Does the term “the gospel” ever have a technical usage for the message the lost must believe to be saved?
Exhibit A: Acts 15:7-9
In Acts, six passages speak about preaching “the gospel” to the lost (8:25; 14:6; 14:21; 15:7; 16:10; 20:24). In Acts 15:7-9, Peter recounts the story of his evangelism to the household of Cornelius:
In Acts, six passages speak about preaching “the gospel” to the lost (8:25; 14:6; 14:21; 15:7; 16:10; 20:24). In Acts 15:7-9, Peter recounts the story of his evangelism to the household of Cornelius:
“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVE. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by FAITH.”
Is Peter talking about “everything in the NT, if not everything in the entire Bible” when he uses the term “the gospel” in this passage (15:7)? Obviously not! He is talking about the specific message by which the lost are saved. The Gentiles were “saved” by “faith” in the “gospel”. It is upon believing “the gospel” that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit (15:7). It is upon believing the gospel that their hearts were purified (15:8).
As a matter of fact, Peter was invited by Cornelius to preach the gospel because an angel appeared to Cornelius and told him to call for Peter “who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved” (11:14). By which words were these Gentiles saved if it was not the message Peter had it mind when he said, “God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVE.”
The point is this: The Gentiles were saved through faith. Faith in what according to the context? The Gospel. The gospel here has a technical meaning for the message that the Gentiles were required to believe to be saved.
If Myers somehow wants to make a typically absurd GES-esque argument that “saved” (11:14; cf. 15:11) and “forgiveness of sins” (10:43) and “gospel” (15:7) and “believe” (10:43; 15:7) and “washed” (15:9) do not refer to the event in which these Gentiles were justified before God and saved from hell, and if he wishes to contend they were already saved from hell before Peter preached to them, he still must admit this is the event that they were placed into the body of Christ via the baptism of the Holy Spirit which Peter mentions in 11:16. The condition to be placed into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit (cf. 1Cor. 12:13), which is the essence of salvation in the church age is the same for us — to believe the gospel (cf. Gal. 3:26-27).
As a matter of fact, Peter was invited by Cornelius to preach the gospel because an angel appeared to Cornelius and told him to call for Peter “who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved” (11:14). By which words were these Gentiles saved if it was not the message Peter had it mind when he said, “God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVE.”
The point is this: The Gentiles were saved through faith. Faith in what according to the context? The Gospel. The gospel here has a technical meaning for the message that the Gentiles were required to believe to be saved.
If Myers somehow wants to make a typically absurd GES-esque argument that “saved” (11:14; cf. 15:11) and “forgiveness of sins” (10:43) and “gospel” (15:7) and “believe” (10:43; 15:7) and “washed” (15:9) do not refer to the event in which these Gentiles were justified before God and saved from hell, and if he wishes to contend they were already saved from hell before Peter preached to them, he still must admit this is the event that they were placed into the body of Christ via the baptism of the Holy Spirit which Peter mentions in 11:16. The condition to be placed into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit (cf. 1Cor. 12:13), which is the essence of salvation in the church age is the same for us — to believe the gospel (cf. Gal. 3:26-27).
Exhibit B: Romans 1:16
“For I am not ashamed of THE GOSPEL of Christ, for it is the power of God to SALVATION for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.”
Here is a passage that will fulfill Jeremy’s prophecy: “My prediction is that the passages he has in mind either use the term “saved” which in context does not refer to justification.”
GES advocates have been very satisfied with their totally unsubstantiated claim that Romans 1:16 does not refer to the message preached to the lost. Rather, they argue it refers to general truths preached to believers for salvation from God’s wrath (even though the Bible teaches believers are NOT subject to God’s wrath).
To the contrary, I believe there are several proofs this particular verse speaks about the gospel brought to the LOST for first-tense salvation/ justification/ eternal life, not to a message brought only to believers supposedly for God’s wrath toward carnal believers! The most obvious, in my eyes, is that “the gospel” which is “the power of God unto salvation” is carried “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This is concerning the evangelism of the LOST. There is no sense whatever that the gospel is “first to the Jew” among BELIEVERS who are “in Christ” where “there is neither Jew nor Gentile” (cf. 1Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28; Col. 3:11).
