theology and doctrinal statements of faith, but in doing so miss an important essential, because things like systematic theology are more academic 'head-knowledge' developments that came later in church history; motivated by the writings of Paul, the first great Christian theologian. Before Paul, such theology (as a more intellectual, scholarly pursuit) didn't really exist. Religious practice (in paganism and Judaism) was more temple-sacrifice-to-your-god/God focused.

Ancient religion was less about "essential" doctrinal statements and theologies, and more about the particular temple 'cultus' you identified with. But with Christianity, to this was added the unthinkable (to pagans) Christian insistence of exclusive, absolute loyalty, allegiance, and devotion to the "one true God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ" to the exclusion of all other competing gods.

I bring this up because I think it speaks to your point about the "danger of reducing faith to a quantitative measurement." I think it's so easy to miss that point, since early Christianity wasn't framed in the familiar context of an elaborate doctrinal statement that we're so used to thinking in terms of, but in terms of a far less academic, far less intellectualized statement of personal identification: a personal and corporate statement of identity with Christ, and exclusive absolute devotion, loyalty, and allegiance (professing "faith") in "JESUS IS LORD."

I think it can be difficult for us to capture the sense of this Christian essential of exclusive allegiance and absolute devotion to "Jesus is Lord" in modern times when conversion or church membership sometimes becomes more of an academic exercise, and intellectual assent to a doctrinal statement. When by contrast early Christian confessions of exclusive allegiance and devotion to the one true "God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ" were effectually less theological and more *treasonous* in their rejection of the Imperial Roman Emperor and sole allegiance to Christ.

So, following in step with what you said, if we had to boil it down to the simplest, essential of essentials, and the most succinct encapsulation I think it would be that: JESUS IS LORD (*which was much more than an intellectual profession of faith; it was a treasonous proclamation of exclusive loyalty ("faith") and devotion to "the one true God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ," to the exclusion of all other false gods. (Christianity in the early first century church seemed to be less focused on a checklist of doctrinal "what" you believed, and more focused on Who you believed and exclusively identified with in absolute allegiance, loyalty, and exclusive devotion.

 

[Sereni-tea]

For anyone interested in understanding a bit more indepth what the arguments between the "Old Perspectives" and the "New Perspectives" positions, I recommend these couple of videos which I think present a fairly balanced view on the topic:
Top 5 differences between the new perspective and old perspective
8 differences between the new perspective and the old perspective

I would also encourage that as Christians we should be very careful before we label someone a heretic. Make sure that you have read their work for yourself and carefully (and prayerfully) weighed up their arguments against Scripture before making such a serious judgement call. Don't just listen to what others say, no matter how well respected they are. I am urging caution about making judgements on what I understand to be a complex and highly nuanced subject.

Another thing to bear in mind when considering these things is as @TB2 mentioned, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided an amazing insight into second temple Judaism that has really changed our understanding. This is something the reformers didn't have access to. Don't get me wrong, I am not denying the reformed faith in any way. But just like the reformers, the church today should be continually going back to Scripture, with all the resources we have at our disposal, and making sure that our views, our doctrine, line up with God's Word, seeking to understand it in light of its historical, cultural and theological context.

 

[TB2]

I would also encourage that as Christians we should be very careful before we label someone a heretic. Make sure that you have read their work for yourself and carefully (and prayerfully) weighed up their arguments against Scripture before making such a serious judgement call. Don't just listen to what others say, no matter how well respected they are. I am urging caution about making judgements on what I understand to be a complex and highly nuanced subject.

Wise words and Christ honoring

 

[TB2]

For anyone interested in understanding a bit more indepth what the arguments between the "Old Perspectives" and the "New Perspectives" positions, I recommend these couple of videos which I think present a fairly balanced view on the topic:
Top 5 differences between the new perspective and old perspective
8 differences between the new perspective and the old perspective

Excellent, excellent videos @Sereni-tea
Thank you for the excellent resources. Thorough, well done, balanced (and adds a third perspective "historic Reformed (augmented)" (RP); without all the vitriol and nastiness that has sometimes characterized this debate.

