How many gospels are there?

[TCGreek]

I'm talking about folks that say everytime the word gospel is mentioned in Scripture the context is life for the endless ages (eternal salvation).

1. Can you demonstrate from Scripture why we should not do this?

Yes.

2. Thank you.

 

[J. Jump]

1. Can you demonstrate from Scripture why we should not do this?

Well you can read through the Lordship Savlation posts and see plenty of Scripture evidence. But there is a gospel that calls for faith plus works as demonstrated in the book of James and then there is a gospel that calls for faith alone in the finished works of Christ alone which is taught by Paul in Ephesians. Those two messages can not be harmonized in the same context. Nor do you find any OT type teaching anything other than death/shed blood/substitute for eternal salvation.

2. Thank you.

You're welcome .

 

[TCGreek]

Well you can read through the Lordship Savlation posts and see plenty of Scripture evidence.

1. I understand the investment you have put into the LS discussion. But neither one of us will be able to sway the other.

But there is a gospel that calls for faith plus works as demonstrated in the book of James and then there is a gospel that calls for faith alone in the finished works of Christ alone which is taught by Paul in Ephesians. Those two messages can not be harmonized in the same context.

2. I see one gospel with different appeals, depending on where you are in respect to salvation and sanctification.

3. So neither does Paul contradict James or vice versa.

Nor do you find any OT type teaching anything other than death/shed blood/substitute for eternal salvation.

4. In my understanding of soteriology, whether OT or NT, I see Abraham as the prototype of all who will be saved (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 3:21-5:1; Gal. 3:6-7; 26-29; Hab. 2:4; Rom.1:16, 17).

5. The sacrificial system of the OT only evidenced saving faith, which pointed to the coming Messiah, the Lamb of God.

 

[J. Jump]

So neither does Paul contradict James or vice versa.

That's my whole point. And the only way that is possible is if they aren't talking about the same subject. If they are then it is impossible for them not to contradict one another, because one says no works and the other says works. There's no way to harmonize that when trying to place them in the same context.

If you want to call it one gospel with different appeals I don't have a huge problem with that, but we must remember that grace through faith apart from works is not what James is talking about.

I see Abraham as the prototype of all who will be saved

We are never really told of Abraham's salvation experience. Most people use Genesis 15 as when he was saved, but that's not possible, because he believed God and followed God before Gen. 15.

The sacrificial system of the OT only evidenced saving faith, which pointed to the coming Messiah, the Lamb of God.

What do you mean evidenced saving faith? And yes it pointed to the coming of the Lamb of God as The Sacrifice once and for all.

 

[npetreley]

But there is a gospel that calls for faith plus works as demonstrated in the book of James and then there is a gospel that calls for faith alone in the finished works of Christ alone which is taught by Paul in Ephesians.

James isn't talking about a different gospel. He's pointing out that the outworking of faith is works. Incidentally, a number of prominent men in church history, including Martin Luther, argued that James should not be part of the canon, precisely because of its emphasis on works. I don't agree with them (and some changed their minds), but you can see what kind of trouble stems from grabbing the works part of James and running with it into unbiblical grounds.

A "gospel" of faith plus works is a false gospel. Strictly speaking, it isn't even a gospel. It's not good news. At best, it's news. At worst, it's bad news.

 

[TCGreek]

That's my whole point. And the only way that is possible is if they aren't talking about the same subject. If they are then it is impossible for them not to contradict one another, because one says no works and the other says works. There's no way to harmonize that when trying to place them in the same context.

If you want to call it one gospel with different appeals I don't have a huge problem with that, but we must remember that grace through faith apart from works is not what James is talking about.

1. We are in agreement with James.

We are never really told of Abraham's salvation experience. Most people use Genesis 15 as when he was saved, but that's not possible, because he believed God and followed God before Gen. 15.

2. I am not the one who quotes Gen. 15:6 as justifying faith on the part of Abraham. Paul is (Rom.4:3, 22; Gal.3:6).

3. You will have to ask Paul how he could do such a thing.

What do you mean evidenced saving faith? And yes it pointed to the coming of the Lamb of God as The Sacrifice once and for all.

4. "Evidenced saving faith" because I believe every is save essentially the same way, through faith in God/in Christ, both OT and NT, respectively, with Abraham as a prototype.

 

[TCGreek]

James isn't talking about a different gospel. He's pointing out that the outworking of faith is works. Incidentally, a number of prominent men in church history, including Martin Luther, argued that James should not be part of the canon, precisely because of its emphasis on works. I don't agree with them (and some changed their minds), but you can see what kind of trouble stems from grabbing the works part of James and running with it into unbiblical grounds.

A "gospel" of faith plus works is a false gospel. Strictly speaking, it isn't even a gospel. It's not good news. At best, it's news. At worst, it's bad news.

1. I see James in the same light.

2. James 2:14 is often overlooked, but that sets the stage for the rest of the discussion.

3. Didn't Luther recant on his position of James?

 

[J. Jump]

2. I am not the one who quotes Gen. 15:6 as justifying faith on the part of Abraham. Paul is (Rom.4:3, 22; Gal.3:6).

3. You will have to ask Paul how he could do such a thing.

So unregenerate people are able to believe God and then act in a positive manner on what they are commanded to do? That's interesting. I've never heard anyone say that before. Can you explain how that happens?

 

[TCGreek]

So unregenerate people are able to believe God and then act in a positive manner on what they are commanded to do? That's interesting. I've never heard anyone say that before. Can you explain how that happens?

