What is the Gospel, by Michael Horton

[hasserl]

Another interesting passage regarding this topic is Mark chapter 1. Notice that Mark starts with this wording,
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mark 1:1

Soon after, Mark also wrote,
John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. Mark 1:4-5 (NKJV)

And then we read,
Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, Mark 1:14-15

Then again, a couple more verses, this time from Matthew:

Matthew 4:17

Matthew 9:13 (NKJV)

There are many more such verses. That said, here's the question: was Christ teaching the law, or was He teaching the gospel, when He called me to repent and follow Him?

The word Gospel is used to describe the first 4 New Testament books, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John; as the overall message of those books is the Gospel message, i.e. salvation for man won by Christ. But that doesn't mean that there is no law to be found in the telling of those stories, or in the message. As I said above, there is not much joy in the Gospel without the threat of the Law. If there is no Law, no condemnation, we have no need of a Savior.

[American Samurai]

American Samurai and hasserl - Given our previous discussions and the topic of this thread, I'd be curious to hear your take on this article: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A317.

I got no problem with John Macarthur, he's pretty solid.

[Not a Cook]

You know, this has been a part of my life for so many years (decades) I guess I don't realize how foreign this can be to someone raised on works righteousness and legalism.

It seems your struggling with the concept, maybe because you think that an entire passage must be either Law or Gospel, that isn't so. Usually a passage contains both Law & Gospel, you need to identify which is which. Being called to do something, that is law. Being told of your salvation, that is Gospel. It really is that simple. Look again at that first passage you posted.

"let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, " is that law or gospel? That is law.

"For whoever desires to save his life will lose it," is that law or gospel? It is law. There is nothing comforting in that statement, it is condemning. Your desire to save your life will cost you your life. Yikes!!! That's not good news!

"but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it. " Law or gospel? That is Gospel. That is a comforting statement, it tells you that though you lose your life for Christs sake, your life will actually be saved. Hallelujah!

See how it works.

What about the last line: "For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost?" Law or gospel? Think about it, is that a message of salvation or damnation?

We don't like to end scripture readings on the law, sometimes you do, because that's the way it is written, but if you have a choice it's best to end on the gospel, so that's probably not the best place to end. Keep going.

"26 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. (Law) 27 But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” (gospel)

There, the passage ends on a note of Gospel, a promise.

That second passage you posted, from Luke 14, that's pretty much all Law, is it not?

Both Law and Gospel are necessary, the Gospel doesn't have much comfort without the threat of the Law.

Why would you assume I was "raised on works righteousness and legalism"? I wasn't. In fact, if anything, I sat under many teachers who ignored works and definitely never touched on legalism in any way other than warn against it. For the record, I'm not a legalist in any way. I am saved by grace through faith, not of myself, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest ever I should boast.

I find it interesting that you parse everything into either law or gospel - you even do it sentence by sentence. It's an interesting idea, but I don't see it ever taught in the Scriptures. The Scriptures instruct us regarding both, but I don't see them parsing everything quite so neatly as you do on this topic. I know it comes from your denominational background, and I respect that. While we agree regarding salvation itself and I'm sure many doctrines, I'm just not sure that I agree with the way you parse everything between law and gospel in an either-LAW-or-GOSPEL-fashion.

Quite frankly, I would be more concerned that anyone would, in presenting the good news of Christ (regardless of the audience), neglect to proclaim His death, burial, and resurrection and the reasons behind each of them than I would be concerned with whether someone is able to label every sentence quite so neatly in keeping with your doctrinal tradition.

When Christ called men to deny themselves and take up their cross and follow Him, He wasn't calling men back to the law of Moses - He was calling men to salvation through Him. Remember that He came to call men to salvation, not back to the law. Did He teach on the law and expound on it? Yes... He not only taught about it, but He even fulfilled the law! but when He called men to follow Him, He was calling them to be His. And, of course, He did tell us to keep His commandments if we love Him. He even gave us a new commandment, no where found in the old law.

If a preacher isn't calling men to repentance and to become disciples of Christ, then he isn't being true to the message that Christ taught. I think we both agree on that point.