Let me summarize a couple points why this is talking about salvation from hell and evangelism to the lost:
1. “…for the Jew first and also for the Greek” refers to the early Church pattern of evangelism of the lost. To claim that spiritual truth among Church-age believers somehow applies to the “Jew first and also to the Greek” specifically contradicts the NT teaching that… “the new man who is renewed in knowledge [this does refer to sanctification truth] according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised…” (Col. 3:10-11). The NT specifically teaches that the new man is to be renewed in the knowledge of God’s word, but that there is absolutely no distinction between Greek nor Jew in this respect. How then could general revelation for believers be “first to Jewish church age believers, then to Gentile church age believer” in light of Colossians 3:10-11??? Such an idea also contradicts the general teaching about believers being positioned in Christ where there is neither Jew nor Gentile (cf. 1Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:26-27).
2. Romans 1:2-4 also refers to “the gospel” which was promised previously in the “Scriptures”. This is significant for a couple reasons. First of all, there is certainly no reason to distinguish between “the gospel” of Romans 1:2-4 and 1:16. So in the very first chapter of Romans, Paul teaches that justification is by faith alone in the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection. This is paralleled throughout the rest of the book where Paul teaches justification by faith in the same truths (cf. 3:19-26; 9:30-10:4; 10:16). These each refer to first-tense salvation.
Second, Paul states that the gospel was “promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (1:2). This corresponds with Paul’s point about “the gospel” being “according to the Scriptures” in 1Cor. 15:1-4. He is referring to the same gospel. Third, this gospel message emphasizes the Deity, humanity, death, and resurrection of Christ (1:2-4), all of which are preached, for example, in Acts to the LOST. It is simply implausible to suggest this “gospel” is intended only for believers to escape the temporal wrath of God, not for unbelievers to be saved from hell!
3. There is a change in pronouns between 1:15-16 from “you” (1:15) to “everyone” which are specifically identified as “Jews” and “Greeks” (1:16). Although Paul intended to preach the gospel to the Romans, so that they could gain a greater understanding of how Christ’s death and resurrection relates to their lives, Paul does not say in v. 16, “so that it can save you”. He reminds them of the importance of the gospel by stating “it is the power of God to salvation for EVERYONE who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” The implication is that the objective truths of Christ’s death and resurrection which is essential to the salvation of the lost (Rom. 1:16) is also the basis for everything in the Christian life (Rom. 1:15).
4. For some reason GES advocates are very adamant about claiming there are TWO conditions to “salvation” from God’s temporal wrath for believers when they get to Romans 10:9-10. They argue that “confess” means to live a life of discipleship in which one outwardly confesses Jesus Christ. They specifically point out this is in ADDITION to believing. And yet, Romans 1:16 — which they claim also speaks of salvation of temporal wrath for believers — only mentions one condition: “the gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.” This sounds like salvation by faith alone to me, not salvation by faith plus discipleship. Why the inconsistency?
5. Notice, also, that this passage is parallel to the next which is clearly a reference to the gospel brought to the lost for salvation:
GES advocates have been very satisfied with their totally unsubstantiated claim that Romans 1:16 does not refer to the message preached to the lost. Rather, they argue it refers to general truths preached to believers for salvation from God’s wrath (even though the Bible teaches believers are NOT subject to God’s wrath).
To the contrary, I believe there are several proofs this particular verse speaks about the gospel brought to the LOST for first-tense salvation/ justification/ eternal life, not to a message brought only to believers supposedly for God’s wrath toward carnal believers! The most obvious, in my eyes, is that “the gospel” which is “the power of God unto salvation” is carried “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This is concerning the evangelism of the LOST. There is no sense whatever that the gospel is “first to the Jew” among BELIEVERS who are “in Christ” where “there is neither Jew nor Gentile” (cf. 1Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28; Col. 3:11).
