ECT The Gospel Proper

[Rosenritter]

In a vacuum, sure, but infant baptism in Catholicism isn't in a vacuum, and Catholics know that Confirmation, celebrated at or after the age of reason, confirms a person as a 'bona fide' Christian, bringing them into full communion with the Body of Christ, authorized to partake of the Lord's table.

Do you sense some similarity to the Calvinist take, where rather than the person reaching out for Christ as an active decision, the person is instead chosen by events outside their control? (Invisible secret election on one side, or baptism by their parents on another?)

 

[Rosenritter]

Agreed.

This reasoning reminds me of those who believe that all babies who die in infancy go to heaven. If so, then why not rather than oppose abortion on demand, promote it, as a sure means to save souls?

Yes, that would be a contradiction between stated belief and action. I've put that question to Glory before and it made her very upset with me.

 

[Right Divider]

You're a hot mess. The "understanding" of "Christ's earthly ministry" is what I was responding to "in that post," of Yours.

You are consistently wrong.

I understand Christ's earthly ministry from the scripture.

I don't put man-made doctrines even on a level with Scripture, never mind and let alone 'above' it. Can you provide any evidence at all to support your continued contention that I am a 'zealot?'

You and other Cathoholics claim that scripture only means what the "church" says that it means. That's putting your man-made doctrine above the scripture.

Scripture was given so that anyone can know what God says.

 

[Right Divider]

The gospel is God's revelation of salvation unto eternal life.

Is that the only type of salvation mentioned in the Bible.

Would other types of salvation also be "good news"?

 

[Idolater]

Do you sense some similarity to the Calvinist take, where rather than the person reaching out for Christ as an active decision, the person is instead chosen by events outside their control? (Invisible secret election on one side, or baptism by their parents on another?)

Only if it's forced, and by that, I mean your reasoning. As said, Catholicism believes that the person is brought into full communion, is received into the Church, at Confirmation, which is not done until the person reaches the age of reason, and can thereby know that what they're confessing, they actually believe.

 

[Idolater]

But if they were baptizing for a dead Christ that had not risen, they would have been baptized for the dead. That's how I understand that passage.

It's very reasonable, and easily solves an otherwise mysterious reference.

 

[Idolater]

You are consistently wrong.

Says you.

I understand Christ's earthly ministry from the scripture.

Wrongly.

You and other Cathoholics claim that scripture only means what the "church" says that it means.

Of course. Christ did not leave us, without a perpetual and authoritative office responsible for knowing and teaching the one authentic Christian faith. It's not up for debate. The debate was settled in the first century, in the Apostolic era, the Apostles being those who instituted the Church's pastoral office of Bishop.

That's putting your man-made doctrine above the scripture.

The bishops are In Scripture.

Scripture was given so that anyone can know what God says.

You continue to deny that the Apostles taught anything that isn't written in the New Testament. Where is it written that only what is captured in Scripture is the Word of God? Not in Scripture, which testifies that the opposite is true. Like 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 KJV. "...whether by word, or our epistle"---not just by 'our epistle' only.

 

[Clete]

Rosenritter's suggested that he's just talking about baptism there. It's possible, given the following, taken from your link: "...since Paul doesn’t rebuke the Corinthians for their practice, then their baptism for the dead was harmless or, at worst, a minor offense. If baptism for the dead actually perverted the gospel, he would have denounced it, as he condemns other sins in the letter." I agree with that last part, and certainly, if all he's talking about is plain-Jane baptism, then there wouldn't be any reason for him to 'denounce' it.

The only problem with the "he doesn't denounce it" argument is that it is an argument from silence. Not exactly firm theological ground.

I've reached out to some people that I trust who I think might have something more substantive on the subject. If anyone knows what Paul is referring to, it'll be them. I'll let you know what I find out.


Clete

 

[Clete]

Thanks.

You've shot down my two suggested additions but there is something I have been thinking about. I suggest the first 3 points are not the gospel proper. They are necessary to understand and obey the gospel but I would consider them more like prerequisites. Those things have been known and taught for centuries but the gospel began with Christ. For example, I would suggest the old law satisfied point 3.

Well, whether it did or not is sort of beside the point. I really should have spent more time on the OP. What's required of a person to be "saved" has changed many times throughout history but I'm talking exclusive about what someone has to believe in order to get saved today and it is that which I am referring to as the 'gospel proper', which is probably not a great term to use either.

