A new acquaintance of mine (I hope we become friends, but it’s too early to call him a friend) has made some comments on this blog with reference to my claim that Jason Stellman has denied the Gospel as he has rejected the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This very acquaintance, Russ Rentler, has posted an article at his blog on the Gospel and if Stellman has denied it. Have a read.
Russ (if I may call him that) appeals to 1 Corinthians 15 to define the Gospel. Let me honestly congratulate him for this. He’s a man looking to God’s own Word for guidance. That’s very Protestant of him. As a Roman Catholic I should think he would be more consistent to appeal to the Magisterium, who will give him the *correct* interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. How, Russ, what makes you think that you can understand the Bible correctly? This, I understand, is not the topic, but as we press into the topic, we will most assuredly find that this issue (that is, the issue of final authority) will be the root of nearly all of our disagreements. I say that the final court of appeal is the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. Traditional Roman Catholicism holds that the final court of appeal is the what the Magisterium says that Scripture and Tradition say.
Back to 1 Corinthians 15. Suppose that Russ is correct and that Paul is here giving the only necessary content of the Gospel, suppose that these very words ARE the Gospel, and that nothing more needs to be said, then let me ask a question or two. Are Arians, then, heretics who have denied the Gospel or are they Gospel-believers and Gospel-preachers? They hold to the words in these verses, don’t they? Let me ask another question, the Judiazers that came into the Galatian churches after Paul had gone through, did they deny any part of what Paul articulated in 1 Corinthians 15? Certainly not. Somehow, though, Paul accused them of holding to “another gospel.” How strange.
Now, what IS Paul doing in these first few verses of 1 Cor 15? Is he laying down THE definition of the Gospel, beyond which we need not press? Of course not. Anyone reading the text can see the connection between vv 3-4 and the rest of the chapter. Paul is saying that one of the necessary doctrines of the Gospel is the resurrection of the body. He had specifically preached that when he was in Corinth, but now some in the Corinthian church have turned around to deny bodily resurrection (vs 12). The upshot, here, is that Russ has not taken the time to examine even the immediate context of the passage he’s quoting. Russ’s interpretation of this passage is like people reading 1 Cor 2:2, “For I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and him crucified” and thinking that Paul went to Corinth and simply repeated: “Christ and him crucified. Christ and him crucified. Christ and him crucified.” Instead, of course, Paul is contrasting the simple Gospel “foolishness” with the wisdom of men. Similarly, in 1 Cor 15:2-3, Paul gives a thumbnail of his Gospel message focusing on the salient point that some Corinthians were denying. Paul is clearly not trying to give a this-and-only-this-is-the-Gospel admonition, as Russ would have us to think.
I thank Russ for looking to the right place to begin settling our differences, that is, God’s own Word, settled and unchanged – the Bible. I would admonish him to read it more carefully. That admonition comes from a man well-familiar with his own weaknesses and lack of thorough-going exegetical prowess. We all stumble in many ways. Let us draw near to Christ together, but not (in the final analysis) dependent upon fallible men, but upon the infallible and incorruptible Bible.
[…] Article FROM https://prussic.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/a-fuzzy-gospel/ SPONSOR- Christian Games for kids-fun and faith based curriculum GET YOUR FREE PASS […]
Hello…I stumbled onto your blog. I’m a cradle Catholic who’s been watching the Stellman conversion from afar.
First off, a Catholic should be familiar with Scripture. Saint Jerome once said the “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” The fact that a lot of Catholics don’t know Scripture is a problem with our poor education system within the Catholic Church and that we haven’t been properly catechized.
Secondly, we don’t appeal to the Magisterium when reading Scripture. We read Scripture through the lens of the Church. Which means that we can and should read Scripture–and are free to interpret it provided that our interpretation is not in conflict with Catholic teaching.
This would be simlar to a Reformed person reading scripture would read it with their lens as well.
In regards to the Gospel, Paul summarizes it quite well in 1 Corinthians 15. The Gospel is that God loves us so much that He became a man and died for us. He rose from the dead so that we may have eternal life. That is the Gospel. Everything in Scripture points to that.
Peter gives the same gospel message in Acts 2:22-24.
