Try dealing substantially with the full content of the link in
question........
You suggested the link (
An Inquiry into the Sum and Substance of the Gospel by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon) in response to my thread (
Refuting Limited Atonement) where I wrote:
There is but one Gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the Gospel. Paul preached the Gospel to unbelievers (Romans 15:20) Therefore Paul declared to unbelievers that, 'Christ died for our sins.' And, hence, Christ died for all men. 1 John 2:2. After all, this is the good news.
You wrote:
As noted, one or two verses does not a gospel make, especially when such a conclusion as yours is the result.
And:
Dig deeper:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/the-ch...stance-of-the-gospel-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/
_______________________________
McMahon's piece is an attempt to answer the question, 'What is the sum and substance of the Gospel,' and his focus is on how it relates to salvation. He rejects the notion that conversion is 'by osmosis' and quotes article 22 of the Belgic Confession, which affirms:
'Therefore, to say that Christ is not enough but that something else is needed as well is a most enormous blasphemy against God—'
I have no issue here and agree that one is justified 'by faith apart from works'.
Then follows his affirmation of the doctrine of election:
"The Westminster Confession’s Chapter 10 is even more poignant, “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.”
It's noted that though only the elect are effectually called (his claim), the call still goes out to the non-elect. Now, of course, I reject this and would reaffirm that Romans 10:9 deals with the majority of those scriptures McMohan cites to substantiate his doctrine.
In response to:
All biblically thinking people agree that the Word of God is always involved in the conversion of anyone. No one who knows the Bible to some degree would say that men could be saved without the Word of God, and of some knowledge of it. Only heretics say that men can be saved without the Word of God.
I would only suggest that this need not come only in the form of a preacher since there are many examples of God communicating directly - and Acts 7:51 suggests prevenient grace for all.
I agree with McMahon that 'General Revelation is insufficient to save anyone' though Romans 1 does affirm a confirmation of the existence of God.
McMahon seems to suggest that some men are beyond saving because:
"The pagan nations had created a form of religion stemming from their debased minds. However, the true religion of God, found only in the Word of God and the Gospel, had not been in their grasp. "
This I reject reaffirming prevenient grace as stated above.
McMohan's citation of Calvin's use of John 3:3 regarding the knowledge required to know Jesus Christ is confusing. Yes, knowledge is required - but why quote that scripture?
This is interesting:
"Knowledge is also argued well in this light when Turretin shows that faith and trust, being coessential, are the application of knowing something as good. A person would never trust in something they did not know was good. He says, 'The objects of justifying faith, proper and specific…are the promises of the gospel, which cannot be received except by trust because they are proposed not only as true, but also as good.' Men see the goodness of the propositions given to them and trust they are true and good. The Spirit works this into their souls and justifying faith is a result."
To withhold salvation from some is not perceived as something good - which is why the Calvinist Gospel has no power.
McMahon then makes the evident point that though all scripture is the Word of God - not all the Word is the Gospel.
Now he turns to what constitutes the essence or 'substance' of the Gospel and quotes J.I. Packer (who quotes from others):
“To evangelize…is so to present Christ Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit, that men shall come to put their trust in God through Him, to accept him as their Savior, and serve Him as their King in the fellowship of His church.”
Then follows the section I previously posted to you:
Many ancient writers believed that 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 was a very well defined summation of the Gospel. As John Owen’s states in his Christologia, “This is the substance of the Gospel, as it is declared by the apostle, 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.” Such a sublime summary is seen in that text, “Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Such is the sum and substance of our Gospel message both stated and preached.
Now, I ask you again AMR - do you preach this to the unsaved? It contains 'For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us...' If you preach these words to the unsaved then they will have been told what you deny:
#110
No properly instructed Reformed person would expect to hear a preacher or anyone saying to a specific person that Our Lord died for that specific person. How can we presume to know the secret will of God to make such a statement?
You posted this with regard to 1 Corinthians 15:3 which Paul describes, along with the next few verses, as the Gospel and, crucially, explicitly affirms that he and the apostles preach it.
McMahon goes on to refer to several other theologians:
Spurgeon:
“I have always considered, with Luther and Calvin, that the sum and substance of the Gospel lies in that word Substitution, — Christ standing in the stead of man. If I understand the Gospel, it is this: I deserve to be lost for ever; the only reason why I should not be damned is, that Christ was punished in my stead, and there is no need to execute a sentence twice for sin."
The last clause implies limited atonement and election but it isn't substantiated and, in any case, we know that he affirms that the
'all people' of 1 Timothy 2:3,4 is indeed all and so the 'all' of v.6 ('who gave himself as a ransom for all people') must carry the same meaning.
John Gill focuses on the protoevangelium and “Christ and him crucified is the subject matter, the sum and substance of the Gospel ministry”
John Owen references Hebrews 9 which speaks of the foreshadowing in the OT sacrifices and in Hebrews 10 - Christ's sacrifice one for all. Owen equates reception and rejection of the Gospel with reception and rejection of Christ Himself.
Albert Barnes speaks of how God retained the integrity of His character by maintaining justice though Christ's atonement - that the law could not be broken with impunity. Interesting that McMahon writes:
"He has shown that if sinners do not avail themselves of the offer of pardon by Jesus Christ, they must experience in their own souls forever the pains which this substitute for sinners endured in behalf of people on the cross."
Oddly, McMahon contemplates whether the words 'the', 'a' and 'so' - used so many times in scripture - could ever save someone. Obviously not.
McMahon now turns his attention to regeneration. Jonathan Edwards speaks of regeneration as being the moment of moving from 'lostness' to 'savedness'. It's curious that McMahon writes:
"Active receiving is an elicited act of faith in which he who is called now wholly leans upon Christ as his saviour and through Christ upon God. John 3:15-16."
Verse 15 is linked directly to verse 14 and explicitly affirms, by analogy, that all men are provided for. There is no mention of regeneration.
He affirms that, 'justification by faith alone is simultaneous with regeneration'. McMahon doesn't provide any proof of regeneration as defined by Calvinism. Why quote John 6:45, Acts 16:14, Ephesians 1:17:
"It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—"
One must hear and learn so it's conditional.
"One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul."
Lydia was already a worshiper of God.
"that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,"
To whom is Paul refering?
v.15
"For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all God’s people,"
McMahon reproves Luther for believing that regenreration can justify without faith.
Regarding TULIP McMahon affirms:
"It is ludicrous to state that men must first understand all the fine points of Calvinism to be saved. There are many Calvinists who believe that one must believe the fullness of the doctrines of grace in the acronym TULIP to be converted. Simply, this is nonsense."
I can't argue with this.
Under the heading 'The Golden Chain' he again refers to John 3 as if it somehow holds any proof for it (the Golden Chain) - but none is given.
McMahon affirms 1 Corinthians 15 to be the Gospel. Crucially, he does not warn against the preaching of v.3 to the unsaved, so it remains curious that you ever cited his work in order that I might have a deeper understanding of the Gospel. Your assertion regarding 1 Corinthians 15 - that 'one or two verses does not a gospel make' - isn't shared by the very document you cite to prove your point.
