Some time ago I learned that listening to the Bible is an incredible tool to force yourself to avoid Proof-Texting. When Paul sent letters to assemblies he ordered the people to read them out loud to all the brethren and to even go from assembly to assembly reading them. Of course if you want to get into deep study there is little better than a printed page you can pour yourself over. But we are very visual people and we can get caught up in a single verse or even word and fail to see what the Author was writing about. It's so very easy to find ourselves declaring things as though they come straight from Scripture that are absolutely false... because we people are so prone to proof-texting.
I'm writing today with a bit of a heavy heart. We must hold the Gospel in the highest esteem and proclaim it with the highest of fidelity. But we must also be careful how we use the term "another gospel" that the Apostle Paul makes use of in Galatians 1. When Paul uses this term he's speaking to people about them being brought into bondage that is counter to the Gospel. Not that some detail is left out or even incorrect. Likewise everywhere else that Paul challenges what people preach as being not in agreement with the Gospel he is speaking of the implications not the content.
No one can rightly deny that the Apostle clearly lays out what exactly is the Gospel in 1 Cor 15:1-11 and I hold that this is the one and only Gospel that saves. And I question the fidelity of any who say different. However, there is much more to the idea of preaching another Gospel than not speaking Paul's exact words.
I'm struggling with this little post. And I realize that most reading will have no idea why. The Truth is a very fine line. One little nudge left or right puts you squarely in error, outside of Truth. One can not simply eliminate portions of what the Apostle declared without affecting what the Gospel is saying. That is as plain to me as anything. But I can not bring myself to believe that one who is mistaken in this is preaching "another gospel."
I guess I need to explore this more.
But to get back to the listening part, if you listen to Galatians as one sermon especially without reading along you may just be amazed at the force of this letter. And you may see the Apostle's teaching clearly for the first time ever.
21 comments:
Hi Kev,
This is an interesting post. You said:
"Likewise everywhere else that Paul challenges what people preach as being not in agreement with the Gospel he is speaking of the implications not the content."
I am wondering how you would explain Paul's words in 1 Cor. 15:2 and 2 Thess. 2:14-15, 3:6. You do not think that Paul is speaking of the content of the gospel in these texts?
JP
Hi Kev,
Let's not forget about 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 in this discussion. In verse 4 Paul declares:
"For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached [1 Cor. 15:1-11], or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel [1 Cor. 15:1-5] which you have not accepted - you may well put up with it!"
It seems that "a different gospel" is anything other than the gospel the Corinthians had received (1 Cor. 15:1-5)!
JP
Hi Kev,
I've been thinking since your last comment in another thread here (which one?). It was brought up in another thread again, some interaction between me and the teaching you and JP hold to, over at JP's blog -- have you been reading along?
Anyway, thank you for being so vulnerable. I try to do that too because I think it helps those who listen. You said:
The Truth is a very fine line. One little nudge left or right puts you squarely in error, outside of Truth. One can not simply eliminate portions of what the Apostle declared without affecting what the Gospel is saying. That is as plain to me as anything. But I can not bring myself to believe that one who is mistaken in this is preaching "another gospel."
That was a good articulation of the place I think I've been too for a long time, but haven't said yet aloud.
I also like your perspective. You understand that the only way that faith/justification becomes futile, and, the messengers become false preachers, is when the facts of 1 cor 15 are contradicted. I mean, that is what the text says.
No one in free grace, lordship salvation or most or all of evangelical Christianity, perhaps Protestant Christianity, or even Catholicism preach a contradictory gospel (though many, many add more to it (works)).
- Perspective -
Thank you, Michele
All - I've gotten your emails and will respond as I can.
Michele -
Another Gospel - is something that contradicts, or goes against what the Gospel says. And that can happen through omission, addition or error. If the issue of sin is not brought up then it becomes "Another Gospel" if the issue of Christ being qualified "in accordance with the Scriptures" isn't brought up then it becomes Another Gospel, and if the issue of His resurrection is not brought up then...
You get it right?
If anything is added, like what our response ought to be besides "reception" that becomes another Gospel because it adds to it.
The "message" of the Gospel must be preserved in it's entirety.
JP - I'm wondering right now can it be said that someone preaches "another gospel" if they say that Jesus, God in the Flesh, died for our Sins on the Cross, and rose to life again three days later.
There are a few omissions there, one you will surely notice right away. I do not hesitate in saying that one would be in error in that case.
Sorry I'm out of time here. :)
Kev
Hi Kev,
You asked me:
"JP - I'm wondering right now can it be said that someone preaches "another gospel" if they say that Jesus, God in the Flesh, died for our Sins on the Cross, and rose to life again three days later."
I don't think that statement is a false gospel unless the preacher says...
that the lost don't have to "know about" Christ's burial and appearances
and/or
that the lost don't have to "believe" Christ's burial and appearances.
So while I think your statement above is accurate, I don't believe it is adequate for salvation simply because it is not "the gospel". It is a partial gospel, but it is not "the gospel".
And so we need to be very careful here. The apostles preached "the gospel" (1 Cor. 15:1-11), and so must we!
JP
P.S. If a lost person who never heard about Christianity heard the truth you have stated above, God would bring them more revelation. God would bring them "the gospel" (1 Cor. 15:3-5) - just like he did with the Ethipian eunich, Lydia, and Cornelius.
Hi Michele,
You said:
"You understand that the only way that faith/justification becomes futile, and, the messengers become false preachers, is when the facts of 1 cor 15 are contradicted. I mean, that is what the text says."
Tragically, Tom Stegall has preaches a gospel that contradicts the facts of 1 Corinthians 15.