Let me summarize a couple points why this is talking about salvation from hell and evangelism to the lost:
1. “…for the Jew first and also for the Greek” refers to the early Church pattern of evangelism of the lost. To claim that spiritual truth among Church-age believers somehow applies to the “Jew first and also to the Greek” specifically contradicts the NT teaching that… “the new man who is renewed in knowledge [this does refer to sanctification truth] according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised…” (Col. 3:10-11). The NT specifically teaches that the new man is to be renewed in the knowledge of God’s word, but that there is absolutely no distinction between Greek nor Jew in this respect. How then could general revelation for believers be “first to Jewish church age believers, then to Gentile church age believer” in light of Colossians 3:10-11??? Such an idea also contradicts the general teaching about believers being positioned in Christ where there is neither Jew nor Gentile (cf. 1Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:26-27).
2. Romans 1:2-4 also refers to “the gospel” which was promised previously in the “Scriptures”. This is significant for a couple reasons. First of all, there is certainly no reason to distinguish between “the gospel” of Romans 1:2-4 and 1:16. So in the very first chapter of Romans, Paul teaches that justification is by faith alone in the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection. This is paralleled throughout the rest of the book where Paul teaches justification by faith in the same truths (cf. 3:19-26; 9:30-10:4; 10:16). These each refer to first-tense salvation.
Second, Paul states that the gospel was “promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (1:2). This corresponds with Paul’s point about “the gospel” being “according to the Scriptures” in 1Cor. 15:1-4. He is referring to the same gospel. Third, this gospel message emphasizes the Deity, humanity, death, and resurrection of Christ (1:2-4), all of which are preached, for example, in Acts to the LOST. It is simply implausible to suggest this “gospel” is intended only for believers to escape the temporal wrath of God, not for unbelievers to be saved from hell!
3. There is a change in pronouns between 1:15-16 from “you” (1:15) to “everyone” which are specifically identified as “Jews” and “Greeks” (1:16). Although Paul intended to preach the gospel to the Romans, so that they could gain a greater understanding of how Christ’s death and resurrection relates to their lives, Paul does not say in v. 16, “so that it can save you”. He reminds them of the importance of the gospel by stating “it is the power of God to salvation for EVERYONE who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” The implication is that the objective truths of Christ’s death and resurrection which is essential to the salvation of the lost (Rom. 1:16) is also the basis for everything in the Christian life (Rom. 1:15).
4. For some reason GES advocates are very adamant about claiming there are TWO conditions to “salvation” from God’s temporal wrath for believers when they get to Romans 10:9-10. They argue that “confess” means to live a life of discipleship in which one outwardly confesses Jesus Christ. They specifically point out this is in ADDITION to believing. And yet, Romans 1:16 — which they claim also speaks of salvation of temporal wrath for believers — only mentions one condition: “the gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.” This sounds like salvation by faith alone to me, not salvation by faith plus discipleship. Why the inconsistency?
5. Notice, also, that this passage is parallel to the next which is clearly a reference to the gospel brought to the lost for salvation:
Exhibit C: 1Corinthians 1:17-23
“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach THE GOSPEL, not with wisdom of words, lest the CROSS of Christ should be made of no effect. For THE MESSAGE OF THE CROSS is foolishness to those who are PERISHING, but to us who are being SAVED it is the power of God….For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of THE MESSAGE PREACHED TO SAVE THOSE WHO BELIEVE. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach CHRIST CRUCIFIED, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.”
Notice that the message that must be preached to the lost and must be received by the lost for salvation is called “the gospel” (1:17). This gospel heralds the “cross of Christ” (1:17) and is actually called “the message of the cross” (1:18). This is “the message preached” by which it pleases God “to save those who believe”. Notice that this message specifically involves preaching “Christ crucified” (1:23).
On another forum, Antonio da Rosa indicated that it is insufficient to cite this passage as proof the message of the cross involves Christ’s death. Instead, I needed some exegesis to show “the message of the cross” by which Paul preached “Christ crucified” includes Christ’s death. Umm. Huh??
