A different gospel?

[Eleanor]

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-----

You go, girl!

 

[TB2]

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

I would say yes

 

[Arial]

You go, girl!

Well I try.

 

[Arial]

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

I think there is a difference between someone just not understanding it (it is rather a paradox and outside our realm of experience). And in my experience it a doctrine seldom touched by the modern church. I attended many churches starting in 1983, because I was in many different places. It wasn't until 1998 that one pastor actually made the statement "What separates Christianity from other religions is that it is the only one that says Jesus is God." But even before that and from the beginning before I knew this, I knew He was not created. Not an exalted created human, but something much more.

And someone flat out denying His deity. That is a different Jesus. And another God (2 Gods)---no matter how they try to spin it.

 

[fastfredy0]

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

Beats me... not my original thought ... but we dropped it.

 

[Arial]

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?

I put it in a nutshell, not only under a 1000 words but also under 200 in post #144. So I guess I didn't have all that much to say about it.

 

[fastfredy0]

And someone flat out denying His deity. That is a different Jesus. And another God---no matter how they try to spin it.

Agreed ... but we all have a 'different Jesus' conjured up in our mind to some degree ... what erroneous aspect(s) of knowledge of Christ disqualifies one's salvation? Even if one says Christ is God, does one then have to define God correctly to some degree and if so to what degree. (Aside: the chain 'need to get right' may never end ... )

The content of faith is not reducible to an arithmetic addition of articles. All believers, in principle, share the same knowledge and trust in the grace of God to save. Bavinck ... Sounds good to me. ... so simple that a child may enter .... Glad I believe God chooses us or these questions would be SUPER CRITICAL ..

 

[TB2]

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

In answer and in followup to my previous post....

Followup: I posted the spiel about the apostolic kerygma (gospel proclamation to unbelievers; out on the mission field, outside the church assembly) vs didache ("in house" church matters/teaching for believers; the bulk of the NT), and the importance of distinguishing between the two; and gave an example of how "in house" church matters/teaching for believers (didache) can be inadvertently tacked on to the gospel message proclamation to unbelievers (kerygma); but realized I never actually provided a statement of the apostolic kerygma (gospel proclamation)!

So, let me rectify that oversight with some citations to the NT scholarship on this. Personally, I prefer to know the nitty-gritty details, but I know some people just want the summary, so I've tried to split the difference. CH Dodd was the first NT scholar to draw attention to this first century Christian distinction between what was proclaimed to unbelievers out on the mission field (apostolic kerygma gospel proclamation) vs "in house" church matters/teaching (didache) for believers. Andrew Messer explains it well (Messer, A. "The Apostolic Kerygma And The Apostles Creed: A Study in Compatibility." St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 62.4 (2018): 373-381):

(C.H. DODD)

(DAVID SELBY)

(Location of the Apostolic Kerygma (Gospel Proclamation) in the NT)

Selby, Donald Joseph. The pre-literary development of the Kerygma. Diss. Boston University, 1954.

(ANDREW MESSER)

 

[TB2]

SUMMARY POINT:

Andrew Messer makes an excellent observation when comparing Protestant "Sola Scriputaists (SS)" with other Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholic "Scripture and Tradition/Creedists (SC)" that whether approaching the gospel message from "Sola Scriptura" (Left Column: "Apostolic Kerygma") or Tradition/Creedal Statements (Right Column: "Apostles' Creed) that "the apostolic kerygma and the Apostles’ Creed overlap to such a significant extent that they can be regarded as virtually identical." While there is much division in Christianity among Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic over "in house" church matters/doctrinal teaching (didache), it is comforting to know Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics are at least unified when it comes to the apostolic kerygma (gospel proclamation). My personal recommendation is for believers to prayerfully consider their traditions and denominational and doctrinal distinctives; and compare those traditions and doctrinal points to the apostolic kerygma (gospel proclamation) (shown above and below) to see if those doctrinal distinctives are part of the apostolic kerygma (gospel proclamation). And if they are not to reflect on the relative importance (and essentialness) of said doctrinal distinctives in the light of the fact that they weren't part of (or emphasized) in the apostolic kerygma gospel message of salvation that was proclaimed to the unbelieving world.

 

[fastfredy0]

I put it in a nutshell, not only under a 1000 words but also under 200 in post #144. So I guess I didn't have all that much to say about it.

So you assert IMO that one just has to believe [and trust I assume] that Jesus is God and then that person is saved.
Hmmm .. (assuming I got you right) .... I was going to disagree .. but the more I thought of it ... I think that's right. Aside: It's similar to what I said IMO ... simple enough that a child could understand it.

 

[Eleanor]

Agreed ... but we all have a 'different Jesus' conjured up in our mind to some degree ... what erroneous aspect(s) of knowledge of Christ disqualifies one's salvation? Even if one says Christ is God, does one then have to define God correctly to some degree and if so to what degree. (Aside: the chain 'need to get right' may never end ... )

The content of faith is not reducible to an arithmetic addition of articles. All believers, in principle, share the same knowledge and trust in the grace of God to save. Bavinck ... Sounds good to me. ... so simple that a child may enter .... Glad I believe God chooses us or these questions would be SUPER CRITICAL ..

It's a matter of the heart, is it converted or not.

 

[Eleanor]

So you assert IMO that one just has to believe [and trust I assume] that Jesus is God and then that person is saved.
Hmmm .. (assuming I got you right) .... I was going to disagree .. but the more I thought of it ... I think that's right. Aside: It's similar to what I said IMO ... simple enough that a child could understand it.

Ro 3:25 -- sacrifice of atonement through faith in his "blood"?

 

[Carbon]

simple enough that a child could understand it.

But could a caveman understand it?

 

[Eleanor]

But could a caveman understand it?

Was there any special revelation of God then?

If not, they were judged by their conscience (Ro 2:14-15).

 

[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

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.

Despite naysayers this provides a balanced and thorough review of a complex subject that would be of benefit to review. The growing evidence shows we may have fundamentally misunderstood "works of the law" among other things

 

[TB2]

Ha, the guy is throwing orthodoxy and the Christian gospel right out the window.

I don't agree with everything Wright says either, but he has not thrown orthodoxy or the gospel out the window

 

[Carbon]

I don't agree with everything Wright says either, but he has not thrown orthodoxy or the gospel out the window

But he has. Maybe you just do not see it. Again, you said he is difficult to understand. I don't think he is, I think he is quite clear but, whatever.

 

[TB2]

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

An article from MacArthur's Masters Seminary Journal is hardly unbiased

 

[TB2]

But he has. Maybe you just do not see it. Again, you said he is difficult to understand. I don't think he is, I think he is quite clear but, whatever.

Which statements in the apostolic kerygma (gospel proclamation) does he deny?

 

[TB2]

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?

The claim was he doesn’t believe in a historical Adam, yet he does. NT Wright, Walton, Beale, William Lane Craig and many others believe Adam was a real flesh and blood person and that the fall came through him.