When I study what people were taught to be converted, it's very simple.
Acts 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

1 Cor. 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Just my .02

Again, I don't disagree with you, per se. But, as you alluded to a moment ago, there are certain precepts and ideas that are all packaged up inside the things said in those two passages. It is necessary, for example, to believe that God exists in order for any path toward salvation to be open to you. You cannot have faith in something that you don't believe exists. The points concerning God being just and concerning how we deserve death speak to the fact that you don't get to believe in just any god whatsoever or think that you've earned or otherwise deserve salvation. And so, even when one can cite a passage where many of the points on my list are not overtly stated, they are implied by them, if not directly then at the very least by the fact that they found in the bible itself and written by individuals who teach these things elsewhere. The meaning contained within such passages is defined by the paradigm from which they are spoken. My intent is to unpack and state overtly those concepts which are indispensable and necessarily contained within the beliefs of anyone who can rightly claim to be saved Christian.

Clete

 

[glorydaz]

The gospel is God's revelation of salvation unto eternal life. It is simple and should be simple. But now we have people creating multiple gospels, here one of legalism and there one inclusive of false faith, protesting that trust and obedience to God is somehow reprehensible.

Gotta wonder where you come up with this stuff. :nono:

 

[glorydaz]

I've put that question to Glory before and it made her very upset with me.

I have an idea. Why don't you "reword" something I've said that you think might prove I was "very upset" by your suggestion that we should just abort babies so they'd go to heaven.


If you must throw my name around, then you'd best learn to use the quote function like others are required to do on this site. I'd hate to have to report you.....these "weaponized threats" can be so lethal. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

Agreed.

This reasoning reminds me of those who believe that all babies who die in infancy go to heaven. If so, then why not rather than oppose abortion on demand, promote it, as a sure means to save souls?

It's called carnal reasoning. Only a carnal man would even suggest such a thing.

 

[Rosenritter]

Is that the only type of salvation mentioned in the Bible.

Would other types of salvation also be "good news"?

I would say that would be the only type that ultimately matters, and that the order of magnitude of that salvation would render any other salvation as insignificant dross.

Matthew 16:25-26 KJV
(25) For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
(26) For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

What good is it being "saved from your enemies" on one day if your life is lost the next? Eternal life is the only salvation in this context.

 

[Rosenritter]

Only if it's forced, and by that, I mean your reasoning. As said, Catholicism believes that the person is brought into full communion, is received into the Church, at Confirmation, which is not done until the person reaches the age of reason, and can thereby know that what they're confessing, they actually believe.

Then by that standard the baptism itself does nothing. The earlier ceremony (baptism of the infant) was not reflecting the faith of the one being baptized. But if the confirmation (the confession of belief) is of faith then I do see the value.

 

[Right Divider]

I would say that would be the only type that ultimately matters, and that the order of magnitude of that salvation would render any other salvation as insignificant dross.

Matthew 16:25-26 KJV
(25) For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
(26) For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

What good is it being "saved from your enemies" on one day if your life is lost the next? Eternal life is the only salvation in this context.

So, there are other kinds and those are not good news?

So, when God saves Israel from their enemies, that is insignificant dross?

 

[Rosenritter]

So, there are other kinds and those are not good news?

So, when God saves Israel from their enemies, that is insignificant dross?

If they ultimately perish the next day it is rather insignificant in comparison. When we are talking about the gospel of salvation unto eternal life, that is the gospel, and there is no other "salvation" that has any lasting value.

Let's consider a scenario: there are a crowd of prisoners in a death camp. The keeper walks in and announces the "good news" that two of the prisoners will be freed. Then he announces more "good news" that there will be tapioca pudding before the flaying and death of everyone that remains tonight.

The tapioca pudding "good news" is insignificant in the face of the actual good news of life and freedom. I hope that no one here is preaching a "tapioca" gospel.

 

[steko]

I would say that would be the only type that ultimately matters, and that the order of magnitude of that salvation would render any other salvation as insignificant dross.

Matthew 16:25-26 KJV
(25) For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
(26) For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

What good is it being "saved from your enemies" on one day if your life is lost the next? Eternal life is the only salvation in this context.

I don't think that this subject has been the question of degrees of salvation, but only the question of there being varied uses of the terms such as 'salvation' and 'gospel' in the Scriptures.

