A different gospel?

[Arial]

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

That presumes that it does lack the balanced perspective and right emphasis of the first century church. That would need to be demonstrated.

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.

Like what for example to you consider these to be? And why?

 

[Eleanor]

@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.

And yet when I read the NT writings of the first century, I see an awful lot there about righteousness, where those "elaborate doctrines" are presented as the substance of Christianity:

righteousness is from God, both imputed and imparted (sanctification),
salvation by faith alone, apart from law,
justification,
sanctification,
God's righteousness in rejecting Israel,
righteousness practiced,
liberty and faith,
purpose of and freedom from the law,
life by the Spirit, not by the flesh,
the glory and headship of Christ,
our blessings in Christ: chosen, predestined, adoption, redemption, forgiveness of sin,
reconciliation of Jew and Gentile through the cross uniting them in one household,
revelation of God's wisdom through the church,
servant attitude of Christ,
the old man and the new man,
church life,
second coming of Christ and resurrection.

I maintain that is the Christian perspective.

 

[fastfredy0]

Which begs the question, "What does any of that mean in a way that determines what is enough?"

Agreed. The quotes I gave from Calvin and Bavinck were a prelude to my answer because I agreed with them when they pointed out that the answer to "what it takes to be saved from man's prespective" is not quantitative.

My direct answer, given that the answer IMO is not quantitative was:
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
.... to which I added one must believe Christ is God and believing in works for salvation is disqualifying.

What's your answer in 200 words or less?

 

[Eleanor]

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.

I don't know why this "new perspective" even matters.

Radical trust in Jesus Christ's work on the cross for the remission of one's sin has always been the nature of Christianity.
It's not a new concept nor a new practice.

 

[fastfredy0]

And yet when I read the NT writings of the first century, I see an awful lot there about righteousness, where those "elaborate doctrines" are presented as the substance of Christianity

What does it takes to be saved from man's prespective? What has God done in a saved person that is essential for proof of salvation. If faith alone then what are the essential components of faith that prove it is a 'saving faith'.
What's your answer in 200 words or less? (not 2000 at any rate ... LOL)

 

[fastfredy0]

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

When it comes to eschatology I think we are going to find out that most of us a heretics. *giggle*

 

[Eleanor]

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.

What about trusting him for the remission of their sin by his sacrifice (blood) on the cross? (Ro 3:25)

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.

 

[Eleanor]

What does it takes to be saved from man's prespective? What has God done in a saved person that is essential for proof of salvation. If faith alone then what are the essential components of faith that prove it is a 'saving faith'.
What's your answer in 200 words or less? (not 2000 at any rate ... LOL)

Sha-a-me!

Faith in (certainty) and trust on the person (Eph 2:8-9) and atoning work of Jesus Christ (Ro 3:25) for the remission of their sin.

 

[fastfredy0]

Faith in (certainty) and trust on the person (Eph 2:8-9) and atoning work of Jesus Christ (Ro 3:25) for the remission of their sin.

Sounds like my answer .... digging deeper ..
Does one have to believe Christ is God?
Can one be saved if they believe they most do works as part of the deal?

 

[Eleanor]

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

The right emphasis of the first-century church is presented in post #102.

 

[Arial]

What about trusting him for the remission of their sin by his sacrifice (blood) on the cross? (Ro 3:25)

That may have to be learned, certainly and understanding of it would be, and it generally is. But what about the mentally handicapped in that regard? Some are unable to do more than simply love Jesus with all their heart. "To whom much is given, much is expected." We only have what we are given. God gives to each of His elect what they need to be saved.

 

[Eleanor]

Sounds like my answer .... digging deeper ..
Does one have to believe Christ is God?
Can one be saved if they believe they most do works as part of the deal?

Paul presents relying on works in addition to faith as falling from grace; i.e., it can't be both, because they are mutually exclusive.
Therefore, by relying on works, faithg (grace) is necessarily excluded.
There is no salvation apart from faith.

 

[Arial]

Agreed. The quotes I gave from Calvin and Bavinck were a prelude to my answer because I agreed with them when they pointed out that the answer to "what it takes to be saved from man's prespective" is not quantitative.

My direct answer, given that the answer IMO is not quantitative was:
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
.... to which I added one must believe Christ is God and believing in works for salvation is disqualifying.

What's your answer in 200 words or less?

I would agree with the first. The second Jesus is Lord I think means Jesus is God, which you say later. And of course He is the Messiah spoken of in the OT.

There is much more to say about knowing Jesus is God from the beginning but alas it would take more than my allotment of 200 words.

 

[Carbon]

When it comes to eschatology I think we are going to find out that most of us a heretics. *giggle*

I disagree. There is a difference teaching a Christian doctrine which could be wrong in some areas than teaching something that disregards essential Christian doctrines.

