The Gospel that is Not

All too often in the church and elsewhere, the Gospel as been reduced to such a level that they've becoe mere cliches, than the message that is meant to convey proper understanding, urgency, and godly sorrow. that is, in the Evangelical world. Outside of the said world are gospels that not.

THE EVANGELICAL GOSPELS
The Gospels that are shared today are so short that it becomes like a casual invitation. It is short for a good reason as it is meant to be passed to passerbyers in a form of leaflets, cards, and tracts; but that is all that are taught to Christians. The two most common Gospel presentations are: The Four Laws, 5 Things God wants to Know, and the Romans Road.

In it's most simplest form, the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and so the said presentations have. However, without depth, it remains a shallow message almost flippant, and the sender is no better for that is all that s/he are taught.

While they are also taught the Bridge Illustration, an effective tool indeed and sin is properly defined (missing the mark, and serves as a debt and a wall), but again, nothing more than that. And the thing they all have in common is that God is hardly mentioned, only that He loves them.

God is not just the reason why Jesus is sent, but why sinners are condemned. Since the doctrine of Hell is so controversial, it is necessary for the hearers to know why sin is so to Him, why such a place exists, and why the punishment is eternal.

By detailing them only then will the Gospel have power; for only those who have godly sorrow, repents (2 Corinthians 7:10).

But the evangelical gospel has not them. The Four Laws only says God loves them, and the Romans Road and the Five Things contained only promises that God loves and forgives them, and offers salvation if they believe.

So, in effect, they're essentially a Gospel in name, only. And while it is harsh those Gospel presentations "False", if they're but labels and summaries, than are they it truly the Gospel message?

THE GOSPEL HERESIES (Galatians 1:6-9)
Outside Evangelicalism are the gospels that are truly false. They, most often, do two things: add works to the Gospel, and/or, distort God Himself.

Groups that are most known to commit the former are the Roman Catholic Church, most of the Church of Christ, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), Jehovah's Witnesses, the Roman Catholic Church etc, while the latter is all of the mentioned except the first two.

THE WORKS OF THE LAW (Romans 4:4-5, 10:1-4, & 11:6)
On the first heresy, the most common work that is added to the Gospel is Baptism; an ordiance that was orginally a rite of purification, but come to replace Circumcision for the Church, as a symbol of set-apartness The early Church had to combat those who've claimed that Circumcision was necessary for salvation, but since the Reformation it is Baptism.

And with Baptism comes the rest of the Mosaic Law such as the 10 Commandments, the greatest commandment, tithing, and other periphrials (depending on what group is asked).

The problem with this is that only Christ finished work, saves. He died to the law we can never keep perfectly so we can be free from it (Galatians 10:10-13). Not only it denegrates His sacrifice, but imposes an impossible standard, no one can be saved by. Such a gospel will only condemn (Galatians 5:4).

BLASPHEMIES ON GOD HIMSELF (Exodus 20:4, Isaiah 43:10, & 48:16-17)
Of the second heresy, Jesus is the one most under attack, and the chief enemy are the Unitarians who believed that God is one person, and Jesus is merely a created being (1 John 4:1-2 cf. John 1:1-3, 14). The leading group against Jesus' divine nature are the Jehovah's Witnesses who not only reduced Him to a human being but claimed He was Michael the Archangel.

Other groups wouldn't go that far, calling Him a good man, a prophet.

The most unusual attack on God came from the LDS as not only they demoted Jesus but two other persons of the Godhead. They've done it in this fashion: all were created human being but managed to have accomplished godship by their goodness. The doctrine of Eternal Progression not only claimed this, but gives opportunity for all of the most obedient.

With all this said, the problem is obvious: if you have a distorted God, then you have a different god. A god that is not only false but does not save. It is an idol like any other (Psalm 115:2-8) and the one who believes it is condemned.

Hey Vic, I have several other questions

Hi Cheez, go ahead. I'll try to answer them as soon as I can.

1. Does the rules of the Old Testament still count? I meant the rules like what to and what not to eat, how to keep a slave, etc. And why did God establish those rules in the first place? Especially the slavery one?
2. Was the Earth created in a literal 7 days or a span of millions of years?

Hi Cheez

To answer your question the best guidline for looking at the relevancy or importance of the commandments is this following passage:

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

There are four kinds of laws in the Old Testament: the Moral, Civil, Dietary, and Ceremonial laws. To put it simply, because the laws in the OT were written to the Jews, most doesn’t apply to us who are Gentiles (Goyim = nations). The laws they were to keep had to do with being a model, holy nation (Isaiah 42:6).

Thus, they not only must keep the moral aspect of of the commandments but the three others. If they obey the commandments which includes the keeping of the Sabbath days, months, and years; keep from eating animals with divided hooves such as swine, and offer sacrifices for sins, thanksgiving offerings, etc, they will be exceedingly be blessed in Deuteronomy 28 (if they don’t, they’ll be harshly punished in Ch. 29-30).

However, because the Gentiles are not Jews but of other nations, they don’t have to keep various sacrifices for example, but also because Jesus did away with them.