As I stated previously, I respect the traditions of your denominational background and doctrinal distinctives, and am in no ways attacking them. However, I would like to gently remind you that we are instructed thus in Ephesians 4:1-5,
I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Zeal for correct doctrine is good and right, but the admonition of the passage above need be remembered along with the zeal. I'm not sure that all of your comments in this thread or the thread regarding "hyper-grace" have always been with gentleness and endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. You seem quick to dismiss me as a legalist (even though I'm not a legalist), and Barang as a legalist (and, although I can't speak for Barang and I'm not sure I understand him 100%, I certainly wouldn't label him a legalist so quickly). You also stated some interesting things about a very respected elder, John MacArthur, including "I wouldn't be looking toward anything from him for guidance in understanding the Christian faith, because I don't think he has a very good understanding of it himself. He's probably one who wouldn't be able to correctly answer the question about what is the Gospel." I say all this to caution you and gently encourage you to speak (and write) with grace and truth. You are obviously zealous for sound doctrine, which is right and commendable. However, what you wrote about John MacArthur could be considered an accusation, or at least a very serious charge against someone who is an elder. Remember 1 Timothy 5:19. For the record, I am very familiar with Dr. MacArthur's teaching ministry, and believe he understands and the gospel quite well and is very diligent and faithful to minister and preach the word and divide it rightly.

P.S. Just out of curiosity, what is your interpretation of Galatians 6:2 where "the law of Christ" is mentioned?

[hasserl]

You say you are not a legalist. OK, so what is your focus? Think about it, because from my perspective reading your posts, you seem to be focused on on what men must do. Read that article again, what is the focus there? Is the focus on the gift of salvation to all who would receive it (passive)? Or is the focus on doing something that transforms your faith from mere unsaving faith into "saving faith" (active)? It is the latter. The focus is on the law, not the gospel. That is why it is important to parse everything into law and gospel. If you're going to have a right understanding of the Word, you have to do that. Or you risk making the same mistakes as John MacArthur. (BTW, he's not an elder to me, he's a man who is mistaken in his theology, and he has spread his mistaken theology to thousands. I don't view that as such a good thing. Reading more about the guy, I'm more convinced of my earlier perception from the article, and stand by my comments)

If we are saved by grace, through faith, then that is it. Period. Don't add anything to that, leave it alone. Grace alone, faith alone. Don't put non-quantifiable qualifiers on it. Who has "saving faith" and who doesn't is not ours to decide, I find that more than a little disturbing. Just praise God where and when you find it, let the Spirit do his job of working faith, as he sees fit.

Re "I'm not sure that all of your comments in this thread or the thread regarding "hyper-grace" have always been with gentleness and endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." What have I said in this thread, other than my comments about JM, that you would say this about? The other thread, I admit to frustration with Barange who I see as merely trolling that thread (no need to get into it here).

[hasserl]

P.S. Just out of curiosity, what is your interpretation of Galatians 6:2 where "the law of Christ" is mentioned?

Matthew 22:36-38

Why would you ask me that?

What is your interpretation?

[Not a Cook]

You say you are not a legalist. OK, so what is your focus?

hasserl - I'm not a legalist. My focus is on Christ. Plain and simple: you're misunderstanding the things I've written. Why? I'm not sure. It's been a long day, so in the interest of getting to bed sooner rather than later, I'll paste and copy a response I just entered in the "hyper-grace" thread. I had to edit it to get it to fit under the max. character limit, so a few words are missing, but they're not relevant to the topic at hand. Does this sound like legalism to you?

So the question is? In your belief system what does it mean to be "born anew". Based on the story of Nicodemus and the passage from Acts (By the way that passage comes from the Sixteenth Chapter of Acts rather than the Fourth) it would seem that being born anew means being baptized. Is this what you believe?

...to answer your question briefly, "no".

Let's look at what Christ said in His conversation with Nicodemus in John 3. Without getting too technical, the phrase we translate as "born again" could also be translated into English as "born from above". Obviously, this phrase/concept didn't immediately make any sense to Nicodemus, but the Lord then told Nicodemus something he'd be more familiar with. In verse 5 of that passage (John 3), Christ told Nicodemus that one must be "born of water and the Spirit". Although some think the "of water" must be referring to physical water baptism; it is clear from the rest of Scripture that baptism does not save anyone (please do not misunderstand me - every follower of Christ is commanded to be baptized, but physical water baptism is a profession of belief AFTER salvation, not a means of salvation). That said, "of water" here in John 3 isn't referring to physical baptism.

