What Is The Gospel? (Part 5)


This meme represents a classic case of bad theology. 

The prooftext is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. 
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. 

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:1–4, ESV).
If this is the gospel in relationship to the answer to the question, “What must a man do to be justified?” then the answer seems to be “Believe a set of historical facts about who Jesus Christ is & what He did.”  

That’s antinomianism. 

In 1 Corinthian 15, Paul isn’t answering that question.  Paul us addressing questions within the membership of the Corinthian church about whether or not Yeshua really & truly rose from the dead or whether or not this was just a myth like any number of myths that were believed or may or may not be required to be believed among any number of pagan cults throughout the Roman Empire & elsewhere.  
The historicity of Yeshua’s life, death, & especially resurrection is good news because it offers real, tangible, genuine hope for us all, both for ourselves & our deceased friends & families, even whole people groups & cultures. 

The gospel in relation to the question, “What must a man do to be saved?” is answered in Romans & centers on laying down our works righteousness & casting ourselves on God’s mercy alone (in light of what Christ has accomplished) & away from our propensity to live lived of ceaseless striving & dependence on our own means for our justification & even our sanctification.

O LORD, Hear our prayers!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Thesis - The tradition bound view on homosexuality commits a number of logical, epistemic, & exegetical fallacies.  1-  Is - Ought Fallacy  - Human anatomy is said to provide    a blueprint for sexual ethics.  We examined this in my previous article.  A moral “ought” is derived from a physical “is.”  The disputant makes an illicit leap from what is to what ought to be. A classic example is the way some homosexuals defend their sexual ethics by appealing to their biology/genetics.  2 -  Vicious Circularity   - Human anatomy & physiology are raised to the status due a non-arbitrary epistemic warrant.    A non-arbitrary epistemic warrant must be necessary, reasoned, & principled.  In truth, the body is unnecessary to deduce sexual ethics. By way of contrast, God’s nature is definitionally necessary, insofar as God is a necessary being, &, since God is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable in being, w...
Read more

City Of God Study Module 2

            ✨ 👑 GALLIFREY 👑✨                       EDISON/ADONAI                           CAMBRIDGE BASTILLE & PLUME     SAGACITY & THORN                            Zodiac ICONOCLASTS LAW & ORDER         Bishop     Vanity Fair          Forge      Toymaker    Archibaptrix     Chameleon         Enigma     Governess         Corsair       Jodpurs         Sextant       Dauphin       Carnevale       Libertine           Arsenal                  Mosaic  ...
Read more

On “A Christian Defense of Real Marriage”

The Christian Post article is here .  In the view of mainstream culture today, there is no such thing as a principled case for the Christian view of marriage that limits it to one man and one woman. Opposition to same-sex marriage, in this view, can only spring from bigotry, hate, or fear.    It can also spring from recognition that the defenders of traditional marriage do so on shaky biblical grounds, insofar as their defense of the traditional view of marriage proceeds from poor biblical hermeneutics & unsound reasoning principles.     For example, Robert Gagnon writes: By “against nature” Paul meant that the evidence from the material structures of creation—here the complementary embodied character of maleness and femaleness—gives clear evidence of God’s will for human sexual pairing. Some have argued that this could not have been what Paul intended by his nature argument, despite Paul’s clear statement in Rom 1:19-20 that such matters are “transpare...
Read more