Featured Saved Without Knowing the Resurrection?

Irrelevant to the OP.

This concept is totally foreign to anything I have said in this thread. I don't believe in some "spiritual" resurrection, which would actually not be a resurrection.

Absolutely true. So what? Are you accusing me of putting my experience over the Scriptures?

Yes he did. Did he do the same to the Galatians? No. Did he do the same to the Ephesians? No. Etc. etc.

So again: do you know a single theologian--your choice--who teaches what you are saying? Do you know a single missionary, evangelist, or pastor who teaches that we must proclaim the burial and the witnesses to win people to Christ???

Do you yourself ever witness for Christ? If so, do you always tell the prospect they must believe that Jesus was buried?

Do you ever give out tracts? Do you make sure every tract you give out specifies believing in the burial of Christ?

 

This is absolute baloney. Nothing you said in that paragraph is "my "stated goal." I have not said any of this. Come on, please "judge righteous judgment" and don't make up things you think I have said.

Are you kidding me? Look at the particular forum this is in. I'm doing theology here--I don't know what you are doing.

Your pastor and prof were wise.

Irrelevant to the thread.

Never watched it.

 

Hi, everyone. I am now reminded why I quit posting in this particular BB forum. I got tired of people misinterpreting what I write, putting words into my mouth, and accusing me of things I've never said or done. I'll try to hang in there on this thread, since I started it, but right now I'm pretty disgusted at a couple of posters.

Maybe I'll post more tomorrow. Right now I'm going to grade some tests from my Advanced Missions class, a two week module we just finished. Had an awesome time in that class! I guarantee you, my students know what the Gospel is!!

We did a really fun exercise on cross-cultural evangelism where I divided them up into two teams. Each team invented a culture, and then tried to evangelize the other team. What a blast!

 

Please go back and look at the OP. I said nothing, zero, nada, 何も, about "exactly what to say." So the OP is about the content of the Gospel, meaning the truths we must present. There are many different ways to phrase the Gospel, but the truth content must be decided by Scripture.

No problem. Thanks for a humble apology.

 

Something just occurred to me about the Gospel, so I had to take a brief break from grading tests to note it here.

Here is what distinguishes Christ's death for our sins and the resurrection of Christ from the burial and the witnesses of 1 Cor. 15:18. Christ Himself died for our sins and rose again, but someone else buried Him and other people witnessed that He had risen from the dead. Thus, if we say that the burial and witnesses are part of the Gospel, we must say that human actions are part of the Gospel. And that is terrible theology!

 

To clarify, I did use the words "exactly what to say," but my meaning (perhaps unclear) was not the exact words to say, but the exact content of the message.

 

All very good, but none of it proves the witnesses as part of the Gospel.

Yeah, but people seeing the risen Christ were people, not God. It is God who saves, not people.

Then how come the burial and witnesses are not mentioned in Romans 4:25--"Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." There is not salvific theological purpose in the burial and resurrection.

Okay, I'm going to go in a different direction. You are claiming there are four parts to the Gospel: Christ's death for our sin, Christ being buried, Christ rising from the dead, and 500 witnesses who saw the risen Christ. Here is the main problem with that.

1. Christ Himself died for our sins. That was His incredible sacrifice for us.
2. He was buried. But He did not do that, others did: Joseph of Arimathaea got the body of Christ and buried it.
3. Christ Himself rose from the dead "for our justification."
4. Witnesses saw Christ, but looking at the risen Christ was a human action, not a divine action.

Therefore, your version of the Gospel includes two actions of Christ and two actions of ordinary people. But salvation is all of God. Humans other than Christ Himself do not bring about salvation for anyone. Your theology of the Gospel is hugely flawed.

 

I didn't tell the student a straight "Yes" or "No," actually. My job was to help him think through it himself, so I asked leading questions to bring him to the right conclusion. Namely, since this was a missions class, I led him to thinking about a Confucian society that worships ancestors. I think his problem was wondering if he had mislead someone when he witnessed to them and/or led them to Christ.

I believe you.

So we have theology (the content of the Gospel) and we have praxis (living out the theology). Both are important.

Right! The main point of the Gospel is Christ Himself, who is the Gospel. But that does not diminish in the slightest the truths needed to proclaim the Gospel.

Well, the Gospel can be considered a subset of the kingdom of God.

I'm not sure what you are saying with these Scriptures as regarding the content of the Gospel. Remember that there is a theological change in the Gospel from before the cross to after the cross.

 

@Scripture More Accurately:

I just went through the first ten chapters of Acts, looking at the various presentations of the Gospel. Note that there no mentions of the burial of Christ in any of the presentations, and the witnesses are not mentioned until Ch. 10:

Acts 2—Peter preached Christ’s death and resurrection (vv. 22-24, etc.). He emphasized repentance and the forgiveness of sin (v. 38).

Acts 3—Peter preached the death and resurrection of Christ (v. 15), and called for repentance (v. 19).

Acts 4—Peter preached the crucifixion and resurrection (v. 10-12). “And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all” (v. 33).

Acts 5—Peter emphasized the death of Christ (v. 30) and His atonement for sin (v. 31).

Acts 6—No Gospel presentations

Acts 7—Stephen preached, and accused them of murdering the Messiah (v. 52). Then he was murdered before he could give more of the Gospel.

Acts 8—Philip “preached Christ unto them” (v. 5). Then he preached “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (v. 12). Then he witnessed to the Ethiopian eunuch about Jesus from Isaiah (v. 35), and Christ as the Son of God (v. 37).

Acts 9—Saul preached Christ as the Son of God (v. 20).

Acts 10—Peter preached Christ as Lord of all (v. 36), then Christ as “hanged on a tree” and risen from the dead (vv. 39-40). For the first time in the book of Acts he mentioned that there were witnesses (vv. 39 & 41).

 

What is flawed about going to the Scripture and showing exactly what the Gospel presentations were in Acts? Please go through them and show me what I missed. I stated that the burial of Christ was not one time mentioned in the Gospel presentations of Acts 1-10. Don't just quit the discussion. Show me where I am wrong. Man, if I'm wrong about the content of the Gospel I really want to know it so I can correct my message in soul winning, and interpret "Scripture More Accurately."

Otherwise, I guess not only me, but Peter and the other Gospel preachers in Acts totally blew it. So apparently no one got saved in the first 10 chapters of Acts because the burial was not preached.

 

But you have not answered Post #93, in which I point out that the burial and witnesses are human actions, but the death for our sins and resurrection are things done by Christ Himself. If you are correct, there are four elements to the Gospel, but two of them are human centered. It is the Gospel that saves. How do these human actions save?

This is not an "argument from silence," but a cogent theological argument. If you can't answer it, fine. Take your leave!