Regarding Paul in Corinth, YES. He went around and preached “Christ crucified…Christ crucified”.
Before Paul goes to Corinth, he went to Athens where he begins telling them the good news by focusing on Christ’s resurrection (Acts 17:18). The Greeks listened to him and scoffed. (Acts 17:32)
Paul learns from this. He leaves Athens and goes to Corinth (Acts 18:1). He now has knowledge that preaching “Christ resurrected” doesn’t work and preaches “Christ crucified” to the Corinthians. Now, obviously he didn’t just walk around and say “Christ and Him crucified” but rather tailored his teachings on Christ crucified–a stark difference from his approach in Athens.
I would be happy to discuss how a Catholic views Scripture if you’re interested.
Dennis, thanks for stopping in and for commenting. I am very happy to discuss the Roman Catholic view of Scripture. I’ve been doing some reading on the subject and will likely be posting on it. It seems that Roman apologists like to speak of the three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. I think that the analogy is a bad one… maybe I can come up with a better one, and maybe soon. As to Roman Catholics no knowing the Bible, that’s fairly true in my experience. Protestant knowledge of he Bible, however, isn’t much better, I’m sorry to say. The Left Behind series is proof positive! 🙂
As to your reading of how Paul modifies his preaching from Acts 17 to 18, I think you’ve essentially read that into the text. What good, after all, is the crucifixion without the resurrection (as later on in 1 Cor 15)? ALL the elements of the Gospel need to be preached, even if emphases vary. Further, to affirm that Paul went around with a Christ-and-him-crucified mantra is more than a little silly. My point is that the whole of the Bible comes to bear on our understanding of the Gospel. We cannot appeal to a stylized summary (like 1 Cor 15:3-4 – what Paul calls things of the first importance) and think that nothing more needs to be said. This is clearly illustrated with my appeal to the Galatian and Arian heresies. Similarly, we cannot point to the most prominent parts (the things of first importance: the death and resurrection of Jesus) as the only (or only important) parts. We can recognize shorthand (e.g., Christ and him crucified) for shorthand without syllable-snatching.
In any event, Dennis, I appreciate you and hope we can continue in fruitful dialogue.
Hi Tim,
It seems that Roman apologists like to speak of the three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.
Yes. I am not an apologist per se but the foundation of the Church rests on three pillars. Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Chronologically, Tradition (i.e. the Apostolic Tradition) came first. These are the teachings of the Apostles which were handed down verbally to the bishops. When the last apostle (John) died, the Apostolic Tradition was sealed and no new teachings can be derived outside of the Tradition. The Tradition cannot be changed as it was handed down from the Apostles.
I can read Early Church Fathers back in second century and can still agree with their writings. It’s the same teachings the Church teaches today.
Second is the Magisterium which are the bishops who guard the Apostolic Tradition. They hold to the truth handed down from the Apostles which was given to them by Jesus Christ.
From the Apostolic Tradition came the Sacred Scripture. The Scriptures cannot contradict the Tradition for it’s derived from it. So, when reading Scriptures, it’s important to understand it in terms of the Tradition.
As to your reading of how Paul modifies his preaching from Acts 17 to 18, I think you’ve essentially read that into the text.
Perhaps. But that is acceptable in the Catholic Church. First off, my understanding is plausible and makes sense but most importantly, my understanding does not conflict with Church teaching. What is also acceptable is your disagreeing with me as that also does not conflict with Church teaching.
Interpretation like the Left Behind series would not be acceptable.
What good, after all, is the crucifixion without the resurrection (as later on in 1 Cor 15)? ALL the elements of the Gospel need to be preached, even if emphases vary.
I absolutely agree! All elements of the Gospel need to be preached. The crucifixion is important though as Paul says, he preaches “Christ crucified” and not “Christ resurrected.” It’s Christ’s sacrifice that destroys our death and frees us from sin. It’s His body on the cross that we are baptized into in the promise that we will rise with Him after our death.
Similarly, we cannot point to the most prominent parts (the things of first importance: the death and resurrection of Jesus) as the only (or only important) parts. We can recognize shorthand (e.g., Christ and him crucified) for shorthand without syllable-snatching.