1. How did you get those questions from what I wrote?

2. I am at a genuine lost. Please, guide me along.

3. Then, tell me how is Paul using Genesis 15:6 in those justifying by faith contexts?

 

[J. Jump]

James isn't talking about a different gospel. He's pointing out that the outworking of faith is works.

But the question is outworking of what kind of faith. You are trying to imply that the faith in question is faith in the Substitute. That is impossible, because the faith James talks about has to be a present reality. Faith in the Substitute is a one-time saving faith, not a life-long faith.

Again context, context, context. James is not talking about what you are talking about.

1. We are in agreement with James.

Which is it TC Greek? Do you agree with me or npetreley. It can't be both . Either James and Paul are talking about the same thing or they are not. Npetreley says they are and I say they are not. You are riding the fence . Time to jump off on one side or the other.

A "gospel" of faith plus works is a false gospel.

Agreed. And that's the EXACT reason why James isn't talking about eternally saving faith. The original langauges show he is not as well as context.

 

[J. Jump]

1. How did you get those questions from what I wrote?

From what you wrote you said Abraham wasn't saved until Gen. 15. But Abraham believed God and was obedient to God long before Gen. 15. So I'm wondering how Abraham could be unregenerate yet believe God and even more than that obey what He was told to do.

 

[npetreley]

2. James 2:14 is often overlooked, but that sets the stage for the rest of the discussion.

Yes, it does. In James 2:14, James is talking about someone who says they have faith but doesn't have the evidence in terms of good works.

3. Didn't Luther recant on his position of James?

Yes, I believe he did. He's one who changed his mind. I think he changed his mind about other books, too, including Revelation.

 

[TCGreek]

But the question is outworking of what kind of faith. You are trying to imply that the faith in question is faith in the Substitute. That is impossible, because the faith James talks about has to be a present reality. Faith in the Substitute is a one-time saving faith, not a life-long faith.

Again context, context, context. James is not talking about what you are talking about.

1. In James 2:14 the we have the rhetorical question, μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; "Can this faith faith save him?" μὴ expects the negative.

2. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting of it. Yes, we are justified by faith alone, but justifying faith is never alone. That seems to be the import of James 2:14-26.

Which is it TC Greek? Do you agree with me or npetreley. It can't be both . Either James and Paul are talking about the same thing or they are not. Npetreley says they are and I say they are not. You are riding the fence . Time to jump off on one side or the other.

3. I am not strandling the fence. I don't see how you got that from what I wrote. Paul addresses how a person is justified before God, and James addresses how a person's faith is justified before God.

4. I do not see Paul and James addressing the same thing. I don't think npetreley is saying that either.

Agreed. And that's the EXACT reason why James isn't talking about eternally saving faith. The original langauges show he is not as well as context.

5. In a sense he is addressing eternal saving faith. If you have it, it will be seen in your works or else your faith is on the same level as the demons (v.19).

6. I will like to see you demonstrate from the Greek the opposite.

 

[npetreley]

3. I am not strandling the fence. I don't see how you got that from what I wrote. Paul addresses how a person is justified before God, and James addresses how a person's faith is justified before God.

Exactly.

...........

 

[HankD]

But there is a gospel that calls for faith plus works as demonstrated in the book of James and then there is a gospel that calls for faith alone in the finished works of Christ alone which is taught by Paul in Ephesians. Those two messages can not be harmonized in the same context.

James does not even use the word "gospel" in the Epistle of James.

HankD

 

[Bill Brown]

There is only one gospel. The false gospel that Paul references in Galatians is actually and anti-gospel. The word 'gospel' is attached to it not to give it validity as a gospel but to expose it as an anti-gospel. The same principle would apply if we asked whether there was more than one Christ. There is only one Christ, although there are many anti-Christs. These anti-Christs are not other Christs, they are imposter's and adversaries of the one and only Christ.

 

[TCGreek]

James does not even use the word "gospel" in the Epistle of James.

HankD

And your point is...

 

[npetreley]

There is only one gospel. The false gospel that Paul references in Galatians is actually and anti-gospel. The word 'gospel' is attached to it not to give it validity as a gospel but to expose it as an anti-gospel. The same principle would apply if we asked whether there was more than one Christ. There is only one Christ, although there are many anti-Christs. These anti-Christs are not other Christs, they are imposter's and adversaries of the one and only Christ.

It is an anti-gospel because it is based on works. That's why the kingdom salvation folks are teaching an anti-gospel very much like the one Paul is talking about. Quite frankly, I'm surprised kingdom salvation is allowed to be promoted on a baptist board.
.

 

[npetreley]

And your point is...

I don't know what his point is, but if I'd said the same thing, it would be because James isn't really talking about the gospel. He's talking about faith producing works. That's an important issue, but it isn't a gospel, nor is it THE gospel.

 

[TCGreek]

I don't know what his point is, but if I'd said the same thing, it would be because James isn't really talking about the gospel. He's talking about faith producing works. That's an important issue, but it isn't a gospel, nor is it THE gospel.

1. But the object of our faith is Jesus Christ (Jas.2:1), without whom there is no gospel, the good news.

2. Because our faith is in Christ, it fleshes itself out in appropriate works.

3. The gospel produces our faith (Rom.10:17).

4. Though the word "gospel" does not appear in James, one cannot read James without "sensing" the gospel message.