Oh, I understand
I think

So, we don't need to follow the old rules? As long as we follow Jesus's teachings?

Also, why did they allow slavery in the first place if it's morally wrong?

“So, we don't need to follow the old rules? As long as we follow Jesus's teachings?”

Not the rules in relation to temple worship & sacrifices; not any holy days,or any of the laws of purification; neither any law regarding the Sabbath in terms of monthly or yearly observances. Finally, anything with regard to the holy land but only the moral law.

Any law that had to do with God and the human treatment of others. We obey, such as to not sacrifice unto other gods, the refraining of adopting pagan practices in our worship, the refusal to abuse the poor, the widow, the stranger, and the orphan (Leviticus 10:1-2, Exodus 22:20-24, Isaiah 1:17, & James 1:27).

Finally, we do not execute sinners such as the stoning of adulterers, witches, & false prophets (John 8:1-11 & Acts 8:9-10, 18-24, & 13:8-12); the reason for such capital punishment is because the land of Israel is to be a holy nation, free from pagan influence thereof (Joshua 23:12-13). It was also before the age of grace (John 1:17). The change from the merciless rigidity of the Mosaic Law to the age of Grace was evident that we are to love our enemies rather than hate them (Matthew 5:43-44), help the helpless despite risking uncleanliness (Luke 10:25-36), the better treatment of women [Men used to divorce their wives freely (Matthew 19:3-8) the first allowed to see the resurrected Jesus was a woman (John 20:11-17)], and the light shared to the Gentiles (John 10:16 & Acts 10:45-48).

“Also, why did they allow slavery in the first place if it's morally wrong?”

Slavery was permitted in the Bible but was never established or promoted by God Himself (just like the allowance of divorce). Slavery was as common as servants then; great empires were made possible by cheap labor, but while God tolerated it’s existence, He barred the Hebrews from buying their own people as slaves (but only as servants), but not the strangers and the heathan who by choice... enslaved themselves to them (Leviticus 25:1-10 & 35-46).

Ah, I see

Thanks, Victor!

You're welcome, Cheez! :)

Vic, I have a question

Hi Grilled, what's your question? I'll be back in a few hours.

I've been thinking
Christians always pray to Jesus
but Jesus told us to pray to God
Now I know that Jesus IS God
But I feel like something is wrong

What's wrong?

That tells me you've read a lot of scripture. :)

You're not wrong in feeling that because you see in scripture that God the father was mostly prayed to. There are several reason for that.

1. The Godhead is not as overt in the OT as is in the NT; nevertheless, Jesus did appear in those scriptures as "The Angel of the LORD" the "Redeemer"

2. The reason for thart is because of the notion of "Progressive Revelation"; God reveals more and more truth about Himself. The most overt example is how gradually the Messiah was revealed in the OT.

In Genesis 3:15 He was merely one would step on the head of the snake,
In Deuteronomy 18:18 He was uncovered as a Law-giver like Moses.
In Psalm 16:10 He was the Holy One who would not see corruption in terms of the perminence of death (Resurrection).
In Isaiah 7:14 He will be born from a virgin; in 9:6 His qualities... both verses shows He is God in the flesh
In 44:6 He is the Redeemer,
Daniel 9:26, He will die; and in Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12:10 He will be rejected by His people,

3. Given that, whenever people pray to God, it's often the God they don't identify. In the OT He's simply called "LORD" [a Tetragammon YHWH (Exodus 3:15)] and yet in Isaiah 44:6 & 48:16-17, both the Father and the Son is identified as LORD. You can say that the Israelis prayed to the Godhead interchangeably.

Now in the New Testament, Jesus was fully revealed, but even then Jesus in Matthew 6 instructed His disciples to pray in the following order... He did not mention Himself in the "Lord's Prayer". That brings me to the last reason

4., God the Father is the primary person to pray to. It matches the Trinitarian order in that the Father is the head and dictator (1 Corinthians 11:3), the Son executes and mediates (John 1:1 & 1 Timothy 2:5), and the Spirit counsels and disseminates (John 16:7-14 & Romans 8:26).

That doesn't mean that if you pray mainly to Jesus or you've also prayed to the Holy Spirit you've committed sin, but that's the order which is established as I've seen it in scripture.

And in case you wonder the rightness of praying to Jesus... He was prayed to. In 2 Cor. 12:7-9, Paul asked the thorn be removed from him, God answered him, and the last verse states "... that the power of Christ rest on me". That indicates that Jesus was prayed to.

Normally when I pray, I just say "God" without specifying which part I am praying to. I'm praying to the whole God, the Godhead.

That's a good way to go about it.

Hey Victor, God was depicted as a male so the people reading the Bible can understand better, but in reality God doesn't have a gender, right?

Hmmm... that's a very good question.

I've always assumed that God was a male person, but in reading commentaries such as Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem, and another I can't remember, the Bilbe never clearly said it.

According to ones that I've read, there were examples of God as of a male gender, but there were also examples of God having a female characteristic. From reading scripture however, I don't remember at all reading it except in Mattthew 23:37:

"37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

But that's a mere likening. It is the same with passages that portray God having wings in Psalm 63:7, hands in 102:25, and others. And yet, we know that God doesn't have a body in John 4:24. Anthropormorphic and animalistic passages such as these probably have lead scholars to believe that God doesn't have a gender.