Yes, I agree with this as well. The “Good News” is that God became a man, died and rose from the dead so that we may have eternal life with HIm. That is it! There is obviously much more to the story.
Where the heresies go off the rails is where they depart from the Apostolic Tradition (same as Protestants). There is one faith…one teaching that Christ handed down to the Apostles–per the Apostolic Tradition. The Arian concept of Christ is that He did not always exist but that He was created by the Father. They derived this from Scripture but it was deemed heresy by the bishops in Councils as they determined it’s not part of the Apostolic teaching.
Thank you for allowing me to comment. I look forward to future posts!
Dennis, where is Sacred Tradition located? How can one check it to know exactly what it contains?
As per reading the ancient fathers, sure, I have largely the same experience. The Christian faith is the same down the ages. I absolutely love to read, say, Athanasius or Gregory of Nazianzus . I’m aware that, in the main, we share the same Christian faith, but I feel no need to white wash them. The ancient churches had their errors, just as the Reformation churches have their errors, just modern American churches have their errors. The church in via or militant will always have error. The perfection of the body is in its Head, at least until the day of resurrection. Thus, I’m not looking for any sort of perfection in the body until that point. In any event, as it comes to hearing the church down through the ages, I have had very similar experiences reading Ambrose, Anselm, and Calvin (my three boys’ names, just so you know). I share a great deal with them all, I love them all. They are all part of the Christian heritage. That’s part of what this blog is devoted to – Reformed Catholicism!
Tim,
Sacred Tradition is located in the Church and guarded by the Magisterium. A place to start would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is a bit big but beautifully written. If you want to go for something more condensed and beautifully written, you could read some of the Vatican II Documents. Start with Dei Verbum which discusses God’s revelation through Scripture:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
You could also read Lumen Gentium…
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
For something older, you could read Irenaeus’ Against Heresies which talks very specifically about the Magisterium in Book III but the whole thing would be worthwhile as all of it is still valid today in the Catholic Church.
Both Athanasius and Gregory are considered Doctors of the Catholic Church. Their writings and teachings are still completely valid in Catholic teaching today.
The ancient churches had their errors,
I’m curious…what errors do you see?
I read the writings of the ancient churches…especially people like Irenaeus and Athanasius and Ambrose and I am in total agreement with all of them.
The church in via or militant will always have error.
I disagree. The Church Militant is part of the Body of Christ and should be free from error. The people may be imperfect but the Church is perfect as Christ is perfect.
Any blog that glorifies Christ is okay by me. Peace!
Dennis, I’ve been reading CCC and other things. Thanks for the links. I am still confused on the Tradition, however. If one wanted to check Sacred Tradition to know what to think on this or that issue, where would one look? You say it’s in the church and guarded by the Magisterium. Well… okay, but that doesn’t seem to help. How’s one to access it with clarity and confidence? I suspect that it’s invisible and not accessible except by those who “guard” it. That seems quite problematic, doesn’t it? It reminds me of Puzzle using a Lion suit in C.S. Lewis’s The Last Battle.
I think the most honest way to check Sacred Tradition–as a Protestant, it would be to find the earliest writings of the Church from the Early Church Fathers (i.e. the ones who knew the Apostles) and read what they wrote and try to get their mindset. With that mindset, read Scripture and see how it fits together. The reason being is that they heard it directly from the Apostles. The chances of it being embellished or changed is smaller.
I’m glad you’re reading the CCC. There are a lot of footnotes in there that reference scripture and the ECF’s. It’s good if you have questions to go to the direct source.
I have read some of your posts and your writings seem to be pretty orthodox. I don’t think you’d disagree too much with it.
Dennis, thanks for the response. I love the Fathers, I love the Schoolmen, I love the Reformers… I love ’em all. But I weight them all in the balance of what I KNOW to be God’s revelation – the Bible. From what you’ve said, I cannot identify or locate the Tradition, so I cannot trust it. I can both locate and identify the Bible. If I cannot KNOW what the Tradition is, how can I consult it? How can I know it? Thus, how can I trust it?
That is one major reason that I’m a Protestant. There are others, but they all tie into the Scripture being the final authority by which I can just God’s truth.
Tim,
No problem.
