ECT The Gospel Proper

[meshak]

Have you even bothered to read the opening post?

No, I did not. I was just wondering about the title of the thread.

It seems to me that churches are making simple gospel so complicated, and wondering what is there to discuss.

 

[Clete]

No, I did not. I was just wondering about the title of the thread.

It seems to me that churches are making simple gospel so complicated, and wondering what is there to discuss.

Well, don't you think that reading the opening post would be a good start toward satisfying that curiosity?

Here, since you don't seem to want to read it in post #1, read it here in post #502...



The question, "What is the Gospel?" has come up a few times in various recent conversations I've had both here on TOL and elsewhere and I've been somewhat surprised by the degree of confusion that exists around what seems like ought to be a simple thing. Of course the confusion surrounding all the details is no surprise but it seems that not even the basics of the gospel are as easy to nail down as one might expect.

I propose the following as a bare bones, base minimum version of what one must believe in order to get saved. Call it the Gospel Proper, if you will.

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

I thought of taking each point one at a time and commenting on each but about half way through I thought it would be better to just leave them as they are. Otherwise, the temptation would be to take issue with something in my commentary rather than with any one point of the gospel proper that I've presented. I've also intentionally left out scripture references. Again, it felt like I was already debating an issue that may not be in dispute. Such references are easily found and presented if anyone wants to challenge the biblical veracity of any of these points.

Is there something that you think I've left out?
Is there something that I've included that you think might be good doctrine but isn't necessary to believe in order to get saved?
Is there something that you think is just flat out wrong?

Whatever you've got, bring it. Just try to be respectful and kind, please.

The above list is the revised (i.e. reworded) list. The original still exists in post #1

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Idolater]

1 Corinthians 15:29 KJV
(29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

"The dead" would be Christ in this context. If Christ is not raised (if the dead do not rise) then what is the point? This was the previous subject of the preceding verses. Those that are baptized are being baptized for Christ. If Christ died and did not rise... why be baptized at all?

1 Corinthians 15:16-19 KJV
(16) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
(17) And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
(18) Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
(19) If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

So then this mysterious 'baptized for the dead' is just regular old baptism. The Corinthians were baptizing people.

 

[Idolater]

The perspective of "active" vs. "passive" is at the root of the question of whether infant baptism has any significance. A baptism without that faith and belief would be worthless, or perhaps worse than worthless, as it might become a false security based upon a reliance in salvation by ritual.

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.

 

[Idolater]

The basic idea behind the concept of baptism is identification=placing or putting something into another substance, performing an action, with the resulting purpose of a change in the state of the item from its previous condition=change in identity, change in condition, change in status.

Symbol? No one was buried in water. The Lord Jesus Christ was not buried in a liquid grave, but in rocks, and buried when dead. In contrast, the "dry baptismal" candidate is buried as soon as he has received life!

There's no contradiction between what you say here, and the celebration of the sacrament of water baptism. Catholicism does not believe that water baptism is required for salvation, but it does believe that Christ instituted and commanded baptism as the first and most significant rite of initiation into His Church, which is His Body; His flesh and His bones. The Church doesn't work the way you do. She doesn't reason that, since ultimately water baptism doesn't make one saved or a Christian---that's by faith alone---therefore, we can and should just ignore the Savior's commands. He wanted us to baptize, His Apostles, including Paul, talked almost incessantly about baptism, and the Church has been baptizing from day one, without interruption.

She even baptizes babies.

 

[Right Divider]

There's no contradiction between what you say here, and the celebration of the sacrament of water baptism. Catholicism does not believe that water baptism is required for salvation, but it does believe that Christ instituted and commanded baptism as the first and most significant rite of initiation into His Church, which is His Body; His flesh and His bones. The Church doesn't work the way you do. She doesn't reason that, since ultimately water baptism doesn't make one saved or a Christian---that's by faith alone---therefore, we can and should just ignore the Savior's commands. He wanted us to baptize, His Apostles, including Paul, talked almost incessantly about baptism, and the Church has been baptizing from day one, without interruption.

She even baptizes babies.

Not understanding much of the ministry of Jesus to His people Israel is much of the problem with your supposed "church".

 

[Idolater]

I used to attend an "Independant Baptist" church.

I'm familiar with it.

This sentence sounds like it came right out of the pastor's mouth.

OK, but what's wrong with that?

They had a weird beleif that for any particular believer, the local church was, for them, THE body of Christ.

The belief has no basis in scripture whatsoever. The strongest argument they have for it is to point out that every epistle was written to a local church.

Problem with that is, that it just isn't true and even if it were, the logic just doesn't follow.

Any way, I'm not suggesting you beleive that, it just reminded me of it.

That is weird, and I agree with your disagreement about their explanation for it. The New Testament speaks of "the churches," which are analogous to today's 'the local church' (but are not analogous, but precisely the same thing as what we call today 'Catholic dioceses'), and about "the Church," which is all Christians; all 'the churches' together.

I don't think anyone really knows what Paul is referring to here.

I found the following article on this that seemed to be a reasonable take on the passage. I'd say it's worth the read...

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-does-paul-mean-by-baptism-for-the-dead/

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.

 

[Idolater]

If performing a ritual saved anyone, we should be kidnapping those people and performing that ritual "just in case."

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?

 

[Idolater]

Not understanding much of the ministry of Jesus to His people Israel is much of the problem with your supposed "church".

Says you. Bishops were created by the Apostles to ensure that Christ's Church would never lack for full understanding of the truth of God, and she doesn't.

 

[Right Divider]

Says you. Bishops were created by the Apostles to ensure that Christ's Church would never lack for full understanding of the truth of God, and she doesn't.

Once again, Christ's earthly ministry is beyond your understanding (and that of your bogus "church").

 

[turbosixx]

I just want to say that I respect your position and understand why you believe what you do and I respect your ability to defend what you believe and thank you for being substantive and respectful.

Besides the issue of water baptism, is there any other aspect of what I've presented in the OP that you'd disagree with or alter in some way?

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.

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

 

[Idolater]

Once again, Christ's earthly ministry is beyond your understanding (and that of your bogus "church").

And once again: Says you.

 

[Right Divider]

And once again: Says you.

I only say it because you've made it clear by what you post.

 

[Idolater]

I only say it because you've made it clear by what you post.

And my 'says you' means, 'says not the Scripture.' Just you.

 

[Right Divider]

And my 'says you' means, 'says not the Scripture.' Just you.

I wasn't even talking about the scripture in that post, but your zealotry has you blinded to everything.

 

[Idolater]

I wasn't even talking about the scripture in that post

So you base the understanding of "Christ's earthly ministry" upon something other than Scripture? Do tell.

, but your zealotry has you blinded to everything.

Show just once where I'm a zealot. I've asked before, and you've come up with nothing.

 

[Right Divider]

So you base the understanding of "Christ's earthly ministry" upon something other than Scripture? Do tell.

No, I do not... liar.

Show just once where I'm a zealot. I've asked before, and you've come up with nothing.

You put your man-made doctrines above scripture. That's enough right there.

 

[Idolater]

No, I do not... liar.

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

You put your man-made doctrines above scripture. That's enough right there.

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?'

 

[Rosenritter]

No, I did not. I was just wondering about the title of the thread.

It seems to me that churches are making simple gospel so complicated, and wondering what is there to discuss.

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.

 

[Rosenritter]

So then this mysterious 'baptized for the dead' is just regular old baptism. The Corinthians were baptizing people.

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.