Correctly the Hebrew language from what I've read did not have a gender neutral "It". The Hebrew "Ruach" (spirit) has only two genders but the writers of the NT broke the rules of Greek grammar when they've added a male pronoun "He/Him/His" to Pneuma (spirit) for an obvious reason.

In that, you are correct in saying that the writers made God, male, to give greater understanding to readers back then, but also not to confuse them. But there's also another reason. I've watched a video with a Catholic priest or apologist explaining that the word "Father" not only means a male head over his children, but origin and source. The word source is what he empathized, and that made sense.

God is called Father because He is the source of all things, which is why, according to the Catholic, Jesus said to call no man Father but God alone. As a Protestant, I'm not prepared to call any Catholic priest "Father" but it is an excellent point made.

MEN ARE MADE IN GODS IMAGE.

Hi Frush91_nova; may I call you "Frush" or "nova"?

I've been informed that you do not believe in the Trinity? Have you debated with a Trinitarian before, and if so, what verses have they used, and how did you rebut them?

I do believe in the Trinity.

Amen, Frush91_nova!

😆 👉🏻

This guy doesn't believe Jesus is God

But you don't believe Jesus is God?

I do, but he is not God in the sense that Grilled Cheez put it (sounded like the way he fraised GOD).

OK, how did he define his belief you find disagreeable?

We don't need to have this discussion, actually. This predicament has pretty much already been sorted out if Cheez read my latest comment.

Thank you; I'll take that into consideration. I'll talk to you later.

Also, note that there is a lot more to that comment than is shown.

OK. Could you please send me a link to the debate, you and Cheez had prior to our own? I'd like to have a better understanding of the circumstance behind it.

Please don't bring this conversation up to me, the "thing" is resolved, and I have many a comment to review.
rerw...https://imgflip.com/i/3likca?nerp=1579218683#com3952289

I see
So what do I call my dad? Oh.

But I've been thinking
If God really was male, that would mean He would have a physical appearance
But if God had a physical appearance, that means God has limits
And the Bible tells us how God has no limits

Ah, thank you for letting me know

He'll, be, sooorrreeee....

I don't know whether I should be worried or excited

Perfectly fine to call dad, father, but in relations to priests calling him that comes with respect and reverence undeserved. He is certainly a source of information, but it is far more appropriate to call him "Teacher" than a word normally used for God and our male parent.

In terms of limits, not only it suggests limits but it would also imply that He is no different than the gods and goddesses of the pagans.

Ohh, I get it

That is true.

Thanks for answering my questions, Victor!

It all depends on him; whether he'll change his mind or not.

In either case, he's going to regret his show of over-confidence.

I have, a sort of problem ish understanding something

You're quite welcome, Grilled! :)

Call me Cheez! :D

Oh, my apologies; will do, Cheez!

S'okay

You sometimes have trouble understanding people?

No, no
I'm talking about the Holy Trinity and Jesus's placement on it
I had a strong opinion but I'm not too sure on it anymore...

You're hardly alone in that. God is commuticable but also incommuticable; meaning that He's both understandable, but also difficult to comprehend.

I get it
God is difficult to understand because He's God and we're humans
The only way for us to understand Him is to read His own Word about him

So... Jesus is the part of God that was sent to Earth. And Jesus existed in the beginning? Or was Jesus still part of God but then God sent a part of Himself to the Earth?

Jesus is fully God and fully man (Philippans 2:6-8, nothing in the scriptures suggests at all that He gave up His deity at all, but merely set aside His power).

He existed from the very beginning as He is God; nothing of Him was lesser or more. That's the same also with the Spirit. They're all co-equal, co-eternal, but not the same person, more accurately, "Persona", meaning essence.

Their persona is defined by the roles they play, seen in scripture.

So... the three parts of the Trinity are God, but not the same person.
Does that mean God is made up of three people?

I'll put it this way, and... illustrations are not a sure way to define the trinity, but it gives us a better understandinng of it.

Here's one. The illustration of time. You have one notion of time, but it is made up of Past, Present and Future

You are one, physical, person; however, if you believe in the doctrine of Trichotomy, you have Body, Soul, and Spirit.

You eat eggs. What is it composed of? Shell, White, and Yoke.

The following is the site you can use which will lead you to the creed.

https://carm.org/athanasian-creed-500-ad

I get it

Thank you, Victor!

Have you heard of the Athanathian Creed?

No, I'm sorry. What is it?

Written by Athanius in the 5th century and he in response to, I think, the Arian heresy that he wrote a creed that defined the Trinity in such detail and accuracy that it's still used today.

It is long, but it will sure to sharpen your understanding of the doctrine.

They're one being, but three separate persons.

Where can I find it?

Hm... so being and person are different?

You're welcome, Cheez!

Here's a meme I've made that tells a little more than I have had here.

Feel free to look at the comment section in leizure.

imgflip.com/i/3et3io