Can any exegesis possibly prove the “message of the cross” does not necessarily involve Christ’s death? There is little left to say to a person who chooses to be such a fool. I do not say this without love for Jesus Christ or the accursed heretic. Earlier I pleaded to him with this message:
On another forum, Antonio da Rosa indicated that it is insufficient to cite this passage as proof the message of the cross involves Christ’s death. Instead, I needed some exegesis to show “the message of the cross” by which Paul preached “Christ crucified” includes Christ’s death. Umm. Huh??
Can any exegesis possibly prove the “message of the cross” does not necessarily involve Christ’s death? There is little left to say to a person who chooses to be such a fool. I do not say this without love for Jesus Christ or the accursed heretic. Earlier I pleaded to him with this message:
“For the man who so lacks fear before God that he would somehow divest “the message of the cross” of Christ’s death, whatever fear he does not have, I fear for him. O, I beg you not to shut your eyes, not to harden your heart, not to resist the utterly clear statements of Scripture on this subject.”Paul points out that what separates those who are PERISHING from those who are SAVED is that the saved were saved via faith in the message of the cross which is also called “the gospel” (1:17, 18, 21)? Lest anyone claim that this only has to do with salvation of believers, let me point out the terms “saved” and “perish” (1Cor. 1:18) are articular participles that function like adjectives to refer to two GROUPS of people, without reference to progression/verbal aspect. Notice that faith in the “message of the cross” is what separates the “saved” from the “perishing.”
Furthermore, let me point out that the message of the cross is a STUMBLING BLOCK and FOOLISHNESS to the world! Even though the world was stumbled by this message, Paul thought it ESSENTIAL to preach to the world so that they could be saved! How utterly ironic–and how incredibly sad–that GES members would accuse people like me of STUMBLING the lost by insisting they believe in Christ Crucified!!
This point completely dismantles the crossless gospel argument that we “should” preach the cross only because it is a good apologetic for the offer of eternal life. Paul held up the cross of Jesus Christ to the lost even when it stumbled them. Zane Hodges said,
“Most of us deplore efforts made by Lordship people to add provisos to the message of faith in Christ…We rightly reject such ideas. But in our own circles, there is a tendency to add theological information to our message of faith.”By “add (extra) theological information,” Hodges explicitly includes “the cross” or “Christ’s substitutionary atonement,” or the insistence on telling the unsaved the must believe “Jesus died for your sins.” This is found in his How to Lead People to Christ Pt. 1, 2 articles.
Other GES advocates have accused us of stumbling the lost by insisting that the lost believe the message of the CROSS for salvation. Their posts can be found on virtually any of the Free Grace blogs. Yet, how utterly ironic that they have placed us into the same company as the Apostle Paul–stumbling the lost with the message of the CROSS by insisting that they believe the message of the CROSS for salvation! Paul indicated that YES, the message of the cross IS a stumbling block for the lost, and yet he did not offer them any other message by which they could be saved!
Please notice very carefully that the message of the cross was not confined inside the churches, but is specifically what “Jews” and “Greeks” heard and rejected (I’m thinking again of the parallel between Romans 1:16 and 1Cor. 1:17-21).
Yet crossless gospel proponents insist that there is no such thing as “the gospel” that the lost must to believe to be saved!
*Part 3, a continuation of the SCRIPTURAL EXHIBITS, is next in the series. Please continue the series at The Technical Meaning of the Term, “The Gospel,” Part 3
I would contend that the Gospel is what draws men to Christ. His finished work on the cross and resurrection from the dead are the work of God - the Grace of God by which anyone is saved. It is what we should preach and teach.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that through which we are saved is our belief (faith) in Jesus - that He is the Christ, the Son of God. We are never called to believe in the message but to believe in Him. I would say these verses speak of preaching the Gospel so that a lost man is drawn to believe in Him, not so that the lost man believes the Gospel.
Is this a fine line? I think so. Can someone believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God without understanding or consciously not believing His finished work...I don't think the Bible ever answers that question.
