A different gospel?

[Arial]

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.

That some people may do that, and in many different ways, is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To lay the shortcomings of a speck of people at denominational distinctives. And what I said concerned the basic beginning need of what to God might constitute faith in Christ, the faith of a little child. And how some are unable for whatever reason to go beyond that, and to do so would not be necessary for them.

That does not mean that there are no beliefs contrary to the Bible that are found in Christianity. Or that some of those beliefs might be heretical. For example having come to knowledge of the Biblical teaching on salvation through faith in Jesus, to then become a teacher who teaches the insufficiency of Christ, (by grace alone, through faith alone, through Christ alone) he is teaching a heresy TO Christianity, for that is not what Christianity teaches and it is not what the Bible teaches.

 

[Arial]

Sorry about that!

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

Some may not have. But if anyone wants to actually decide for themselves and is unfamiliar with the new perspective as I was, it is thorough and gives both sides. It is not all that new. Luther and Calvin were battling against it in their day.

 

[fastfredy0]

There is no salvation apart from faith.

Agreed ... does one have to believe Christ is God to be saved? That was my 2nd question.

 

[Eleanor]

Agreed ... does one have to believe Christ is God to be saved? That was my 2nd question.

I don't think so, since the emphasis is on trust for the remission of one's sin by his sacrifice.

 

[Arial]

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.

That in and of itself does not make the lens wrong. It is a pointless argument.

It is what we bring to the scriptures that needs to be weighed in their balance. And that is possible. The Bible is not really as big a mystery or as incomprehensible as it is made out to be. It is a book. Should be read as any other book. And according to the type of literature that is being used. It is one story with many parts. The key is to read scriptures by asking, "What do these words mean? What are they saying?

@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.

I tried to but he spent way too much time validating Wright as the authority by the volume of study and extant sources and the education and knowledge of Greek used to arrive at his theories. One sure sign of a hereise is that it validates itself by re-translating from the Hebrew or Greek to come up with a translation that fits the heretical purpose. So I went instead to other sources to find what was in this teaching and how it was arrived at. Both pro and con. I posted a link.

To be cont. later.

 

[fastfredy0]

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.

200 words was a qualitative and not quantitative restriction ... *giggle* ... if a child can be saved on would think the answer could be under 1000 words ... lol

If you have more to add as to something being seen/hear or knowledge from a person that is necessary for salvation let's hear it .... or something seen/heard that would mean a person is not saved, go for it.
Like, you said "there is much more to say about knowing Jesus is God" ... what more knowledge is necessary if one is to be saved?

 

[fastfredy0]

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.

Which Christian doctrines are ESSENTIAL ? ... and how do you define ESSENTIAL?

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: does one have to believe Christ is God to be saved?

I don't think so, since the emphasis is on trust for the remission of one's sin by his sacrifice.

I'm a little on the fence. But the following 2 verses have me leaning on a YES answer:

• John 20:31 I write these things to you that you might believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that by believing you may have life in His name.
• 1 John 5:13 I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

This assumes "Son of God" = God

 

[Carbon]

Which Christian doctrines are ESSENTIAL ? ... and how do you define ESSENTIAL?

You have no idea? Really?

 

[Eleanor]

Re: does one have to believe Christ is God to be saved?

I'm a little on the fence. But the following 2 verses have me leaning on a YES answer:

• John 20:31 I write these things to you that you might believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that by believing you may have life in His name.
• 1 John 5:13 I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

This assumes "Son of God" = God

It has just occurred to me (since I am so literal) that you were referring to more than just the salvation decision, but to their faith in general.
Well, Jn 1:1, 14 couldn't be any clearer about the nature of Jesus.

So if your faith is going to be in Jesus for salvation, then it's not in Jesus if it's not in the divine Jesus presented in the NT. It's in another Jesus.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: Which Christian doctrines are ESSENTIAL ? ... and how do you define ESSENTIAL?

You have no idea? Really?

I have a subjective guess. I think you asked 20 Christians the question you will get 15 different answers. When I ask Gotquestions.org about it, the site that has possibly 10s of thousands of answers has nothing to say ...... so tell me ... Which Christian doctrines do you think are ESSENTIAL ? ... and how do you define ESSENTIAL?

 

[Carbon]

Re: Which Christian doctrines are ESSENTIAL ? ... and how do you define ESSENTIAL?