Remember that Christ was speaking with Nicodemus, who was one of the preeminent Jewish teachers of his day. Nicodemus was intimately familiar with what we refer to as the old Testament, and as such this reference to "water and the Spirit" would sound familiar to him. Why? Let's look at one particular Old Testament passage:

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. Ezekiel 36:25-29 (NKJV)

The "of water" here refers to cleansing - a washing away of all of a person's iniquity, sin, and filthiness. That cleansing is via Christ's blood, because Christ became the propitation for all our sins when He suffered God's wrath and death in our place on the cross at Calvary. "The Spirit" here refers to the Holy Spirit who God puts within when we are "born again". At the moment of salvation, God accomplishes multiple things, among them: He washes us clean in the blood of Christ, He puts the Holy Spirit within us; He makes us spiritually alive; He imputes Christ's righteousness to us; He gives us a new heart (a heart of flesh to replace our old heart of stone). Before salvation, we were dead! At salvation, He makes us alive with a new birth!

Notice what Christ also said in verses 14 to 18 of this passage. We all start out as dead men who stand condemned because we have not believed in Christ (who is our only hope of salvation). However, by God's grace He gives us the faith to believe in Christ, which means to not only believe that Christ is Who He claimed to be, but to actually believe Him. To trust Him. To believe His promises. Remember, faith is a work - but it isn't OUR work, it's God's work in us (ref. John 6:29). Our salvation - the whole thing - is by God's grace and shall be to His eternal glory! Hallelujah!

I hope this isn't confusing, but we refer to God putting the Holy Spirit within us at the time of our salvation (the "second birth" or "birth from above") as the baptism of the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (ref. 1 Corinthians 12:13). This baptism of the Holy Spirit may have the word "baptism" in it, but is distinct and separate from physical water baptism. Water baptism is a public profession that occurs AFTER the baptism of the Holy Spirit (which occurs at time of "second birth").

The other thing I am confused about in your belief system is that you say on the one hand:

Quote:
We cannot save ourselves.

But on the other hand you seem to be saying that we can save ourselves by trusting in Jesus. Are not those two statements contradictory? If not how do you reconcile them?

I think you must've misunderstood me. I've never said we can save ourselves. To be clear: we cannot save ourselves. I don't know how to be more clear about that. As Christ told Nicodemus in John 3:18, on our own we are condemend men, who shall perish (ref. vs. 15, 16). As Paul wrote, we are DEAD MEN. Dead men can't save themselves - they're DEAD! Christ came to save us (ref. v. 17). He is the ONLY way to be saved; He is the ONLY way to the Father; He is the Truth itself (ref. John 14:6)!

I'm not sure what's confusing you in my previous statements. Is it the word "trust"? If so, I'll try to be more clear. As I've noted, faith is a gift from God to us - it is His work, not ours. We don't create faith, He gives it to us. I use the word "trust" because so many folks have trouble with the term "faith" or "believe" in English. The "believe" of John 3 is to place trust in Christ - something that is by God's gracious work, not ours. It isn't merely knowing or intellectually thinking or intellectually assenting that Christ is Who He claimed to be, but rather also includes placing trust in Him. He does the saving, not us.