Many of you are former Catholics...who in Catholicism doesn't believe the Gospel (that Jesus died for the sin of the world, was buried and rose again)? Who in Catholicism doesn't believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? Would a Catholic say the message of the Cross is foolishness or would they concur that it is the power of God? If so, are they not saved?
We know that no man is justified by works but by faith. Can a man be justified by faith while continuing to do works that he thinks might save him - as useless as that may be?
I would suspect that you'd answer no - that the lost must understand that Christ paid their penalty and only through knowing that their works are useless can they have saving faith. This starts to import a whole lot of theology into the Gospel and/or into the terms the Christ, the Son of God. No matter how correct or incorrect ones theology is - it is belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God that gives the perishing life in His name.
Jon:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “However, that through which we are saved is our belief (faith) in Jesus - that He is the Christ, the Son of God. We are never called to believe in the message but to believe in Him. I would say these verses speak of preaching the Gospel so that a lost man is drawn to believe in Him, not so that the lost man believes the Gospel.”
Understanding that Jesus “the Christ…the Son of God” is Deity, you are stressing the necessity of believing in Him. Believing in the Jesus of the Bible, who is God.
How does your comment above square up with Antonio’s statement below made to Rose in another thread?
“What I have a problem with is sincere Christians adding an additional requirement to taking Jesus at His word in His gospel promise, namely, the addition of belief in His deity.”
LM
Lou -
ReplyDeleteYou wrote Understanding that Jesus “the Christ…the Son of God” is Deity, you are stressing the necessity of believing in Him. Believing in the Jesus of the Bible, who is God.
Correct....I'm stressing the necessity of believing that He is God.
Obviously, brother Antonio and I don't quite see eye to eye on this.
In Christ,
JL
Jon,
ReplyDeleteYou can contend whatever you want but your contention has nothing to do with the neither Scriptures I posted nor the ones yet to come.
-- Greg
Jon:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the follow-up.
I wanted to show that (as I have noted before) there is division in the “Crossless” camp over the necessity of belief in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
IMO, since the split is over the Deity of Christ, it is a major rift in the “Crossless” camp, at least it should be the way I see it.
The no-deity teaching of da Rosa puts him, and those of his thinking, on the extreme edges of the Hodges' view of the Gospel.
More for you later, Christmas shopping just ahead.
We don’t do Santa at our house. I don’t want the jolly fat guy getting all the credit for the gifts I am buying.
LM
I'm not sure there is a major rift in the "Crossless" camp but more a major rift in Christianity. Always has been.....but we know He has the first and the last Word, Praise God!
ReplyDeleteJon:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Greg's comment above in that you didn't specifically address or refute any of his Scriptural arguments - in fact, you didn't use any Scriptures!
You said: “that through which we are saved is our belief (faith) in Jesus - that He is the Christ, the Son of God. We are never called to believe in the message but to believe in Him. I would say these verses speak of preaching the Gospel so that a lost man is drawn to believe in Him, not so that the lost man believes the Gospel.”
John, I believe you make a false distinction between the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:17-24; 2 Cor. 4:4-5, 10:14; Gal. 1:7; 2 Thess. 1:8-9, etc.) and Christ, for the gospel of Christ reveals as of first importance that “Christ died for our sins . . .” (1 Cor. 15:3a). Furthermore, your understanding of the gospel as a drawing card to get the lost to believe in Christ doesn’t hold up in light of Scripture either, for the apostle Paul declares that the gospel is “to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23b, cf. Gal. 5:11)! The gospel of Christ will never be popular in the world’s eyes - in fact, it drives most away from Him (Gal. 1:10, 5:11, 6:12)! Yet the apostle Paul preached the gospel because it is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16)!
John, you went on to say: “Can someone believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God without understanding or consciously not believing His finished work...I don't think the Bible ever answers that question.”