Recommend these two videos as a starting place for any discussion on the NP v OP (v RP)

The synonym for pistis ("faith") as "trust or belief" (OP) v "allegiance" (NP & RP) strikes at the heart of what I was trying to articulate @fastfredy0 which was more than simple belief, but about allegiance, loyalty, and who you identify and ally yourself with: Caesar (+ any syncretic combination of pagan gods), or exclusive devotion and allegiance to the one true God the Father and one true Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The synonym for pistis ("faith") as "trust or belief" (OP) v "allegiance" (NP & RP) strikes at the heart of what I was trying to articulate @fastfredy0 which was more than simple belief, but about allegiance, loyalty, and who you identify and ally yourself with: Caesar (+ any syncretic combination of pagan gods), or exclusive devotion and allegiance to the one true God the Father and one true Lord Jesus Christ.

Agreed - the word 'allegiance' struck me also. It gives 'faith' that extra dimension, not just intellectual agreement or reliance, but adding the dimension of the heart/love, a steadfast attachment to Our King.

 

[TB2]

Better read him again. Remember, you're the one who said he can be hard to understand. M<aybe you didn't understand him when you looked? Look again.

I went back and checked and re-read (and read new material as well), and find that NT Wright does indeed believe that Adam was a real flesh and blood person who existed (i.e., Adam is not figurative, imaginary, or allegorical).

He does seem to align with Walton, William Lane Craig, Beale and others who believe there (might be) but not necessarily is a conflict between Genesis and modern scientific conclusions that humans and primates share a common ancestry. They believe Genesis does not speak primarily to the issue of material origins of humans, but is focused more on our vocation/calling as image bearers, and Adam and Eve as specially set apart for this purpose. Walton, Beale and others have noted the way Adam's garden tending function is described in Levitical priestly language and the connection of the garden of Eden as sacred space with the Tabernacle/Temple (interesting fact--the lampstand menorah in the temple was symbolic of the Tree of Life).

From what I can tell, NT Wright does not deny the sin/Fall aspects of Adam at all, but thinks that is not all that is being communicated, and that it also includes a return/restoration of Adam's/Israel's/humanity's vocation/calling as God's image bearers/representatives.

But from the discussion here it sounds like the issue is not just whether NT Wright believes in the "historical Adam" (as a real human who lived) but the "biblical Adam." I get that there are a lot of strong feelings on this (and what constitutes the biblical Adam).

What I'm hearing (here) is that if a Christian accepts the scientific conclusion that humans and primates share a common ancestor then that person doesn't believe in the "biblical Adam" and is a heretic and non-believer. Is that the type of thing you and @David1701 are saying or am I misunderstanding?

 

[Carbon]

Sounds like civic (I wrote the name backwards to hide his identity.)

I’m glad you did.

 

[Carbon]

Thanks! That was perfect.

You're quite a useful fella'.

NT Wright is espousing the very thing Paul worked to overcome from Judaism.

Mesuspects the whole Jewish/dispensational thing gives it its origin.

I just don’t know why a believer would follow someone who is not orthodox in his teachings.

It’s like it took 2000 years for God to finally pick someone who would show and teach correct doctrine? Another Exodus.

He is someone who is sneaking in Hersey. He is teaching female pastors, PSA is paganism, Christ dying in place of sinners is paganism, he denies imputation of our sins on Christ and denies Christ’s righteousness imputed unto us.

I’m sorry if I offend anyone. But I believe the man is a false teacher, a heretic. And I suggest that those who follow him would reconsider.

 

[Arial]

Back to your question ... I go along with the opinions of the following 2 quotes. Part of my reasoning is that the understanding of a child is sufficient for salvation.

• John Calvin’s in the Institutes of the Christian Religion writes: We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ. Knowledge of faith consists more of certainty than discernment.”
• Herman Bavinck in Reformed Dogmatics writes: There is a danger in reducing the faith to quantitative measurement. Such an arithmetic of belief obscures the qualitative, gracious, person, organic relation to Christ. Faith is trust in the grace of God and not calculable. The content of faith is not reducible to an arithmetic addition of articles.