Writing of this, I'm reminded of a high school student some years ago that I preached the gospel to. He came from an atheist household, and had no faith background whatsoever. As we interacted, that young man read the whole Bible, and he understood a LOT of it - more so than many long-time Christians seem to. In time, he told me He now knew that Jesus was who He claimed to be and that he couldn't deny it. The evidence was just too overwhelming to deny. I was THRILLED - I thought He had become a Christian! He then told me that even though He knew it to be true, He wasn't going to believe in Him for salvation. I was CONFUSED, to say the least! He told me that He understood that Christ called Him to be saved, trust Him, and follow Him - to love Him above all else, to die to self, and to live for Christ. Well, that young man told me he wasn't willing to do any of that. He intellectually believed that Christ was who He claimed to be, and he even believed Christ could save Him, but He didnt want any part of it. That young man told me that (point-blank and in no uncertain terms) the pleasures of sins were more important to him than eternal life. He told me that if He followed Christ, he would trust Him and love Him - but he wouldn't do it because he didn't want to die to self. He said he loved sin, not Christ, and wasn't willing to die to the sin. He didn't want to follow Christ, even though he thought Christ was "waaayyyyy-cool". That young man said he lived for sin. I was quite shocked. As far as I know (although I hope this isn't still the case, as I've spoken with him a number of times over the years since but haven't seen him for the last several years) turned his back on Christ and dove head-long into sin. He believes Christ is who He said He is and can do what He said, but He isn't trusting in Him for salvation and has publicly rejected Christ. All this to say, his "intellectual belief" isn't the "believe" of John 3. The "believe" of John 3 is the type of faith that God gives - it isn't simply an intellectual knowledge, but a trust that will result in a changed life that will bear fruit in keeping with repentance and that will be to the glory of God. Before anyone picks this apart too much, I still pray for him, and truly hope that He will yet come to faith in Christ and be born again. He has the head knowledge - he's convinced the Bible is true.

What exactly do you mean by
Quote:
dying to self and accepting the free gift of the Holy Spirit through the salvation provided by Jesus Christ.

The two biblical stories mentioned by Not a Cook seem to indicate baptism. Immediately after the encounter with Nicodemus the scriptures tell us:
Quote:
After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.

Also when the jailer asks what he needs to do to be saved he is told by Paul and Silas that he must "believe in the Lord Jesus and then he and all his household will be saved" Then the jailer and his whole family are baptized.

So you can see why I am having trouble understanding your perspective.

So what you are also saying is that salvation is offered as a free gift but that gift must be accepted in order for someone to be saved?

As I noted above, water baptism is a RESULT of salvation, not a MEANS of salvation. We play NO PART in our salvation, other than the fact that we're the wretch who is saved. We obey the Lord's command to be baptized in His name in order to publicly proclaim our faith in Him and also to publicly identify with Him. Water baptism is a deeply symbolic picture of our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. Through Him, we are reckoned as dead to sin; we have been buried with Him; and we will be resurrected by Him at the last trumpet call.

God offers us salvation as a gift that is free to us - but let's be clear: salvation is not truly free. Salvation is the most expensive thing there is - it cost God the Father giving up His beloved Son to suffer His holy wrath and death and shame that we deserved to suffer. Salvation costs us nothing - our "good works" are nothing more than dirty menstrual rags (the literal meaning behind "filthy rags") before God. We can't buy our salvation; and once we are saved, we cannot repay God for our salvation. He paid the price. No one else paid any part of it. To Him alone shall be the glory for the salvation of all the saints.

As an aside, I don't know your background. On the off-chance that it is of a universalist-bent (universalists believe that ALL mankind will be saved because of Christ's work, not just the saints), please let me know and I'll be happy to address that separately. Suffice it to say for now, only those who come to Christ in faith will be saved.

NOW, have I clarified things, or made them about "as clear as mud"? If you have more questions, please feel free to ask me.

[Not a Cook]

Or you risk making the same mistakes as John MacArthur. (BTW, he's not an elder to me, he's a man who is mistaken in his theology, and he has spread his mistaken theology to thousands. I don't view that as such a good thing. Reading more about the guy, I'm more convinced of my earlier perception from the article, and stand by my comments)

Regarding the topic of elders, I would encourage you to consider whether what you wrote above is in keeping with Ephesians 4:1-16 (NKJV):

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers

You may not agree with John MacArthur on everything (I don't, but then again, I don't know of anyone I do agree with on everything) but your statement, "he's not an elder to me" is disrepectful, to say the least. Christ appoints elders, not us. In Ephesians 4 Paul beseeches us to have unity in the body of Christ.

Also, your statement "he's not an elder to me" seems to run afoul of 1 Timothy 5:19 (NKJV),
Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.

Re "I'm not sure that all of your comments in this thread or the thread regarding "hyper-grace" have always been with gentleness and endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." What have I said in this thread, other than my comments about JM, that you would say this about? The other thread, I admit to frustration with Barange who I see as merely trolling that thread (no need to get into it here).