The use of the term 'glad tidings/euaggelizo' with reference to the angels announcement of Christ's birth in Bethlehem is not the 'good news/euaggelion' of the cross which the Apostle Paul speaks of.

Likewise, the 'salvation/sozo' of Israel by Israel's Messiah of which Zacariah speaks in Lk 1 is not the 'salvation/sozo' or which Paul speaks of in reference to eternal salvation thru one's trust in Christ's finished work on the cross and resurrection.

The point is, if I understand this discussion correctly, is that there are distinctions in the Scripture which must be recognized in order to have correct understanding of what is being communicated.

 

[Rosenritter]

I don't think that this subject has been the question of degrees of salvation, but only the question of there being varied uses of the terms such as 'salvation' and 'gospel' in the Scriptures.

I don't think that anyone has disputed that.

The use of the term 'glad tidings/euaggelizo' with reference to the angels announcement of Christ's birth in Bethlehem is not the 'good news/euaggelion' of the cross which the Apostle Paul speaks of.

That would be the same gospel just as the nose of the camel is the same camel that has a back and a tail. Confusion might arise if the animal isn't being recognized as a whole.

Likewise, the 'salvation/sozo' of Israel by Israel's Messiah of which Zacariah speaks in Lk 1 is not the 'salvation/sozo' or which Paul speaks of in reference to eternal salvation thru one's trust in Christ's finished work on the cross and resurrection.

Luke 1:77 KJV
(77) To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

That would be the same salvation unto eternal life. The wages of sin is death, without remission of sins the end result is death. If death is ultimately defeated then what else do you call that but life and life eternal?

The point is, if I understand this discussion correctly, is that there are distinctions in the Scripture which must be recognized in order to have correct understanding of what is being communicated.

So let's talk about the gospel and salvation. There is one gospel in the context of scripture, and it is a gospel unto salvation and eternal life. This entire thread proposes to be about the "gospel proper" but it seems to be more about making lists trying to enumerate various sub-elements without recognizing what the gospel actually is.

 

[steko]

I don't think that anyone has disputed that.]/QUOTE]


It's been my experience that many have and many do.

That would be the same gospel just as the nose of the camel is the same camel that has a back and a tail. Confusion might arise if the animal isn't being recognized as a whole.



Luke 1:77 KJV
(77) To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

That would be the same salvation unto eternal life. The wages of sin is death, without remission of sins the end result is death. If death is ultimately defeated then what else do you call that but life and life eternal?

Yeah, Lk 1:77. I made the mistake of working from memory rather than going back and rereading the verses, which I usually do and should always do.

What I was referring to is this, the national promise:

Luk 1:71 That we should be saved[soteria] from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luk 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
Luk 1:74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

..which is not the same salvation as Lk 1:77:

Luk 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation[soteria] unto his people by the remission of their sins,


... though Lk 1:71 would not happen without Lk 1:77.


Salvation from the penalty of sin is not the same as salvation from Israel's national enemies.

So let's talk about the gospel and salvation. There is one gospel in the context of scripture, and it is a gospel unto salvation and eternal life. This entire thread proposes to be about the "gospel proper" but it seems to be more about making lists trying to enumerate various sub-elements without recognizing what the gospel actually is.

My understanding is that 'the gospel proper'(the OP) refers to how one is saved today and involves the facts which must be believed in order to place one's total trust in Christ's finished work on the cross to be justified in the sight of GOD.
That particular content has not always been required knowledge for individuals to be eternally saved.

During Christ's earthly ministry and for sometime in the narrative of Acts, it was only necessary for those to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was Israel's promised Messiah, the
Son of GOD.

I am required to believe more than that according to the 'Gospel Proper' for today.

The good news[gospel] of the Kingdom at hand is not the same as the good news[gospel] of the cross.

 

[glorydaz]

If they ultimately perish the next day it is rather insignificant in comparison. When we are talking about the gospel of salvation unto eternal life, that is the gospel, and there is no other "salvation" that has any lasting value.

Let's consider a scenario: there are a crowd of prisoners in a death camp. The keeper walks in and announces the "good news" that two of the prisoners will be freed. Then he announces more "good news" that there will be tapioca pudding before the flaying and death of everyone that remains tonight.

The tapioca pudding "good news" is insignificant in the face of the actual good news of life and freedom. I hope that no one here is preaching a "tapioca" gospel.

Amazing what lengths some people go to in order to be "right". :chuckle: