What Is The Gospel? Part 2

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:22–23, ESV)

This, according to some fundamentalist Baptists, means that Jewish people worship a different God than Christians.  

By way of reply…

No, it only proves that Judaism is in error about the nature of God as a triune spirit & also errs relative to the identity of Jesus Christ.     

If the assertion that Judaism’s concept of God is in error means that they are not I AM worshippers based upon this particular text, then that means that intellectual belief that God is triune & the correct doctrinal content relative to Christology is an absolute requirement for a person to be justified & regenerate. 

What does the Bible teach? Let’s take a look at Romans 9.

Romans 9:30–33 (ESV): What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, 

  “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; 

and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.

Note 9:32 - The error of the Jews, according to Paul, is the teaching of a gospel of Works Righteousness. 

Someone might point to Romans 10 to argue or assert that the Bible requires us to believe in basic Christology to be justified. 

Romans 10:8–9 (ESV): But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 

Doesn’t this text prove that a person must affirm a species of basic Christology in order to be justified by God? 

I can see how someone might believe that.  After all, that is what most Christian denominations teach, but is that the case?

By way of reply, it most certainly is not the case for 2 reasons. 

1.  The text of Romans 10 goes on to state, 

“ Romans 10:10–13 (ESV): For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 

In the modern era, words like “saved” come with a lot of theological baggage, so much so that “saved” & “justified” are often viewed as convertible terms. At issue, however, is what the author of Romans means, not how we employ the term in confessional (dogmatic) language. 

The word “saved” here is being used by Paul in a similar fashion to the way James uses “justify”  In James, the author is using “justify” to refer to the fact that we are justified by God to/toward good works not by a combination of faith & good works.  

Interpreting “justify’ in James they way Roman Catholics do commits at least two exegetical fallacies:

Semantic Incest - This is where a disputant uses one Bible writer’s usage to interpret another Bible writer’s usage. For example, James’ use of “justification” is employed to reinterpret Paul’s usage—and thereby disprove sola fide.

Or Paul’s use of “sanctification” is employed to interpret the sense of the word in Heb 10:29—and thereby disprove perseverance or special redemption.

But this is a fallacious procedure unless the disputant can show, independent of the comparison, that both writers are using the same word the same way. 

Semantic Inflation - The disputant will equate the mere occurrence of a word with a whole doctrine associated with the word. 

For example, a Catholic will compare and contrast Paul’s doctrine of justification with James’ doctrine of justification. But the mere fact that James uses the word “justification” doesn’t mean that he even has a doctrine of justification. That would depend, not on the occurrence of the word, in isolation, but on a larger argument. Words and concepts are two different things.

In the case of Romans 10, using “saved” to mean “justify” is an instance of Semantic Anachronism.  Semantic Anachronism maps biblical usage onto modern day dogmatic (confessional) usage, thus conflating the two.  At issue is how Paul uses “saved.”

In the case of Romans 10, Paul sees two major barriers that must be overcome in order to bring Jews & Christians together in the Greco-Roman world.  First, as to justification, the Jews need to get on board with justification by faith & let go of the gospel that denies it.  Second, as to sanctification, Paul believes we are all morally obligated to believe the objectively true state of affairs, & Christ is the only Redeemer-Mediator we have. Therefore, Paul hopes the Jews will eventually accept the truth of who Yeshua is without arguing that the Gospel has accreted additional requirements not operative for Adam &  Eve.

2 - Reformed Theology is also Covenant Theology.  What does that mean? It means there is not a separate set of rules for some people & not others. The Bible speaks of ONE gospel & ONE set of rules that has been with us since Adam & Eve.  Romans 10 quotes Joel 2, “Whosoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved.”  The proper object of saving faith is the LORD, not Yeshua Himself as to His human nature or facts about His person & work. 

Paul is using “saved” to mean “sanctified” in vs 10 & “saved” in vs 9 isn’t a reference to justification apart from sanctification. 

Romans 10:8–10 (ESV): The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (The widest, all encompassing meaning of the word).

10 For with the heart one believes (that Jesus is Lord) and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved (sanctified).

Romans 10:13 (ESV): For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” This quotes Joel 2:32. The LORD Himself is the proper object of saving faith, not doctrinal propositions.

If this is true, what about 1 Corinthians 15? 

1 Corinthians 15:1–2 (ESV): Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 

Just because Paul uses the word “gospel” that doesn’t mean he has the question, “What must I do to be saved” in mind.  The question here has to do with the hope of resurrection.   

There were people in his audience who had imbibed Greco-Roman philosophy & mythology. Still others were likely just plain ignorant (after all, in the First Century AD/CE the Gentiles were just getting the hang of monotheism). Paul’s topic is isn’t the ground of our justification.  Because his audience wanted to know if physical, bodily resurrection is a real phenomenon & if so what is its epistemic basis?  Is it a myth or a real historical event.

He answers that it’s a historical fact, & it has soteriological & eschatological implications. 

As far as 1 Corinthians 15 is concerned, the very fact that there were those among them who denied the Resurrection & yet were regenerate is proof that it is possible for the set of regenerate, set apart, justified people can most certainly include people who do not believe Christ rose from the dead. 

1 Corinthians 6:9 - 11 explicitly describes the World (9 - 10) & then informs the members of that church that, even though their church looked like the World, every one of them was regenerate, set apart, & justified.

In Chapter 15, Paul calls them all “you” (eg “y’all”), beginning in 15:1. Following Paul’s thought, when gets to 15:12, he is talking to the entire assembly- all of whom are regenerate- & then writes “1 Corinthians 15:12–13 (ESV): Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.”

This proves that doctrine doesn’t save, & faith in Christ’s resurrection is not a requirement for people who’ve imbibed the Gospel related to their RWR. Why? Because the Gospel (considered as what must I do to be regenerate & justified) doesn’t entail belief in what we call orthodox Christology. It entails the laying down of your works righteousness (Romans 9:30 - 32).  

Moral problems according to Hebrews 5 can result in issues understanding & applying theology. Anybody can engage in enough moral reform to believe & cling to doctrinal propositions.  Only the regenerate can lay down their personal RWR. 

The Gospel considered as the answer to “What must I do to be justified?” is not a call to do moral reform other than laying down one’s RWR.  Considered as “What must I do to progress in my sanctification,” runs through, ‘We are justified toward good works (Ephesians 2:10). Considered as hope of corporeal resurrection, the answer runs through 1 Corinthians 15 & the 4 Gospels.  Considered as individual & corporate freedom from lifelong slavery (both before & after we cross over), the answer runs through the high falutin doctrine of progressive sanctification that runs through the Book of Hebrews & Romans 8.

Awaken from your slumber, Church! The gospel of works righteousness is running rampant among you. 

Repent, for the day is at hand.

God bless you all, & “Go and sin no more.”