The reason I trust the Church is an act of faith. I trust it because I’ve done research and cannot find fault (after years of rebellion).
Your logic is also an act of faith and is not verifiable.
How do you KNOW the Bible is God’s revelation?
How can you trust the Bible is what it says it is?
Where does it say that Scripture is the final authority?
For me, I KNOW that Jesus came and gave His apostles very specific teachings. These teachings were entrusted to the Church and have not changed from the early Church Fathers until today. These teachings coincide perfectly with my understanding of scripture.
How do you know that your interpretation is correct? I would be willing to guess that you and I would interpret John 6 differently. My understanding matches the Church which matches the early Church Fathers which matches the Apostles which matches Christ.
How do you know your interpretation of John 6 is correct?
Dennis, I can find the Bible… that’s my point. I can’t find invisible revelations that are guarded by men sinful men. The Bible is right there in front of all of us. I quite agree with you that, at the end of the day, we rest in faith. I’m not after empirical verification, but I am interested in a Standard that is accessible.
The Bereans were more noble… why? They measured the preaching of the Apostle Paul according to the Scripture. It’s still more noble to hold tradition (and Tradition, if we can locate it) to the bar of Scripture. And, after all, how did the Bereans know they were correct?
The Bereans were more noble… why? They measured the preaching of the Apostle Paul according to the Scripture. It’s still more noble to hold tradition (and Tradition, if we can locate it) to the bar of Scripture. And, after all, how did the Bereans know they were correct?
Tim, I agree. First thing you have to know is “What is the Apostolic teaching?…What is it that Paul told them?” You need to seek that out. The Bereans heard the Apostle’s teaching and then verified it against scripture. This is what I’m saying.
Scripture is there and it is beautiful but you need to compare it to something–like the Bereans did. They did not understand the meaning of the Scripture until they heard Paul’s teaching and then they believed.
Scripture is not up to us to interpret. God became a man in Jesus Christ and died for us and rose again so that we may live forever. He also had very direct teachings. We must adhere to those and compare those to the Scripture.
Sorry, Dennis, that dog don’t hunt. Unlike those of the first century, we HAVE the Apostolic message. This episode with Paul and the Bereans does not support an unwritten Tradition, but merely precedes the written account of the Apostolic revelation, which we call the New Testament!
But you changed the focus. The point I’m after is showing that even the Apostolic preaching was rightly weighed in the balance of Scripture. The Bereans were more noble for opening their BIbles and making sure that the Apostolic preaching checked out. You also didn’t answer my question: what made the Bereans think that they could understand Scripture correctly?
This episode with Paul and the Bereans does not support an unwritten Tradition, but merely precedes the written account of the Apostolic revelation, which we call the New Testament!
Tim, I think this is where a big disagreement is. There is much more that Jesus said and did that was not recorded in Scripture (John 21:25) The apostles were witnesses and heard Jesus speak directly. They have knowledge that was not recorded. The Apostolic revelation goes hand in hand with Scripture but Scripture did not—rather could not capture all that Jesus said and did.
The point I’m after is showing that even the Apostolic preaching was rightly weighed in the balance of Scripture.
I totally agree with this. The Apostolic preaching must be balanced with Scripture. I think we differ on what is the Apostolic preaching.
what made the Bereans think that they could understand Scripture correctly?
I don’t think the Bereans could understand Scripture correctly until it was explained to them by Paul. They had the Scripture before Paul arrived and didn’t understand it. The key to Acts 17 isn’t that the Bereans love Scripture but rather it compares and contrasts the Bereans to the Thessalonians. When Paul went to Thessalonica, he tried to explain the Scriptures to them for three weeks but only some were convinced. These were men who knew Scripture as well as the Bereans. (Acts 17:1-4)
He did the same thing with the Bereans but they were convinced. So, the key question is what is the difference between the Bereans who believed and the Thessalonians who “formed a mob and set the city in turmoil?”
The difference between the two is found in Acts 17:11. They “received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so.” So, they willingly received the Gospel of Jesus Christ—that the “Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead” per Acts 17:3 and verified this in the Old Testament.
The Thessalonians did not do this.
They were not willing to accept that Jesus Christ was the Messiah because it did not fit into their understanding of Scripture. They refused to listen to Paul because it did not match their interpretation of Scripture as to who the Messiah was. Instead, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the Magistrates.
In order to be like the Bereans, we must receive the word from the Apostles with all willingness and examine the scriptures daily.
Dennis, the Bereans were more noble than the Thessalonians, to be sure, but why? The text says explicitly… we don’t need to guess. It’s not that the Bereans didn’t understand the Scripture correctly (though, that’s possible), but it’s that the Bereans weren’t aware of the New Covenant revelation yet. Paul supplied that in his preaching. They were more noble *because* (again, explicitly so) the check the Apostolic preaching against the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD.
Dennis, do we know the Apostolic message from the NT? Of course. Did they teach more then what’s recorded in the NT? Sure. Does that prove some sort of inspired Tradition by which we read the Bible? Not at all. Acts 17 undermines the Roman view of two-fold revelation (I did not say two-source) for it places the written revelation of God over the Apostles. Now, once the Apostolic message was WRITTEN, the church received it; it was consistent with the OT WRITTEN revelation. This written revelation now (and always has since it’s been written) rules the church. Like the Bereans, we will weigh the varied teachings of the church by the rule of Scripture.
Tim,
but it’s that the Bereans weren’t aware of the New Covenant revelation yet.
I agree but am curious…what’s your understanding of the New Covenant? I’m asking because our understanding of the Gospel is different. I want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing.
Acts 17 undermines the Roman view of two-fold revelation (I did not say two-source) for it places the written revelation of God over the Apostles.
I disagree with this. I think it shows that both are important. You need both. Scripture is very important however, it can be misinterpreted and/or misunderstood without the Apostolic explanation. Reading Scripture without Apostolic Tradition is like having a boat without a rudder. You float without direction. You and I can read a passage and disagree on its meaning. Who is right? Having the Church helps as if our interpretation conflicts with it, we can accept that it’s heresy.
Now, once the Apostolic message was WRITTEN, the church received it; it was consistent with the OT WRITTEN revelation. This written revelation now (and always has since it’s been written) rules the church.
Where does it say this in Scripture? I don’t think Scripture or Tradition supports this.
Dennis, the Gospel is the promise of God to save sinners. That promise has been around since Genesis 3. The content and clarity of how he’d do that has grown throughout the ages of redemptive history. This growth in revelation culminates in the New Covenant, which is the final and clearest revelation of God through Jesus Christ, the promised Consolation of Israel. While revelation is progressive, the promise has always been the same.
As to the rest, I don’t reject the church as the minister and protector of the Word of God (the Scripture, of course). I read the Scripture in the context of the church and her ministry… there’s no other way to read the Bible. The question is what, at the end of the day, is in the first and controlling place. For us, while we’re aided by the traditionS of the church, the Scripture controls. In the final analysis, we rest in what’s revealed there. Let God be true, but ever man a liar.
I think it’s quite clear even from your last comment that Tradition, when push comes to shove, will rule the Scripture. But Tradition (especially since it cannot be located, checked, or consulted in any definitive way) is also apt to be misunderstood. So what then? Well, the Magisterium will guide us on both. What this amounts to is that the Magisterium will control your understanding of Tradition which, in turn, controls your reading of Scripture. It is pretty clear to me that Scripture is *functionally* last place. For us, Scripture is *functionally* in first place.
Tim,
the Gospel is the promise of God to save sinners.
Again, this is not what Scripture says.
The Gospel (i.e. Good News) is that God loves you. God loves Tim Prussic. He loves you so much that He would rather die than to be without you. He would rather be nailed to a tree than to live without you. He loves you so much that He is giving you the opportunity to share in His divine life for eternity. All you have to do is be obedient to Him in all things. In Baptism, you are united to Him in His Church. United to Him, you partake in the divine life. You will live forever in Christ. Apart from Him, you have no chance at eternal salvation. We are united to Christ in the sacraments. In Baptism, we are united to Christ’s Body. We become part of His Body and we are born anew. We are washed clean of our sins and we must remain obedient. In the Eucharist, we eat His flesh and drink His blood and we are united to Him even more.