I have a subjective guess. I think you asked 20 Christians the question you will get 15 different answers. When I ask Gotquestions.org about it, the site that has possibly 10s of thousands of answers has nothing to say ...... so tell me ... Which Christian doctrines do you think are ESSENTIAL ? ... and how do you define ESSENTIAL?

How about two for now.

1. The only remedy for Man’s fallenness comes from the “Alien Righteousness” of Jesus Christ which is found in Christ and outside of man [Lat. extra nos]. Righteousness cannot be found inside of man since all humans are not only condemned by Adam’s sin, but they are also condemned by their own individual sins (cf. Mark 7:14-23; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-21).
2. God-given faith (Faith Alone) is the only way to receive the imputed righteousness of Christ, which results in our justification. The gift of faith is known as the material principleof our Salvation. (cf. Rom. 3:21-26; Gal. 3:10-14; Eph. 2:8-9; Heb. 11:1-40).

 

[Carbon]

Re: Which Christian doctrines are ESSENTIAL ? ... and how do you define ESSENTIAL?

I have a subjective guess. I think you asked 20 Christians the question you will get 15 different answers. When I ask Gotquestions.org about it, the site that has possibly 10s of thousands of answers has nothing to say ...... so tell me ... Which Christian doctrines do you think are ESSENTIAL ? ... and how do you define ESSENTIAL?

Why would you accept 10,000 answers? If a site is giving you that info maybe it’s good to stay away since they are probably distorting things. .
There is nothing in scripture that sticks out as essential?

Which stick out to you?

How many different definitions of essential are there?

 

[fastfredy0]

How about two for now.

1. The only remedy for Man’s fallenness comes from the “Alien Righteousness” of Jesus Christ which is found in Christ and outside of man [Lat. extra nos]. Righteousness cannot be found inside of man since all humans are not only condemned by Adam’s sin, but they are also condemned by their own individual sins (cf. Mark 7:14-23; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-21).
2. God-given faith (Faith Alone) is the only way to receive the imputed righteousness of Christ, which results in our justification. The gift of faith is known as the material principleof our Salvation. (cf. Rom. 3:21-26; Gal. 3:10-14; Eph. 2:8-9; Heb. 11:1-40).

You didn't define ESSENTIAL.

Why would you accept 10,000 answers? If a site is giving you that info maybe it’s good to stay away since they are probably distorting things. .

I think you misunderstood me or I presented my idea poorly. I was trying to point out the Gotquestions.org has a huge library of answers to questions and since it didn't seem to comment on the subject of "essential doctrines" one might conclude it is an esoteric theological subject and thus my questioning your understanding of the subject shouldn't surprise you.

There is nothing in scripture that sticks out as essential?

The definition of 'essential' is subjective. There is definitely scripture that is and isn't essential and thus I asked you to give your definition.

Aside: You could have answered my question by now instead of asking questions about my question ... *giggle*

.... guess I will drop my question ... smile ... not that important (essential) *giggle*

 

[Carbon]

You didn't define ESSENTIAL.

I think you misunderstood me or I presented my idea poorly. I was trying to point out the Gotquestions.org has a huge library of answers to questions and since it didn't seem to comment on the subject of "essential doctrines" one might conclude it is an esoteric theological subject and thus my questioning your understanding of the subject shouldn't surprise you.


The definition of 'essential' is subjective. There is definitely scripture that is and isn't essential and thus I asked you to give your definition.

Aside: You could have answered my question by now instead of asking questions about my question ... *giggle*

.... guess I will drop my question ... smile ... not that important (essential) *giggle*

I think the definition of an essential doctrine is pretty clear. It’s also self explanatory. So yea, let’s drop it.

 

[Arial]

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).

We are given the complete gospel in the scriptures and not just in the NT. Are the "creeds, hymns, and other statements you refer to in the NT or extant to it? Your wording is unclear to me. It sounds like you are saying both things. But just for the record, the apostles did not proclaim something that contradicts in the or changes what they taught in the epistles. It would seem that herein is the underlying attempt to disprove the inerrancy of scripture. Which was goal in the first and following new perspective of Paul. It is an old debate, not a new one.

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.

What some might do is not relevant to the issue. I can't believe it is being put forth as the basis for changing the gospel, or the teaching of Paul. There are people who say if woman wears pants or has short hair they will go to hell. But Greek words aside, there was nothing different in the apostolic preaching and teaching. The apostles are teaching and preaching in the epistles. Preaching is meant to teach. What the new perspective is doing is changing the teaching. That is the issue. Smoke and mirrors.