Which begs the question, "What does any of that mean in a way that determines what is enough?" I understand it because I have been in Christ for many years and have learned much, though there is more that I haven't yet learned than that I have. As had Calvin and Bavinck when they wrote those things. But not only learned but experienced for example "consists more of certainty that discernment." It is internal, in the heart, placed there by God.

I am convinced that it is not a one size fits all because people are not a one size fits all being. If we are going to judge by theology alone and one's understanding of Jesus, who He is and what He accomplished for us, we would have to conclude that there are people who cannot be saved due to intellectual limitations. Those born brain damaged or with other mental impairments. Children. Those whose questions regarding unanswerable questions outweigh their ability to settle. The whys. Why does God---? If God is good and He is love then why---? as they look around at our world. And yet they truly believe that Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin, died and was resurrected to life. They may have little understanding of it but they believe it beyond mere intellectual consent. And they may not be capable of growing beyond that because of the unanswerable questions.

It is probably true that most enter into the kingdom with very little knowledge. The exception would be those who were raised receiving this knowledge or those who study and attain much knowledge from various sources, usually with a concerted effort to disprove the Bible, and find the opposite occurs.

On the other hand, those who write books on theologies and doctrines that claim to be Christian, and move away from the historical Biblical account of who Jesus is and what He did, when they introduce teaching that changes the historical view found in the Bible and that have become the tenets of Christianity and it's doctrines---a new perspective---that alters the truth that has been given, it is heretical to Christianity.

Salvation is a relationship, a reconciliation between God and man that we might commune with Him. It is a condition of the heart that God Himself has brought about and only by grace through faith in the crucified, resurrected Jesus to save from the wrath of God and gives eternal life with HIm where He is. It is a union of Christ and the person. And it must be the true Jesus. The one who is the Son of God, who is God incarnate. Who bore our sins on the cross, died, was raised to life, ascended back to the Father, will return and our own bodies will also be resurrected. The theological knowledge and understanding can be small or large, and that too depends on God and His purposes.

 

[TB2]

Carbon

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think NT Wright is often misread through the eyes of a narrow denominational lens

 

[TB2]

I am convinced that it is not a one size fits all because people are not a one size fits all being. If we are going to judge by theology alone and one's understanding of Jesus, who He is and what He accomplished for us, we would have to conclude that there are people who cannot be saved due to intellectual limitations

Great point

Salvation is a relationship, a reconciliation between God and man that we might commune with Him. It is a condition of the heart that God Himself has brought about and only by grace through faith in the crucified, resurrected Jesus to save from the wrath of God and gives eternal life with HIm where He is. It is a union of Christ and the person. And it must be the true Jesus. The one who is the Son of God, who is God incarnate. Who bore our sins on the cross, died, was raised to life, ascended back to the Father, will return and our own bodies will also be resurrected. The theological knowledge and understanding can be small or large, and that too depends on God and His purposes

Well said

 

[Arial]

Carbon

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think NT Wright is often misread through the eyes of a narrow denominational lens

That presumes that said narrow denominational lens is incorrect. And to some extent that truth is relative.

 

[TB2]

That presumes that said narrow denominational lens is incorrect.

Not incorrect per se, except where it lacks the balanced perspective and right emphasis of the first century church

And to some extent that truth is relative.

I don't think anyone here believes that, but there is a difference between essential salvation issues, non-essential, and non-essential that have been incorrectly made into essential salvation issues.

 

[fastfredy0]

I would also encourage that as Christians we should be very careful before we label someone a heretic.

We are all heretics to some degree.

 

[Carbon]

Carbon

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Yes.

I think NT Wright is often misread through the eyes of a narrow denominational lens

Narrow denominational lens?

Ha, the guy is throwing orthodoxy and the Christian gospel right out the window. I didn’t want to get started and said as little as I could. But my conscience won’t let me let him pass as only just another Christian view.