Other than the comments about John MacArthur above, it's also comments like labeling me a legalist (which is no minor accussation ). It seems that you are ready to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you (or who you THINK doesn't agree with you) perfectly. And no, I don't believe Barang is trolling. He's been active in the "Discussions of Faith" forum on CG since Kestryl first created it, and he contributes a lot to many of the discussions. Trolling isn't his style.

[hasserl]

hasserl - I'm not a legalist. My focus is on Christ. Plain and simple: you're misunderstanding the things I've written. Why? I'm not sure. It's been a long day, so in the interest of getting to bed sooner rather than later, I'll paste and copy a response I just entered in the "hyper-grace" thread. I had to edit it to get it to fit under the max. character limit, so a few words are missing, but they're not relevant to the topic at hand. Does this sound like legalism to you?

Besides you being completely and categorically wrong about baptism, you may say you're not a legalist, and you may think your not a legalist, but I don't know you, all I can go by is how you've presented yourself here. It seems like your focus in not on Christ, but on "true" or "saving" faith, or "true" grace. From my perspective, you started the thread on Hyper Grace, which by itself was not bad and I had no problems with what you posted, but along the way you switched things up, and you started talking about works. See your reply to Hashnosi, where you brought up the topic of good works, and you posted words from a Rich Mullins song where he stressed good works. And you backed up Barange when he was posting his assertment that good works are a requirement for salvation (which he made very clear WAS his proposition, even though you and RAMCLAP tried to give him the benefit of the doubt), AND you made statements about " type of faith that saves" and "saving faith", which pricked my spider senses, so to speak. Those were indications that something was not right in your theology. Next was your post to Mossy, where you attempted to illustrate saving faith with the story of the tight rope walker. This only reinforced my suspicions. I already posted my reply to that in the other thread. Then you posted the link to that article from John MacArthur, which is full of legalims. So what am I to think?

If your focus is on Christ, then why all this talk about "saving faith"? Which when you break it down is legalistic. I'll say it again, Christ ALONE, Grace ALONE, Faith ALONE. That's it, reject any qualifiers on faith, period. None, nada, zilch. When somebody tells you otherwise, you know they don't get it; they are being legalistic and they are wrong. They do not have their theology straight, and they are putting their trust in themselves, not Christ; and trying to get you to do the same. Reject it, it is false. And tell them so, just as I have you.

[hasserl]

Regarding the topic of elders, I would encourage you to consider whether what you wrote above is in keeping with Ephesians 4:1-16 (NKJV):

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers

You may not agree with John MacArthur on everything (I don't, but then again, I don't know of anyone I do agree with on everything) but your statement, "he's not an elder to me" is disrepectful, to say the least. Christ appoints elders, not us. In Ephesians 4 Paul beseeches us to have unity in the body of Christ.

Also, your statement "he's not an elder to me" seems to run afoul of 1 Timothy 5:19 (NKJV),
Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.

Ahemmmm,

Galatians 1:8New American Standard Bible (NASB)

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

You think I'm a bit rough? The Lutheran Reformers called the Pope the Anti-Christ. I think Martin Luther would have been a bit too brash for you, he was a big man who spoke his mind. I think those guys would get banned from this forum. Look, the history of our church has been one of persecution for our beliefs from the very beginning. Luther had to be hidden away in Wartburg Castle to keep him from being killed by the Roman Papistry. We've had to defend against impure doctrine for centuries. Thousands of German immigrants to this country came here to avoid religios persecution in the homeland, and government initiated a "state church" and denied Lutherans the right to practice their faith. My grandfather was a Lutheran pastor, he was no fan of Billy Graham, and was not shy in saying why. So, I come by it naturally.

Other than the comments about John MacArthur above, it's also comments like labeling me a legalist (which is no minor accussation ). It seems that you are ready to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you (or who you THINK doesn't agree with you) perfectly. And no, I don't believe Barang is trolling. He's been active in the "Discussions of Faith" forum on CG since Kestryl first created it, and he contributes a lot to many of the discussions. Trolling isn't his style.

Barange posted a controversial statement, then refused to engage in intellectually honest discussion about it, he maintained circular arguments and only repeated himself, ignoring my questions and continuing to take passages out of context, even after I took the time to show him how he was in error. That is thread trolling.

[colossians323]

Its good to see the Church is alive at Calguns.net

[Not a Cook]

Besides you being completely and categorically wrong about baptism, you may say you're not a legalist, and you may think your not a legalist, but I don't know you, all I can go by is how you've presented yourself here. It seems like your focus in not on Christ, but on "true" or "saving" faith, or "true" grace. From my perspective, you started the thread on Hyper Grace, which by itself was not bad and I had no problems with what you posted, but along the way you switched things up, and you started talking about works. See your reply to Hashnosi, where you brought up the topic of good works, and you posted words from a Rich Mullins song where he stressed good works. And you backed up Barange when he was posting his assertment that good works are a requirement for salvation (which he made very clear WAS his proposition, even though you and RAMCLAP tried to give him the benefit of the doubt), AND you made statements about " type of faith that saves" and "saving faith", which pricked my spider senses, so to speak. Those were indications that something was not right in your theology. Next was your post to Mossy, where you attempted to illustrate saving faith with the story of the tight rope walker. This only reinforced my suspicions. I already posted my reply to that in the other thread. Then you posted the link to that article from John MacArthur, which is full of legalims. So what am I to think?

If your focus is on Christ, then why all this talk about "saving faith"? Which when you break it down is legalistic. I'll say it again, Christ ALONE, Grace ALONE, Faith ALONE. That's it, reject any qualifiers on faith, period. None, nada, zilch. When somebody tells you otherwise, you know they don't get it; they are being legalistic and they are wrong. They do not have their theology straight, and they are putting their trust in themselves, not Christ; and trying to get you to do the same. Reject it, it is false. And tell them so, just as I have you.

Ahemmmm,

Galatians 1:8New American Standard Bible (NASB)

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

You think I'm a bit rough? The Lutheran Reformers called the Pope the Anti-Christ. I think Martin Luther would have been a bit too brash for you, he was a big man who spoke his mind. I think those guys would get banned from this forum. Look, the history of our church has been one of persecution for our beliefs from the very beginning. Luther had to be hidden away in Wartburg Castle to keep him from being killed by the Roman Papistry. We've had to defend against impure doctrine for centuries. Thousands of German immigrants to this country came here to avoid religios persecution in the homeland, and government initiated a "state church" and denied Lutherans the right to practice their faith. My grandfather was a Lutheran pastor, he was no fan of Billy Graham, and was not shy in saying why. So, I come by it naturally.



Barange posted a controversial statement, then refused to engage in intellectually honest discussion about it, he maintained circular arguments and only repeated himself, ignoring my questions and continuing to take passages out of context, even after I took the time to show him how he was in error. That is thread trolling.

Wow! For the record, my focus is and has been on Christ. You have repeatedly accussed me of legalism; but it isn't true.

Look at this thread. My focus is on Christ. I'm the one who pointed out that the video by Mr. Horton that discussed what the gospel is did NOT mention anything about Christ's death, burial, or resurrection. It didn't even mention why Christ died. Yet, you dismiss what I pointed out as insignificant, and then you accussed me of being a legalist.

You brought up my reply to Hoshnasi in the "hyper-grace" thread. When Hoshasi asked,

"Isn't this inevitable in a grace based vs. act based faith?"

my reply was based on the book of James. Anyone who is following Christ in faith will exhibit good works to the glory of God. That isn't legalism. The Christian "faith" is both grace based and act based... we are saved by grace to do good works. I stated VERY clearly that "Christians are saved by grace through faith unto good works in Christ", which is exactly what we're taught in Ephesians (notice that Eph. 2:10 talks about being "created in Christ Jesus for good works"). The book of James isn't legalistic. The book of Ephesians isn't legalistic. Teaching that works are a natural part of the life of a follower of Christ isn't legalistic. James clearly teaches that faith without works is dead . Here's the same passage I quoted to Hoshasi:

James 2:14-26 (NKJV)

I am no legalist, but you appear to not like what the Scriptures teach us in the book of James. I have never said our works can save us or contribute to our salvation. God Himself saves us. Look at the very name of Christ - it means "YHWH saves". Even faith itself is God's work (ref. John 6:29).