 

[TB2]

That presumes that it does lack the balanced perspective and right emphasis of the first century church. That would need to be demonstrated.

Like what for example to you consider these to be? And why?

Well I think you hit the nail on the head with your earlier comment when you wrote:

"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"

We (I speak of believers generally) are great at saying the gospel is what's most important but then major on the minors. We (again, believers in general) pay lip service to the centrality of the gospel message of salvation (that you nicely encapsulate above) but then *in practice* seem to elevate denominational distinctives over that gospel (while still maintaining we're not) to the point we call those who don't tow those added non-essential distinctives heretics and unbelievers. And in fact those added denominational distinctives sometimes end up being myopically focused on and overemphasized, but to the point that *extra qualifications or conditions* are *added* to the gospel message.

I am not Catholic, but they are at least right about this: no one can read the Bible objectively or non-contextually. We all read the Bible through a particular lens. That lens is usually the lens of a particular Christian tradition or denomination that emphasizes certain distinctives. But to truly understand the NT we need to try our best to read through the lens of the first century church (to the degree that we can based on the limited information we have), and secondarily consider the writings of the church/Christians in the centuries that immediately followed since they are closest in time to the first century church and more likely to correctly understand what was intended in the NT.

@Sereni-tea posted two great videos that I highly recommend everyone watch for a balanced view on the OP vs NP debate. The speaker gives a great analogy of how he read an email from an "Emily" that they knew, but was thinking of the wrong Emily (they knew two different Emilys). The difference in interpretation of the *same worded* email was staggering all because of the contextual lens through which the email was being read.

When we read the NT through a historical first century lens (as opposed to any tradition or denominational lens) we see a distinction in the church between what the apostles proclaimed (kerygma) vs apostolic teaching (didache). The teaching (didache) is where we get most of our systematic theology, but the apostolic preaching/proclamation (kerygma) = the gospel message of salvation that was preached during evangelism/missionary efforts. That was already proclaimed and had already been believed by the time churches received Paul's letters/epistles, so we don't have a complete statement of the kergyma. But we have creeds and hymns and other statements embedded and scattered throughout the NT writings that we can extract (and scholars have).

And when we do and take a look at the apostles' actual proclamation/evangelistic preaching (kerygma) of the gospel message to NON-believers we essentially see what you already encapsulated so well for us above.

But what happens is different traditions and denominations that argue and split over specific points of teaching (didache) that were written to those who were already *believers/the church* will sometimes (often without realizing it) tack it on to the apostolic preaching (kerygma) of the gospel that was proclaimed to UN-believers and then it suddenly becomes an added condition or qualification that one must adhere to in order to be saved.

For example, and I'm not saying anyone here is doing this, but I've seen outside this forum believers who will say if you’re not teaching/including the doctrine of "justification by faith," then you're teaching "a different gospel." Now I believe in the doctrine of justification by faith, too, just as much as anyone here, and an important doctrine it is that we see in apostolic teaching (didache) sent to the churches/believers; but we never see it in the apostolic proclamation (kerygma) of the gospel. We never see the apostles preaching "justification by faith" for salvation to unbelievers *during their missionary work outside the church assembly.* That was not the gospel message that was preached, which was the message of the cross, the atoning death and resurrection and faith belief allegiance in Christ as Lord of all to the exclusion of all other false pagan gods. Christian conversion in response to the gospel message proclamation (kergyma) was not a doctrinal checklist but a personal confession and statement of Who you identified with and gave your undying devotion, loyalty, and allegiance to ("Who is your God? Ceasar? Pagan gods? or Jesus Christ?").

In very subtle ways, we tack on church teaching (didache) to the apostolic kerygma gospel message. Here are some quotes I posted a few pages back to further illustrate (apologies for my long windedness, I don't always know how best to articulate this, but hopefully the gist of what I mean (and don't mean!) is at least somewhat clarified).

"For Paul it is not the doctrine of justification that is ‘the power of God for salvation’ (Rom. 1:16), but the gospel of Jesus Christ."

"It is perfectly possible to be saved by believing in Jesus Christ without ever having heard of justification by faith."

"By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith.” He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message—to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord—is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine: To believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction (Galatians 2:11-21)."

"But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus."

 

[Eleanor]

Well I think you hit the nail on the head with your earlier comment when you wrote:

"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"
We (I speak of believers generally) are great at saying the gospel is what's most important but then major on the minors. We (again, believers in general) pay lip service to the centrality of the gospel message of salvation (that you nicely encapsulate above) but then *in practice* seem to elevate denominational distinctives over that gospel (while still maintaining we're not) to the point we call those who don't tow those added non-essential distinctives heretics and unbelievers.