Paul said Christ's burial is included in the gospel, Stegall say Christ's burial is NOT included in the gospel.
Furthermore, Stegall allows the lost to totally reject the truths of Christ's burial, resurrection "on the third day", and appearances - and will assure these unbelievers of eternal life!
Such a non-buried and never seen savior who underwent a retarded resurrection is a deceptive "false Christ" (Mt. 24:24), "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4), and a different gospel (2 Cor. 11:4)!
JP
Kev,
I just want to point out that Stegall does not even preach the message you have stated above. Stegall does not even preach that Christ rose on the third day even though this fact is said to be according to the Scriptures. So according to his own arguments, Stegall should include reference to the third day in the actual content of his groundless gospel, but he does not.
JP
All:
Since there has been some confusion regarding some of my puns and word plays in the past, "retarded" can be understood to mean slow. Hence, if Christ rose on the 666 day, his resurrection from the dead would be slow. (However, Stegall would still assure this unbeliever of eternal life.)
JP
Kev,
It didn't take long for me to get your point.
To add works to the gospel, contradicts the sufficiency of Christ, which is the whole work aspect of the gospel message.
You're right.
Still I am prone to wonder if there is a difference between those guys who overthrew the faith of some by saying that the return of Christ has already taken place, or in that portion in 1 cor 15 where the resurrection is denied. Because messing with the work (or also the deity of Christ?) makes the preachers liars and the faith futile.
Yet all the time people are saved by hearing the gospel of 1 cor 15 and then told that that also means a deal of works. The cursed gospel of Galatians 1's warning.
I might mention this: curses were given in Deut 28 based on choices of the Israelites to obey. Their obedience centered in faith in God and not in abandoning themselves to something not of faith. Nevertheless... they were a covenant people.
Could there possibly be a difference between an endless variation of work/deity-suppressing false-gospels, and the cursed gospel which establishes in purity of truth but is polluted by adding works?
Has anyone looked into that? I should! Not just talk about it, but....
M
JP,
There's a difference between thinking requiring belief in it is necessary to assure salvation, and another to not mention it at all or permit contradiction of it. Which one of these is what you believe is being done?
Michele
Hi Michele,
Stegall does all of the above. He does not require belief in Christ's burial, he does not mention it (look at his website under "What is the Gospel?"), and he also allows Christ's burial to be denied.
JP
Kev,
You have been presented with a "Deserted Island Scenario" by groundless gospel advocates. Be very careful. This is the error of the crossless gospel, and this is also the error of the groundless gospel.
JP
Hi again Kev,
I mentioned JPs thread which you recently stumbled onto, in my first comment above, here,
It was brought up in another thread again, some interaction between me and the teaching you and JP hold to, over at JP's blog -- have you been reading along?
Anyway, I hope you endure well with the emails. Their effects on you concern me.
Michele
Hi Kev,
May i suggest looking at the sermon Paul preached in Acts 13:16-41.
The key verses Acts 13:38-39 (NLT)
38 “Brothers, listen! We are here to proclaim that through this man Jesus there is forgiveness for your sins. 39 Everyone who believes in him is declared right with God—something the law of Moses could never do.
I think Paul's gospel preaches that we have the right standing before God when we believe in Jesus only. We cannot achieve right standing through our own efforts, by trying to keep the law of Moses.
This message is repeated in 2 Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 5:20-21 (NLT)
20 So we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, “Come back to God!” 21 For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.
Shalom
Stanley
Hi Stanley,
I completely agree that this is the message of Paul, and of the Cross. The Law brought us to the Cross. To death.
In the Cross we have full payment for all sin and complete justification.
Kev
Hi Kev,
"In the Cross we have full payment for all sin and complete justification."
I guess you have found the answer to your question.
A different gospel is any other gospel that preaches Christ's work on the Cross is not complete and we have to add in our own works.
Stanley
Hi Stanley,
you said A different gospel is any other gospel that preaches Christ's work on the Cross is not complete and we have to add in our own works.
Yes that would be "another gospel" but I do not believe that is the only definition.
Another, "another gospel" would be that Salvation is not required, or is universal, or is apart from the Christ's work on the Cross.
What Brother Jonathan is getting at with is articles - and you may well not be aware of why I wrote this post - is that if you take away the burial from the Gospel presentation then you are removing something the Text demands to be included but also part of the proof that the Gospel is true. It would be to take away the fulfillment of some requirements laid out in Scripture to show that this was indeed the redemptive act by God.
Kev
Kev,
Thank you for your summary of my position. Yes, I believe that if the preacher declares himself to specifically be presenting "the gospel" (of the apostle Paul), and the preacher then does not include Christ's burial, that is at least wrong.
Furthermore, if a preacher claims to be presenting "the gospel" (of the apostle Paul), and the preacher then not only excludes Christ's burial from the gospel presentation, but also teaches that Christ's burial does not have to be believed, that is "a different gospel" (2 Cor. 11:4). Since Paul only received and preached one gospel, I do not see how we can come to any other conclusion.
JP
Kev,
I just want to point out that Paul was clear to include Christ's burial in the content of his gospel (1 Cor. 15:4).
JP
Hi JP,
Just to add, Acts 13:28-30 also clearly showed Paul preached about Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.
Acts 13:28-30 (NKJV)
28 And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. 29 Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. 30 But God raised Him from the dead.
Hi Stanley,
Nice to meet you. Thank you for that word! I think the Text is so clear. Paul included Christ's burial in the gospel he preached. Like you said, Christ's burial is included in Paul's early preaching in Acts 13 - and in many other gospel Texts as well: Isaiah 53:1-12; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts 2:22-32; Rom. 6:3-4; and 1 Cor. 15:1-11!
JP
Post a Comment