John, you need to address, interact with, and respond to Greg’s scriptures and Scriptural arguments before you make comments such as yours above! Otherwise, you simply bring Greg’s plea upon yourself: “For the man who so lacks fear before God that he would somehow divest “the message of the cross” of Christ’s death, whatever fear he does not have, I fear for him. O, I beg you not to shut your eyes, not to harden your heart, not to resist the utterly clear statements of Scripture on this subject.”
Lastly, I’m not sure what your point was in bringing up the illustration of the unsaved yet religious Roman Catholic so I won’t comment on that.
Jonathan Perreault
www.freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com
William R. Newell has an appropriate warning to those who divest Romans 1:16 of its reference to justification. He writes:
ReplyDelete"The power of God unto salvation" is a wonderful revelation! As Chrysostom says, "There is a power of God unto punishment, unto destruction: 'Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell'" (Matt. 10.28). "The use of the word 'power' here, as in 1 Corinthians 1:24, carries a superlative sense, - the highest and holiest vehicle of divine power" (Alford). This story of Christ's dying for our sins, buried, raised, manifested, is the great wire along which runs God's mighty current of saving power. Beware lest you be putting up some little wire of your own, unconnected with the Divine throne, and therefore non-saving to those to whom you speak. (Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, 20-21, italics added)
Jon:
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting your notes on Rom. 16.
I have noted how the “Crossless” advocates will force into or wrench out of any passage whatever they must to maintain the teachings of Zane Hodges on the Gospel.
Sadly, all of these strange interpretations of Scripture have originated with Hodges and these younger men seemingly follow him without question or pause to consider whether or not he has departed from the faith once delivered (Jude 3).
LM
Greg:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “GES advocates have been very satisfied with their totally unsubstantiated claim that Romans 1:16 does not refer to the message preached to the lost. Rather, they argue it refers to general truths preached to believers for salvation from God’s wrath (even though the Bible teaches believers are NOT subject to God’s wrath).”
I have not done a great deal of research on the Hodges/Dillow view of a punitive Judgment Seat of Christ (JSC). I have done enough, however, to know that we are seeing yet another strange and radical interpretation of Scripture coming from Hodges, Dillow and being propagated of late by da Rosa.
Your note here on their view of Rm. 16 is making it clearer now and connecting the dots.
From what I am gathering the “punitive” JSC includes the absolutely absurd idea that genuine born again believers could be cast into outer darkness.
We may see if da Rosa has also been drawn to this extreme conclusion.
It is sad to see how deeply these men have been deceived, and their theology corrupted in the wake of the teachings of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES.
LM
Greg, I'm appreciating your remarks on the gospel. I think people with eyes to see and ears to hear are going to be helped by this series. There are some who I think cannot be helped. I'm referring to those who claim Paul's gospel of salvation is sanctification truth rather than basic salvation truth. That argument demonstrates to me an astonishing willingness to wrest the Scriptures. Such teachers, in my judgment, cannot be helped for I agree with Lou that they will continually invent further ideas, as needed, for neutralizing the truth of the gospel. Your articles are effectively showing that the GES crossless message of evangelism contradicts the gospel that God has committed to our trust. Thank you for the good work you are doing.
ReplyDeleteLou, Rene Lopez, a student of Hodges, has a book which he believes is the "key" to "unlocking" the book of Romans. The key, he thinks, is to interpret Romans 1:16 in the way which you quoted above. He thinks it refers to the salvation of church age saints from God's temporal wrath on earth. EVERYTHING he says in that book hinges on that interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI took a look at his comments on Romans 1:16 before I wrote that comment above. It is a joke. If I remember right, his comments on that interpretation are about a half a page. He gives virtually no argument to support that interpretation. He pretty much offers it as an assertion. I was thinking "This whole book depends on that wild interpretation, and he doesn't even give any support for it. That's a lot of weight to hang on a thread."
Anyway, plenty of other verses, such as 1Cor. 1:17-21 and 2Thes 1:8-10 indicate that the lost must believe the gospel to be saved.
Jon L. asserted "we are never called to believe in the message" for salvation. I must say that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard anybody say. How could any person read the Bible and think that? JP made a good point there is no distinction between believing the gospel and believing in Christ.