And in fact those added denominational distinctives sometimes end up being myopically focused on and overemphasized, but to the point that *extra qualifications or conditions* are *added* to the gospel message.

However, Paul makes just such a "myopically focused, overemphasized, extra qualification or condition" to be a "salvation excluding" doctrinal error in Gal 5:4; i.e., adding works to faith.
To add works to faith for salvation is to fall from grace, for salvation can't be both, because works and grace are mutually exclusive; i.e., by relying on works, grace (faith) is necessarily excluded.
There is no salvation apart from faith.

I am not Catholic, but they are at least right about this: no one can read the Bible objectively or non-contextually. We all read the Bible through a particular lens. That lens is usually the lens of a particular Christian tradition or denomination that emphasizes certain distinctives. But to truly understand the NT we need to try our best to read through the lens of the first century church (to the degree that we can based on the limited information we have), and secondarily consider the writings of the church/Christians in the centuries that immediately followed since they are closest in time to the first century church and more likely to correctly understand what was intended in the NT.

@Sereni-tea posted two great videos that I highly recommend everyone watch for a balanced view on the OP vs NP debate. The speaker gives a great analogy of how he read an email from an "Emily" that they knew, but was thinking of the wrong Emily (they knew two different Emilys). The difference in interpretation of the *same worded* email was staggering all because of the contextual lens through which the email was being read.

When we read the NT through a historical first century lens (as opposed to any tradition or denominational lens) we see a distinction in the church between what the apostles proclaimed (kerygma) vs apostolic teaching (didache). The teaching (didache) is where we get most of our systematic theology, but the apostolic preaching/proclamation (kerygma) = the gospel message of salvation that was preached during evangelism/missionary efforts. That was already proclaimed and had already been believed by the time churches received Paul's letters/epistles, so we don't have a complete statement of the kergyma. But we have creeds and hymns and other statements embedded and scattered throughout the NT writings that we can extract (and scholars have).

And when we do and take a look at the apostles' actual proclamation/evangelistic preaching (kerygma) of the gospel message to NON-believers we essentially see what you already encapsulated so well for us above.

But what happens is different traditions and denominations that argue and split over specific points of teaching (didache) that were written to those who were already *believers/the church* will sometimes (often without realizing it) tack it on to the apostolic preaching (kerygma) of the gospel that was proclaimed to UN-believers and then it suddenly becomes an added condition or qualification that one must adhere to in order to be saved.

For example, and I'm not saying anyone here is doing this, but I've seen outside this forum believers who will say if you’re not teaching/including the doctrine of "justification by faith," then you're teaching "a different gospel." Now I believe in the doctrine of justification by faith, too, just as much as anyone here, and an important doctrine it is that we see in apostolic teaching (didache) sent to the churches/believers; but we never see it in the apostolic proclamation (kerygma) of the gospel. We never see the apostles preaching "justification by faith" for salvation to unbelievers *during their missionary work outside the church assembly.* That was not the gospel message that was preached, which was the message of the cross, the atoning death and resurrection and faith belief allegiance in Christ as Lord of all to the exclusion of all other false pagan gods. Christian conversion in response to the gospel message proclamation (kergyma) was not a doctrinal checklist but a personal confession and statement of Who you identified with and gave your undying devotion, loyalty, and allegiance to ("Who is your God? Ceasar? Pagan gods? or Jesus Christ?").

In very subtle ways, we tack on church teaching (didache) to the apostolic kerygma gospel message. Here are some quotes I posted a few pages back to further illustrate (apologies for my long windedness, I don't always know how best to articulate this, but hopefully the gist of what I mean (and don't mean!) is at least somewhat clarified).

"For Paul it is not the doctrine of justification that is ‘the power of God for salvation’ (Rom. 1:16), but the gospel of Jesus Christ."

"It is perfectly possible to be saved by believing in Jesus Christ without ever having heard of justification by faith."

"By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith.” He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message—to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord—is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine: To believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction (Galatians 2:11-21)."

"But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus."

 

[Arial]

The New Perspective on Paul: Its Basic Tenets, History.
https://tms.edu › wp-content › uploads › 2021 › 09 › tmsj16g.pdf

 

[Eleanor]

The New Perspective on Paul: Its Basic Tenets, History.
https://tms.edu › wp-content › uploads › 2021 › 09 › tmsj16g.pdf

Thanks, but that ship has sailed.

 

[Arial]

Thanks, but that ship has sailed.

What on earth do you mean?

 

[Eleanor]

What on earth do you mean?

Sorry about that!

I was indicating that I had already decided what I thought of Wright's proposition.