That is the Gospel.
That is what Paul shared with people. That is the essence of Scripture and what the Catholic Church teaches and protects and it’s all supported by Scripture. The Galatians were clinging to a false Gospel because they were being told that you had to follow Mosaic law to be saved. Paul said this was false because this is not what Christ said. All who are baptized are “clothed with Christ” (Galatians 3:27)
The New Covenant is the same as the Old Covenant. It’s an agreement between us and God. “I will be your God and you will be my people” (Leviticus 26:12). Now, the New Covenant is Jesus Christ. He takes it even further. We partake in His Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4). We become one with Christ. He is the Head and we are the Body. In Him we are saved. In His Church, we are saved–through Baptism (1 Peter 3:21). He is our God and we are His people and He frees us from the bondage of sin as God in the Old Testament freed the Hebrews out of Egypt.
This is what the Magisterium teaches. This is what Scripture (the entire New Testament…not one verse taken out of context) says. This is how I interpret it. This is what the Church clings to. I don’t see this in Reformed Theology
Don’t miss my major point, though, Dennis, which is that for the Roman church, Scripture is functionally in last place, but for the Protestant church, it’s in first place. That, I am sure, will be *the* watershed difference between you and me, between Rome and Protestantism.
Dennis, I am both amused and chagrined that you will call my boiled-down definition of the Gospel (God’s promise to save sinners) not what the Scripture says, but they in the very next sentence you write highly romanticized “definition” of the Gospel: “The Gospel (i.e. Good News) is that God loves you. God loves Tim Prussic. He loves you so much that He would rather die than to be without you. He would rather be nailed to a tree than to live without you. He loves you so much that He is giving you the opportunity to share in His divine life for eternity.” And on it goes.
What gives?! My theologically accurate definition is not biblical, but that gushy, romantic, soft-cover-Christian-fiction definition is “what the Scripture says”? Sorry. Clear thought would, I think, favor my definition, for the Gospel is through the Bible from the beginning, and it was a promise of salvation.
God promised salvation to Adam in the garden. That was the Gospel.
God promised salvation to Abraham. That was the Gospel.
The Gospel was preached to those coming out of Egypt.
David believed the Gospel promise and was saved.
Fast forward… the Gospel in its full clarity came in Jesus Christ and in the subsequent preaching and teaching of his Apostles.
We still preach the Gospel, so long as our preaching lines up with what the Apostles *actually* preached and taught.
Same promise of salvation. Same salvation. Same means of gaining that salvation, that is, by believing the salvific promise of God, or better, by believing in the promised One in whom there is salvation.
Hey Tim,
Sorry…it’s been a busy weekend for me. I hope you had a good one.
Scripture is functionally in last place, but for the Protestant church, it’s in first place. That, I am sure, will be *the* watershed difference between you and me, between Rome and Protestantism.
First off, I think you and I can both agree that Christ is in first place and not Scripture nor Tradition nor anything else.
That being said, Scripture is not in last place for a Catholic. Scripture is held in equal ground with Tradition and the Magisterium. Actually, it is higher than the Magisterium. I would hold the book of John in much higher esteem that the writings of Vatican II. However, it’s through the Magisterium and Tradition that I understand Scripture. Without the Magisterium holding to the Apostle’s teachings (Tradition), my understanding of Scripture would be incorrect.
That, I am sure, will be *the* watershed difference between you and me, between Rome and Protestantism.
Agreed.
What gives?! My theologically accurate definition is not biblical, but that gushy, romantic, soft-cover-Christian-fiction definition is “what the Scripture says”?
Gushy? Maybe. Romantic? Probably. Truth? Definitely. The entire Bible is a love story. It’s a story of how God wants to be in relationship with Man. Throughout the Old Testament, God keeps making covenants and man keeps breaking them and God keeps coming back. God asks man to be obedient to Him and He will bless them. Finally, with the New Covenant, that’s it. God’s revelation to man is completed and the relationship has been perfected. God finally rights Adam’s disobedience with His obedience. Through His sacrifice on the cross, we no longer have to be dead to sin. Now, we can be alive in Christ.