-- Greg
Men:
ReplyDeleteI have said this before, but it is again quite obvious and needs restating.
The followers of Hodges and Wilkin have a pattern of coming to the Scripture with the Hodges' view and they filter their understanding and interpretation of Scripture through what Hodges says.
For the advocates of "Crossless" theology and their other extremes we are seeing, the Bible is NOT the final authority of faith and practice unless and until it has been filtered through the absurd conclusions of Zane Hodges.
I look at the "Crossless" gospel of Zane Hodges as being responsible for additional collateral damage to the Scriptures.
These teachings that are antithetical to Scripture must be vigorously and biblically resisted.
I’ll have more later.
LM
Greg -
ReplyDeleteThe Gospel is what draws man to Christ:
Joh 12:32 -
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."
The verses you reference never mention believing in the message but simply believing – which is most certainly a call to believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. Again, the question is what must a lost man believe in order to have eternal life. You can’t add the message to this content lest belief in Him is not enough.
In Christ,
JL
Greg -
ReplyDelete"Jon L. asserted "we are never called to believe in the message" for salvation. I must say that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard anybody say. How could any person read the Bible and think that? JP made a good point there is no distinction between believing the gospel and believing in Christ.
I have a hard time telling you and Antonio apart. I would exhort you to add to your faith things like meekness and kindness.
I understand the cross to be the gospel in many passages. It was this that I was referencing. People must believe the saving message - that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
I stand corrected in absurdity.
In Christ,
JL
Jon:
ReplyDeleteIMO, what Greg posted to you is not even close (worlds apart) from what Antonio has posted in the blogosphere. The comparison of Greg using a word like “absurd” is tame compared to what Antonio is capable of, and has used against his opponents.
Antonio is widely known for unchristian like combativeness, vitriol and assorted other poor behavior choices. For his on line behavior Antonio has been rebuked by various individuals, plus censured and banned from several blogs.
If any one goes over the line, and I don’t care who it is, I will deal with them. You have my promise on that.
LM
Lou -
ReplyDeleteGreg stated:
I must say that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard anybody say. How could any person read the Bible and think that?
This type of comment really does nothing but point fingers and laugh.
It's sad when Christians are so blinded by their theology that they can't treat other brothers in Christ with respect.
I want to thank you guys for the discussion. I think your work has merit and is valuable. Best Wishes at the Bema.
In Christ,
JL
Jon:
ReplyDeleteAs Greg and I said earlier, you continue to make bold assertions yet only quote one Scripture (Jn. 12:32) and fail to address those under discussion! In my opinion, this is deplorable and unscholarly! As a result, I can't take you or your position seriously, and as I said to Antonio, it's a wonder you take yourself seriously. Please begin to interact with the text of Scripture, especially those under discussion on this blog: "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." (Isa. 8:20, NASB)
Jon, you are simply verifying what I and others have always affirmed: "Its hard to support heresy with exegesis."
Jon:
ReplyDeleteIf you found Greg’s comment offensive why would you respond with, “…so blinded by their theology… .”
Seems to be a tit-for-tat reply.
Anyway, if you are going to depart I can’t help that, but both Greg and Jon have asked you to speak to and from the Scriptures under consideration, which you have failed to do.
Kind regards,
LM
"The followers of Hodges and Wilkin have a pattern of coming to the Scripture with the Hodges' view and they filter their understanding and interpretation of Scripture through what Hodges says."
ReplyDeleteLou, every theologian seeks to construct a system for understanding Bible doctrine.
We then approach particular passages with the assumptions formed by that system. If we find there are challenges in the text to that system, we should question it and if necessary adopt an alternative model.
I think it would be fair to guess that you approach the Scriptures with the assumptions you have pioked up from your preferred Dispensational theologians, such as Charles Ryrie.
Naturally, you have examined the texts of the New Testament and have come to conclude that the conclusions drawn by such men are correct, just as Antonio and myself believe that the exegetical conclusions of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin are very sound.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Matthew:
ReplyDeleteI want to give you a well thought out reply to your note above on your "approach (to) particluar passages."
