What is the Gospel?

In question 3, your last option was very catholic in its wording. Grace is God's divine power to do His will. It does not infuse righteousness though. Grace is not merely unmerited favor. That definition makes no sense. Try doing a word study on "grace".

Out like my prediction about the Florida-Tennessee game (oh well, who can trust the Vols anyway?).

 

Reread my post.

 

No. God doesn't need grace to do his will. That is not what I said.

I have done a study on the word "grace" and its usage in every passage in the N.T.

For our sake, grace toward us is the divine ability to do his will.

I do not bow to the theology of the reformation. We all know how messed up their theology was. That is why we are baptists.

Rev. G, I am not saying you do.

 

1. Use it in every instance in the N.T. It checks out.

2. I believe in imputed righteousness. I believe in the five "pillars" of the reformation. I am intolerant of catholic theology including their "infused" righteousness. I embrace justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

3. Don't have a problem there.

4. Eschatology, church, ordinances, baby baptism, etc. You know their history, do you embrace ALL the reformation was about?

Out like my life might have been for being a Baptist in europe under the reign of protestants and catholics.

 

1. Check out Titus 2:11-13. What does it say about grace? Whose definition better fits?

2. The reformers largely were not favorable to the baptists. Baptists have better presented the same arguments they used. So, in that way, I go baptist and usually never check the reformers (at least not anymore).

3. Good, you are correct .

4a. They aren't premillenial.
4b. Primarily their view of government and babies and membership.
4c. While they admit two ordinances, they subscribe different meanings. Presbos for example teach consubstantiation. Now, is that a concession to the catholics or something based on Scripture? Well, my opinion is obvious.
4d. I am vehemently against baby sprinkling.

Your first "out" take was great.

 

Rev.G,

The term "gospel" is simply a synonym for "truth." The "gospel" embraces the whole message of God's word. The common idea that "the gospel" is merely the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ cannot be sustained by the Scriptures.

If there is any distinction between "truth" and "the gospel" it is that the term "gospel" implies truth preached. Therefore we have the term "evangelist" meaning a person who preaches the truth about Jesus Christ.

The command, "repent ye and believe the gospel" is not just a call to believe one particular truth or even one particular set of truths but, rather, to embrace the whole truth of God.

As to what specifically a man must believe to obtain eternal life, that is a different matter altogether and is summed up in John 3:16,

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Mark Osgatharp

 

I only quote myself to demonstrate the fallacy of my statement. I said that they aren't premillenial. That is incorrect. They are all premillenial now. During their lifetime, they were not premillenial. Sorry for the confusion.

Like those two inkstained fools that jumped onto the field at Comiskey Field, I am out.

 

It is very true Bro. Mark, that when we are mentioning the word gospel it can refer to the whole counsel of God - which is the entire Bible. Hence when Jesus refered to preaching the gospel to the poor, or praching the gospel of the kingdom, He was referring to the good news (namely Himself, God becoming man, and dwelling among them), but when the Apostles referred to the gospel, they were referring to the death, burrial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ - in Whom there is salvation to all who believe. Hence the Apsotle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-20 is very much referring to that Gospel.

 

Barnabas,

I agree that the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ was the focus of the message preached by the apostles; however, I would still contend that they used the term in a much larger way than simply that.

For example, Paul rebuked the Galatians churches for having departed from the true gospel into a false gospel. There is not any indication that the Galatian churches questioned the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Rather, they had obscured the message of God's grace by reverting to a Jewish form of worship.

The reason this is so important to understand is that in our day many think a church which teaches the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ teaches "the gospel." But a church such as the Roman Catholic, though they teach death, burial, and resurrection, do not teach the true gospel, because they do just what the Galatians did - they take some facts of the gospel and pervert them into a something that is foreign to the gospel.

Another problem that arises from such a narrow definition of "the gospel" is that we fail to comprehend the importance of the broader aspects of the gospel to our lives. Romans 1:16, for example, is often quoted to teach the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is "the power of God unto salvation" when, in fact, the passage says nothing of the sort.

The "gospel" of which Paul speaks in that passage is the whole message of God by which believers are called upon to live. The "salvation" of which he speaks is not just a matter of being born again, but a matter of living out the word of God in our lives. As Paul said in that passage,

"For therein [in the gospel] is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, the just shall live by faith."