You either misunderstand me, or misunderstand James - at this point I'm not sure which it is.

However, there is a bigger issue here. As I noted before, you have labeled at least two CGers in these threads as legalists, as well as John MacArthur, and now you're bringing in Billy Graham (who has not been in any way mentioned in these threads) into this conversation in order to accuse him. As I noted previously, it is no small thing to make an accussation against an elder. You are quick to dismiss those with whom you don't entirely agree. From your latest post, you seem eager to dismiss anyone with whom you don't entirely agree. You also bring up persecution against Lutherans - unless I'm missing something, no one here has persecuted any Lutheran. No one has dismissed Lutherans in any way. However, you have dismissed multiple folks.

The reason why I asked you earlier about the "law of Christ" was because the Scriptures only record one NEW commandment that He gave to us. That commandment was this:

John 13:34-35

The sign of a Christian isn't whether that person can parse every sentence into "gospel" or "law" as you do; the sign of a Christian is whether you love the brethren. You seem to disdain anyone you disagree with. Once you've decided to label someone a "legalist", you don't back down even if it isn't true. From your last post, you seem more interested in division that you do in walking in such as way so as to endeavor to keep the unity of the Sprit in the bond of peace (as Paul beseeched us in Ephesians 4).

As I've said before, zeal for sound doctrine is good, necessary, and commendable. However, pride is not. You seem to think I and others don't understand the gospel and see fit to label me and others as being "legalists" or "someone raised on works righteousness and legalism". Neither is true. Such statements are not beneficial, yet you have persisted to make them, and now bring up other folks (in this case, Billy Graham) to let us know you don't like them. Such actions are not in line with Christ's command to love the brethren as He loves us, nor are they in line with Paul's admonition to us in Ephesians 4. They don't foster unity in the body; rather, it fosters divisiveness. There is room in the body of Christ to disagree over doctrine, but there is not room to label those who disagree with you with perjoratives that aren't in love. You dismiss those who are not of the same denominational distinctives as you (and perhaps even some that are, as evidenced by your previous comment about R.C. Sproul) with comments like,

I don't think much of it. It seems to be written by someone who practices a different brand of Christianity than I. I don't care much for what he says or how he says it.

That smells like divisiveness. I'm all for discussing sound doctrine, but divisiveness is something different. Labeling folks "legalist" or some other such term when they've demonstrated they aren't isn't good. Dismissing men like John MacArthur or bringing up Billy Graham into this conversation just to dismiss him smells divisive. As such, I remember Paul's words to Titus,
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition Titus 3:10 (NKJV).
I would encourage you, not just on this board but rather all your dealings with followers of Christ, to avoid being divisive. Zeal for sound doctrine is great, but it most be exercised in love for the body of Christ and in line with Paul's beseeching the Ephesians to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

[hasserl]

Ahemmmm.....

If your focus is on Christ, then why all this talk about "saving faith"? Which when you break it down is legalistic. I'll say it again, Christ ALONE, Grace ALONE, Faith ALONE. That's it, reject any qualifiers on faith, period. None, nada, zilch.

you may say you're not a legalist, and you may think your not a legalist, but I don't know you, all I can go by is how you've presented yourself here

Don't blame me and get angry with me for perceiving you in a way that it seems to me you've presented yourself.

Re divisiveness; I make no divisions, they already exist, I'm just trying to clarify them. Did I cause them? Did I develop doctrines opposed to orthodox Christianity? (note the use of the small "o") Have I preached them and spread them? Who is it really that is divisive, the one who drives a wedge or the one who points out the wedge?

The things I posted above about the history of my church and my grandfather was to illustrate why I (we) may seem a bit defensive. We've seen what happens when false doctrines take root. We have the history, we know where it's going. We were there before John MacArthur or the teachings he holds. John MacArthur holds no position of Elder in my church. I have served for probably 20 years as Elder in my congregation, as well as other positions. Who is John MacArthur to me but a man who spreads false doctrine and, should I say it here, causes divisiveness. And you're the one who posted the article and asked for my opinion. Maybe it's you who is being divisive. You ask me for an opinion then you get offended when I give it, how fair is that?