No longer is it just a covenant but rather we become one with God. We are united to Him in Baptism. The New Covenant–His plan in the New Testament–far outshines any of the old covenants found in the Old Testament.
What gives?! My theologically accurate definition is not biblical. No, it’s not that it’s not Biblical. I’m saying it’s not a complete description of the Gospel. Yes, God came to save sinners. The Bible says that. It’s just not a complete definition.
It would be like saying that you married your wife to have kids. Yes, that’s technically true but that’s not complete. You married your wife because you love her (romantic? Gushy? True?).
God promised salvation to Adam in the garden. That was the Gospel.
No. God wanted a relationship with Adam. God does not promise salvation to Adam. He gives Adam the Tree of Life from which Adam can eat and have eternal life. (Genesis 2:9). With Adam’s disobedience comes the banishment from Eden and God deprives him (and all of us) from that Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22-23).
Jesus Christ fixes this. Through Adam’s disobedience we all experience death then through Christ’s obedience, we all may be saved (Romans 5:15-21). His cross becomes the Tree of Life (Revelation 22:2) and His Body becomes the fruit from the Tree of Life. We eat of His Body and now we may have eternal life (John 6:51). It’s now through our obedience and eating of His Body that we may too live forever. If we are disobedient (sin), then we suffer separation and death.
God promised salvation to Abraham. That was the Gospel.
God’s promise to Abraham is not of Salvation. God promises that Abraham will be a “Father of Nations.” He will be their God and they will be His people. The sign of the covenant is the circumcision.
The only descendant of Abraham who matters is Christ. As we are all one with Christ, we are all descendants of Abraham. We have no need to be circumcised as we are baptized into Christ who was circumcised for us. Our baptism replaces our circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). We no longer need to be circumcised. We do, however need to be baptized.
The Gospel was preached to those coming out of Egypt.
My understanding is different. No salvation is promised. God reminds the Israelites of their covenant and that they remain obedient (Exodus 19:5) and they will be blessed. Same as God’s promise to Adam and Christ’s to us. This promise prefigures Christ’s offer of Salvation but it is not salvation.
Same promise of salvation. Same salvation. Same means of gaining that salvation, that is, by believing the salvific promise of God, or better, by believing in the promised One in whom there is salvation.
I guess one key difference is what we mean by salvation. What does salvation mean to you?
To me, salvation is not just going to Heaven. Salvation means getting back to Eden. Gaining access to the Tree of Life. It’s to live forever.
We can only do that through Jesus Christ. We can only do that in Him. He lives forever and we must be united to Him in Baptism (as Scripture tells us). Once we are Baptized, we are born anew (or born from above per John 3:5) and we must remain in Him. We are obedient to Christ in all things. We eat of His Body and unite ourselves more.
Should we be disobedient, we become separated from Christ’s body and must be reconciled back to Him for it is only in Christ that we are saved. Christ’s body is His Church. In His Body is salvation. Outside of His Body, there is no salvation.
That’s what salvation means to me. That’s what Christ promises. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches and that’s the true Gospel.
Dennis, when I wrote that the Bible is *FUNCTIONALLY* in last place, I had something quite specific in mind. I didn’t mean that you don’t “hold it in much higher esteem” than the writings of V2. What I meant was that Tradition *controls* your reading of Scirpture, and that the Magisterium *controls* your reading both both Tradition and Scripture. Thus, Scripture is highly esteemed (to be sure) but is not (in the final analysis) normative. For me, while the traditionS of the church aid my reading of Scripture, the Scripture IS normative. Scripture tells me how to understand and judge the writings of, say, V2. Thus, Scripture is *functionally* in the first place. Scripture is the norm of norms.
This is the key issue.
Scripture tells me how to understand and judge the writings of, say, V2. Thus, Scripture is *functionally* in the first place. Scripture is the norm of norms.
OK. I understand what you’re saying but I’m wondering…how does that work?
For example, paragraph 7 of Lumen Gentium says:
In that Body the life of Christ is poured into the believers who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ who suffered and was glorified.
So, you would read this and agree or disagree with it according to your understanding of Scripture. Correct?
Sorry to be away, Dennis. Yes, I would either agree or disagree with that statement from LG according to my understanding of the Scripture. That is correct.