Mark Osgatharp

 

Hi Mark,
Thanks for your post. Ironically, I am in the midst of formulating a paper on this exact topic and point you pose. So to begin, I agree w/ that position you take.
Question: Romans 1:16 does call it "the gospel of Christ". How have you come up w/ the conclusion that this portion of scripture is in fact *not* speaking of the death, burial and resurection?

The gospel is the *good news*. This good news can be presented from may facets of Gods scripture; in other words, from Genesis to Revealtion. I agree, one should not necessarily fixate themselves w/ only the death, burial and resurection of our Lord when speaking of Gods good news.....even though, the best news is the cross of Calvary! The ultiamte question may be, "How much did the OT saint know" in these regards?

 

Brother Scott,

I do not say it isn't speaking about the death, burial, and resurrection; I just say it is not talking exclusively about the death, burial, and resurrection.

The reason I say this is because in this context Paul expressed his desire to have some fruit among the Roman saints. These people already believed in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul was concerned with instructing them further into the truths of the gospel.

He said this "gospel" is the power of God unto salvation,

"from faith to faith; as it is written, the just shall live by faith."

Obviously, the "salvation" he speaks of is not just being "saved from hell" but having the whole life redeemed from the dominion of sin and hopelessness and living by faith. Again,

"The just shall live by faith."

That doesn't say, "the wicked will be justified by faith" (though that is certainly true). It says that those who are justified by faith shall also live by faith.

The rest of the book of Romans expounds the gospel from first to last; from being justified by faith to living by faith. It is all "the gospel."

Just read Paul's benediction to the book and you will see what I mean:

"Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the myster, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."

Note that the end goal of "the gospel" is not merely the "salvation of a soul" but rather "the obedience of faith."

Mark Osgatharp

 

Hi ya Mark,

Thanks for your responses!

Question:
Do you believe (based upon that which you've written) that men can be saved apart from hearing and/or understanding what Christ accomplished @ Calvary's cross? In other words, in your opinion, what is the itemization, the sum and substance of the gospel that saves?

Example: I do not believe that Noah or Abraham had a full scope of this idea. The apostles did not understand it either (As in Peters example).

Question: Do you have any material you can facilitate me w/ on this position, i.e. Books, web sites etc.?

 

Scott,

In order to be saved a man must believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and a man cannot do that unless he has heard of Him. In John chapter three Jesus told Nicodemas that in order to be born again a man must believe that the Son of man must be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness as a remedy for sin.

Furthermore, Paul said in Romans chapter 4 that we we have Christ's righteousness imputed to us if we have the same sort of faith in His death and resurrection as Abraham did in the promise of Isaac.

I am aware that some things Peter and the other apostles said would seem to indicate they didn't understand this; but I rather think that these things were more an indication that men don't always speak and act consistently with their beliefs than they were an indication that the apostles didn't believe the Lord had to die.

For example, though we are specifically told that Abraham believed the promise that his seed would be the Savior of the world, we find several instances where he acted inconsistently with this belief.

In any event, after the resurrection the understanding of the disciples was opened that they received a full comprehension of these things and if a man today told me he doubted or disbelieved the substitutionary death or the resurrection of the Lord I would not consider him a saved man.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Hi Mark,
you write:
In order to be saved a man must believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and a man cannot do that unless he has heard of Him.

Mark, not that I disagree with this, what about the imbecile and infant?

Mark continues:
Paul said in Romans chapter 4 that we we have Christ's righteousness imputed to us if we have the same sort of faith in His death and resurrection as Abraham did in the promise of Isaac.

Scott asks: Were the elements of what saved Father Abraham different from what saves us today?

[ September 25, 2002, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

Scott,

As for the infant and embecile, they are not accountable for their sin because they have no knowledge of if. "Sin is not imputed where there is no law" and "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."

I don't know how much Abraham knew about Christ. I do know that he knew something about Christ and perhaps more than is explicitly stated in Genesis. Jesus said that Abraham,

"rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad."

For all I know Abraham may have got a full color vision of the crucifixion. What I do know for sure is that Abraham had the promise that his seed - Christ - would be the Savior of the world and he believed that promise - so surely so that he was willing to kill his own son, knowing God would raise him from the dead if need be to keep his promise.

That is the sort of faith Paul said we must have in God's promises if we would have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us,

"who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification."

Mark Osgatharp