I have that reply roughed out, but not ready to post.
I have a very heavy day at work and with prepping Part 4 of Greg's current series. So, I will reply to you later today or first thing tomorrow.
Maybe Jon or Greg will have some thoughts for you in the meantime.
LM
Make sure you find time to take some rest, Lou.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless
Matthew
Lou:
ReplyDeleteConcerning Matthew's statements, the issue as always is "What does the Scripture say?" (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30) Bible teachers are helpful and in fact necessary in the church, for God has given "some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-12, cf. Rom. 12:7; 1 Pt. 4:10). Paul declares: "And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2). And so learning from Bible teachers is not at all wrong, but can, in fact, be of great benefit to the Christian. Yet we must always seek to be Bereans and "search the Scriptures to see whether these things are so" (Acts 17:11), being diligent to present ourselves approved to God as wise workmen who don't need to be ashamed, accurately handling the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). This is essential. As Matthew has said:
"Naturally, you have examined the texts of the New Testament and have come to conclude that the conclusions drawn by such men are correct, just as Antonio and myself believe that the exegetical conclusions of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin are very sound."
And so the approved workman must ever ask the fundamental question: "What does the Scripture say?" Greg Schliesmann has done some serious work in this regard. He is proving from the Scriptures that "the gospel" does indeed have a technical usage for the message the lost must believe to be saved from hell. When Greg originally posted these comments on Jeremy Myers "Till He Comes" blog months ago, instead of interacting with the Scriptures, Jeremy Myers ran for the nearest exit! Basically certain "exegetical conclusions" of Zane Hodges & Co. are being exposed for what they really are under the facade - false teachings and distortions of the truth: "only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:7).
Matthew:
ReplyDeleteI just don’t have time to write this out with the kind of tone and eloquence I would have liked. So, here it is in the rough form.
You have essentially verified what I have stated about your approach to Scripture.
You, Antonio and Jeremy start with Zane Hodges (ZH) first, and then go to the Bible. You have (ZH) presuppositions and then force in to or extract from the Bible whatever you must to make it conform to the Hodges conclusions. ZH has already done much of this for you, and you men pretty much follow in lock-step.
Clear evidence of this is how you men react to passages outside of John’s Gospel that do not line up with the ZH conclusions on John. You reinterpret, redefine and wrest the passages to conform them to what Hodges has determined about John. It is a constant pattern when you are faced with any passage that creates a dilemma for the ZH teachings.
Some of the most unusual and absurd statements and notes I have ever seen on NT passages that have very clear interpretations are coming from Myers, you and da Rosa. What you men are saying have their origin in the peculiar teaching of Hodges and Wilkin. I heard a comment late in the FGA panel discussion from Jeremy Myers on 1 Corinthians 1 that was so off-the-chart that I half-laughed out loud. That was in my car. It would have been all I could do not to laugh like that had I been in the meeting room. I actually felt sorry for him when I heard what he said. A bright young man having his doctrine ruined by Hodges and Wilkin.
IMO, their notes are not unique to them, they are parroting what they have been given by Hodges and Wilkin as they seek to under gird Hodges’ “Crossless” theology.
Looking at the passages in Greg’s series one can readily see how “Crossless” advocates twist and wrest them to keep the Hodges “Crossless” gospel glued together.
You fail to compare Scripture with Scripture. You do not allow the Bible to define itself from within the pages of Scripture. You are comparing Scripture to Hodges, with Hodges having the preeminence. Your doing these things to the Bible are only going to continue.
Study and doctrinal development should start with the Bible, and the Bible must be the test and final authority for all matters of faith and practice. What I primarily see from you men is Hodges first, and the Scriptures being made to conform.
I look at how Alvin, for example, quotes Hodges in great excess. For Alvin, ZH has become his (Alvin’s) final authority and IMO yours, da Rosa’s and Myers too.
We are witnessing from men in “Crossless” camp a doctrinal-erosion-in-progress that can be seen through your own writings.
LM