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?").

Right. Because you have to be in Christ first, before it is possible to learn what all is involved. But if someone teaches justification by works plus faith, they are teaching a false gospel, for the whole fondation and purpose of the good news is by grace, through faith, not works. You are trying to talk about two different things as though they are the same thing. One is coming to Christ. The other is the teachings of His church. And you approach what is the gospel in a way too restrictive way. Evangelism presents who Christ is and what He did. Then we become disciples, then we learn.

"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."

But being justified is the heart of why Jesus died in our place. What exactly are you limiting the gospel as being?

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

In fact I would venture to say that most people are, simply because we don't know what we don't know. Nevertheless they are justified by faith. Why are you splitting hairs like this? A false gospel is false teaching---teaching that does not line up with what the Bible gives. Title of OP--- A Different Gospel---and bringing up the teachings of Wright. You are muddying it up with what does it take to be saved and limiting what Paul calls the gospel to to the minimum number of ingredients needed for salvation. Paul is talking about the gospel truths.

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

I have yet to see anybody say they were saved by believing in justification by faith or that that is how one is saved. So-----

 

[Carbon]

We are given the complete gospel in the scriptures and not just in the NT. Are the "creeds, hymns, and other statements you refer to in the NT or extant to it? Your wording is unclear to me. It sounds like you are saying both things. But just for the record, the apostles did not proclaim something that contradicts in the or changes what they taught in the epistles. It would seem that herein is the underlying attempt to disprove the inerrancy of scripture. Which was goal in the first and following new perspective of Paul. It is an old debate, not a new one.

What some might do is not relevant to the issue. I can't believe it is being put forth as the basis for changing the gospel, or the teaching of Paul. There are people who say if woman wears pants or has short hair they will go to hell. But Greek words aside, there was nothing different in the apostolic preaching and teaching. The apostles are teaching and preaching in the epistles. Preaching is meant to teach. What the new perspective is doing is changing the teaching. That is the issue. Smoke and mirrors.

Right. Because you have to be in Christ first, before it is possible to learn what all is involved. But if someone teaches justification by works plus faith, they are teaching a false gospel, for the whole fondation and purpose of the good news is by grace, through faith, not works. You are trying to talk about two different things as though they are the same thing. One is coming to Christ. The other is the teachings of His church. And you approach what is the gospel in a way too restrictive way. Evangelism presents who Christ is and what He did. Then we become disciples, then we learn.

But being justified is the heart of why Jesus died in our place. What exactly are you limiting the gospel as being?

In fact I would venture to say that most people are, simply because we don't know what we don't know. Nevertheless they are justified by faith. Why are you splitting hairs like this? A false gospel is false teaching---teaching that does not line up with what the Bible gives. Title of OP--- A Different Gospel---and bringing up the teachings of Wright. You are muddying it up with what does it take to be saved and limiting what Paul calls the gospel to to the minimum number of ingredients needed for salvation. Paul is talking about the gospel truths.

I have yet to see anybody say they were saved by believing in justification by faith or that that is how one is saved. So-----

Amen!

 

[David1701]

Same Adam, different interpretation.

I see; so, if I claimed that there was more than one author of the posts by "TB2", on this forum, would that simply be a "different interpretation", or would it be a load of rubbish?

 

[Eleanor]

Re: Which Christian doctrines are ESSENTIAL ? ... and how do you define ESSENTIAL?

I have a subjective guess. I think you asked 20 Christians the question you will get 15 different answers. When I ask Gotquestions.org about it, the site that has possibly 10s of thousands of answers has nothing to say ...... so tell me ... Which Christian doctrines do you think are ESSENTIAL ? ... and how do you define ESSENTIAL?

Esseniall for what? Salvation, Christianity, gospel, all of the above?

 

[Eleanor]

How about two for now.

1. The only remedy for Man’s fallenness comes from the “Alien Righteousness” of Jesus Christ which is found in Christ and outside of man [Lat. extra nos]. Righteousness cannot be found inside of man since all humans are not only condemned by Adam’s sin, but they are also condemned by their own individual sins (cf. Mark 7:14-23; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-21).
2. God-given faith (Faith Alone) is the only way to receive the imputed righteousness of Christ, which results in our justification. The gift of faith is known as the material principleof our Salvation. (cf. Rom. 3:21-26; Gal. 3:10-14; Eph. 2:8-9; Heb. 11:1-40).

Should we start with being born enemies of God?